Coreece

Agree with regards to Autonomous vehicles - I'm actually pretty relieved that by the time I can't drive any more I probably won't need to! Autonomous and EV does go hand in hand. 5G doesn't really help autonomy though - thats a bit of a myth coming from the carriers pushing 5G. Not until there is a chance of the whole country being properly blanketed, which will not happen - potentially ever. I'm lucky enough to work with some guys who are working on Autonomous driving software and 5G apparently isn't even really talked about in that context. To keep this thread on topic, I posted my reply in the Green New Deal thread.

This reply is from the Mass shooting thread, but I posted it here since it seems more relevant. Agree with regards to Autonomous vehicles - I'm actually pretty relieved that by the time I can't drive any more I probably won't need to! Autonomous and EV does go hand in hand. 5G doesn't really help autonomy though - thats a bit of a myth coming from the carriers pushing 5G. Not until there is a chance of the whole country being properly blanketed, which will not happen - potentially ever. I'm lucky enough to work with some guys who are working on Autonomous driving software and 5G apparently isn't even really talked about in that context. I'm no expert, but it seems the relevance of 5G would depend on which of the 6 levels of autonomy you're talking about - right now it seems like we've been stuck at level 2 for awhile. I'd agree tho that there is a lot of hype along with some conflicting and confusing information that has apparently created a bubble. PAVE was recently introduced at CES 2019 to help educate the public/policymakers with more accurate information.

With 5G well on it's way, expect to hear more about autonomous vehicles that will reduce the overall amount of road rage incidents in general, not just the ones involving guns. Autonomous vehicles should also give EVs the boost they've needed. GM's recent cuts are part of a restructuring plan that includes doubling it's investment in AVs and EVs over the next 2 years and unleashing 20 different EV models within the next 4 years. By 2025 they expect to be selling 1 million EVs per year, which will create a more gayful driving experience.

My beef isn't with history lessons or EVs, it's about your stupid comparison to Norway and turning everything into a damn pissing contest.

Your lack of imagination is pathetic. As apposed to your magical thinking?

All Noway did was give more perks to rich people just so they would buy a second car. Again, Noway - 5 million people. U.S - 300 million people. Your comparison is stupid.

I came to the USA at a time when Americans didn't throw up their hands and whine "we can't do what other countries can do". I came because the USA did what other countries couldn't do, and I wanted to be part of it. When did Americans become such a bunch of whining quitters? Ok, so in addition to the thousands of dollars of incentives given to wealthy people to buy a second car with no taxes, no road tolls, free parking, bus lane privileges, etc., I suppose the next step could be for the U.S to just give away 200 million electric cars just to one-up Norway in the EV race, that'll show them! What could possibly go wrong!

No, that would be puffery. Some of his supporters think it's charming. People have been wondering that for awhile, especially since WMDs and all that mess. Doesn't matter. He just spews a couple buzz words and the needed voters amass.

Wonder no more...... https://www.thespruceeats.com/rainbow-sheen-on-ham-1807022 From Article: Are Nitrates Health or Harmful? There's a great debate in the health food world over the safety of nitrates in food. While most scientists find that unless you have a specific allergy to nitrates they're a safe food additive. Some nutritionists think that nitrates, especially in large quantities, can cause all sorts of medical issues from indigestion to cancer. Of course, there are no real studies that support this hypothesis. Apparently the science isn't settled, so until then I'll continue letting my ham rest in aluminum foil for 10-15 minutes before cutting, just to be safe.

I'm still wondering what you guys put in Canadian bacon to give it that rainbow iridescence.

"Perversely, its electric shift is helped by the fact that its petrol or diesel cars are the most expensive in Europe. This is the only country where running an electric car is actually cheaper. While motorists are typically subject to punitive levels of taxation, those who buy a purely electric vehicle are rewarded with a string of incentives worth thousands of pounds. Buyers escape heavy import or purchase taxes and are also exempt from 25% VAT. They also avoid road tax, road tolls, pay half price on ferries, get free municipal parking in cities and can usually use bus lanes. Which is why the country is the third-largest market for electric vehicles in the world, after the US and China." . . .And with a population of 5 million or so, the success of the global EV market depends on Norway about as much as the U.S EV market depends on Minnesota. So Norway demonstrates what IS feasible while people like you are claiming it isn't feasible. "While Norway has the advantage of being a wealthier country with a smaller population, less congested roads, easier parking and plentiful hydroelectric power, the tax incentives are seen as being expensive and ultimately unsustainable." So given all that, your Norway example is sort of proving Brent's point. Also, what's feasible in a country of 5+ million people isn't as feasible in a country of 300+ million - take for example, building a convenient and efficient charging infrastructure.

Won't somebody please think of the oysters!

But better then the situation you are in now. How, you said your way would take generations. How long before we start seeing results? If in the 80s we had half the guns we do now, with double the crime rate, what makes you think the crime rate would actually fall if we cut the 300+ million guns in half, back down to numbers seen in the 80s? How long would that take? You also said that we should make it harder to get a gun, but if the whole point of your plan is to reduce guns, why are you still allowing guns to be added to the population regardless of how hard it is to get them? You supposedly have this "better" plan, but you never really defined it other than "guns bad." You really should be able to answer these very basic questions if your plan really is better and as practical as you imagine, because we're already seeing results with the plan we have now. At our current rate we'll cut the crime rate in half again within another 20 years. No need to wait the 30-90 years as you suggest. It's terrible, and we can do a lot better. Many of the issues involving children such as gun safety, suicide and inner city violence are already being addressed and we're seeing results even if you refuse not to. As I said, it takes time and we have a long way to go, but we're still getting there faster than your proposal, practical or not. Another thing about these promising programs that have been in development for the past 20+ years, is that they address all violence, not just gun violence, and a big part of it starts with how we raise our children right now - that much should be obvious. If we do right by them, then we can stop the cycle of violence by the time they reach the "crime prone" age group of 15-24. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/prevention.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/technical-packages.html#yv Age/Crime Relationship

Correct, it is significantly worse. Correct and it has to be dealt with differently. If the rest of the civilised world had as much guns as we do, their entire countries would look like Detroit and collapse. Yet here we stand with our 300 million guns still intact as the leading super power of the civilized free world. And yet still worse than any valid comparable. We'd still be worse even if we did it your way, and you already said that your way would take longer.

You mean continue on how the rest of the civilized world has lower crime rates, those proven actions? Newsflