john5746

I agree with this assessment. I'm personally OK with them getting my data, but to me its a question of breach possibilities. As I think about this, one of the easier solutions is to replace the phone numbers with a dumb ID and that ID will relate to another database stored in another system under a different jurisdiction. That database with people's phone number, email, 4 digit SSN, etc linked to this ID could then be more transparent. You could get the equivalent of a "credit report" once a year to see if your information has been requested. The NSA data, with no easily identifiable info, could remain secret. Since it appears they let about any tech person to have access to this data, that would add a much needed layer of security. This would slow things down, but I see no reason why they need that quick access to identify people.

If I were czar of sports, then yes boxing would be the primary target, although it has far less participation than football or soccer I have come to the conclusion that American Football is not a good sport for youth. Would be nice to replace it with soccer, which already has a big following in girl and boy youth leagues. But, seems like heading is an issue, especially for youngsters. So, maybe my title should be "Should heading be eliminated from youth soccer leagues. http://articles.courant.com/2012-09-11/health/hc-youth-soccer-concussions-20120911_1_brain-injuries-michael-l-lipton-amateur-soccer-players from the article:

Should heading be eliminated from soccer? Some evidence that it does cause brain damage. Not sure if a reasonable helmet could be created to help this, so maybe eliminate heading for kids?

The way I would design such a system is to have a non-identifying ID with details, such as time, area code except the phone number and have the phone number linked in another table. This way, you could query trends in the one table, like minutes increase from one area code to another, etc. And only give access to the phone number or other detail upon request with clearance. Would still need to trust that they don't abuse it and are competent. Could argue they shouldn't store phone numbers at all, just area code and then go to carrier when a trend occurs. Would make connecting the dots harder. Truth is that data like this is everywhere: drug stores, shopping, insurance, credit cards, etc. We are practically in a cyber war with China and probably losing it handily. So, I don't think we can just leave the front door unlocked and feel comfortable that no one would be so stupid as to try coming in.

Seems like he could use his trinity superpowers and become the following: 1) The Powerful 2) The Ultimate Rock 3) The Weakling

If I send and receive mail and packages from Chechnya, wonder if the government knows that?

Well, on the plus side, there won't be another break in incident like watergate, since it can be done via a few queries now. I'm actually concerned we will have an over reaction to this, well politically anyway. Just saw Ron Paul bragging on himself. The paulite zombies will grow.

I can see it now. "This food is 100% organically printed using recycled materials by people who roam the facility freely"

Can anyone give it a good name in the US? You have to accommodate religion in order to be tolerated. I found Hitchens to be way too much of a dick, like a four year old acting out. Dawkins on the other hand doesn't talk over people, interrupt, etc. He does tend to ridicule a little much and he is British. Other than those two flaws, seems great to me. So yeah, Dawkins is a little acidic and does best when fighting the anti-science/education aspects of the main culture instead of jousting with people who say nothing with charisma.

The flaw would be human nature. We are still apes wearing clothes. We want more. More than those around us, with less work if possible.

I completely agree with Dawkins in regards to much of the alternative medicine woo woo. The most unfortunate result of this is that we overlook common sense measures. Diet, exercise, stress reduction, meditation, etc. They are talked about here and there, but in my experience, doctors give up too easily and just keep adding drugs. We do need drugs, but they come with side effects. Its just stupid to keep concentrating on drug and surgical procedures when people have terrible diets, smoke, drink, sit all the time, etc. Really spending most of the effort combating the shitty lifestyle we have adopted.

This guy.

We have much more murders than peer countries and most of our murders involve guns. Guns make killing easier, that's their purpose and they work. The US fairs poorly when compared to countries with more gun control and within the US, states with more gun control usually fair better than states without gun control. And that's even with gun trafficking bringing guns to the cities of some of the better states. You really beat the tar out of that strawman! The issue for most people is if ANY gun control can be helpful to society. If reducing gun availability, especially certain types and to certain people is safer, then more gun control is a good idea. Over time, this should be effective. I did not say to take any guns away, I did not bring up race or drugs or any other bizzare crap you are spewing. Maybe you could list any gun control measure that you think would be a good idea or if you think we have too many?

True, not familiar with that person in particular. My main point was that the US is not that much different from UK, except guns. So, yeah it could happen in America. Statistically, though we know that America has at least 3 times more murders and that this is due to the prevalence of guns. But this isn't needed to allow the recent proposed gun laws to be enacted. Particular gun types have been regulated. Background checks have been established, just not effectively enough. SCOTUS haven't found any of it unconstitutional. Having a right to a gun does not mean a right to ANY type of gun. And it doesn't mean that right cannot be taken away from an individual, like a felon, mentally unstable or wife beater. Also, guns and ammo can be taxed correctly to account for the lives they ruin, just like with cigarettes. So, you have an outdated document and a broken political system on your side. We have evidence that less guns is better for society. Eventually, this might win out.

I disagree, I think London's like any other big city. I just think in the US, more likely the guy would use a gun.

Banning all guns is a hypothetical that is only being tangentially argued in this thread. So, hypothetically, maybe I would need to do as you say. But in reality, you need to look people in the eyes and tell them their children needed to die so you could argue against sane gun regulation. We've been over this so many times. Not even expanded background checks could be passed. The SCOTUS supported the machine gun ban and other regulations, so I don't see why we can't have expanded background checks, reduced clip sizes and bans of certain types of guns. Maybe nerve gas would be a better analogy? Sorry that you need to follow traffic signs, etc. I'm sure you could drive around with great judgement and reflexes without signs, but it would be much shittier. Same with all the mouth breathers and their assualt weapons. If we regulated guns like cars, that would be much better than current. And cars have far more utility for most people. How can one not understand that regulations - "well regulated" have already been imposed? If the recent laws proposed had been passed, there would still be plenty of weapons to purchase. People could still arm themselves. We have so many laws in regards to public safety - food, water, etc. You can't just go and start cooking food just anywhere and sell it to the public, yet I think food is a basic right. Similarly, people can't just make any freaking gun they want. There should be limits on gun manufacturing for public use. I don't see anything in the constitution protecting manufacturing of ANY gun imaginable.

I think Zapatos cleared it up. John is arguing ethics, for the well-being of society, while the constitution is a legal argument. I think the legality should be discussed in the other thread. This thread is regarding the impact to society and there are plenty who feel guns are a good thing, so I think we can drop the constitution. I think we should have a Constitution 2.0, it is long overdue, but it ain't happening anytime soon. I think it has been obviously established that we don't read the constitution like Bubba reads the bible(if he could read). If you did that, the document would be obsolete the day after it was written. So there is always wiggle room, but I think we all agree that as it stands, we cannot ban all guns in the US without a change to the constitution.

So you are a deist. You think God does nothing now. He did the big bang and left it alone after that. If that is the case, is this 'Master' really important? Nature causes some of the worst death and destruction. No choice there. Best thing we can do is try to understand reality and prepare or avoid if possible. Master is not in the house, offers no help. That equilibrium appears to be nothing. The Universe is speeding towards nothingness.

Love that movie. It isn't an argument against genetics, maybe an argument that we can't know everything about genetics. Its showing two sides of the expectations coin. One who is "inferior" genetically, the other "superior". One is expected to be a loser, the other a winner. Neither want to live to expectations, they both find a way out. So, you have determined that you are inferior to many others physically. Well, it is important to realize our limits, I mean not everyone can be an NBA star. But, you can dwell on your shortcomings or you can decide to do your best in whatever it is you decide to do. That was the point of the movie, IMO. He was inferior physically, genetics didn't lie. But also in his genetic makeup was the desire to fight the odds to not give up. Look at twins and don't pick out one set, but consider twins as a whole. They are more genetically close than others and guess what, they tend to have the same build, desire, etc.

Well, if he had actually protected his wife from a rapist, I think we would conclude the gun played a huge part. Without the gun, far more likely she would be alive. In regards to the Constitution, if we take a literal, originalist viewpoint, its hard to argue against any weapon. Bill Gates should be able to purchase nukes, planes, etc. Maybe he would need to agree to use them in defense of his state, when needed and register them and pay taxes on them(regulated) but otherwise free to have them. Since sane people realize this doesn't "form a more perfect union", we read into the vague lines the needs of the current situation. So a proposal to only allow taser guns and shotguns for personal protection and require national guard status(militia) for military style weapons would not be infringing on the right to be armed.

They were using it to make a universal point, not cultural commentary or statistical evidence. The man shot his wife. Either way, by accident or rage, the gun made it much easier. Most people realize they can't eliminate all guns, just as most people realize we can't live like Quakers to combat global warming, its a big strawman. People don't even want to concede that no guns is safer than infinite guns. Yes, that would be a good discussion, we can have it on this forum, but where it matters won't happen, becuase guns are a religion and you can't mess with them because someone wrote something somewhere a long time ago.

If there are lawn mowers being marketed for children and children end up mowing each other to death, then yeah a law outlawing a lawn mower for children would be a good idea. This wasn't dad's gun on the mantel. This was the boy's gun, which is marketed to him like a toy. He had every right to feel like he should be able to pick it up.

Learning Gun Safety is a good idea, but giving money to an organization that supports terrorism is not a good idea.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted it in this thread, I wasn't really thinking about gun control when I did it. Some people just shouldn't have kids. But, thinking about it, really? You can't think of anything reasonable that might at least prevent similar situations? There are age limits for possession of handguns and in certain states for possession of long guns(Kentucky isn't one). Sure, people will break the law, but it might make some at least think about it. I mean, they could give the kids alcohol or give them a car and let them drive, but they would be breaking the law. You don't have to take a specific situation and think of the 100% solution for that situation, then cry about it. Seriously, a child has been killed, another scared for life any you are ready for Civil War if any suggestion for a solution is provided?

With our love of guns and violence and our need to drive everywhere, America really shouldn't be allowed alcohol. But, can't do that, so minimum age is a good thing. Even Japan has 20 I think. It might have changed, but when I was there, you could get beer, up to mini-kegs from a vending machine. If you did that here, people would wrap a logging chain around it and pull it home.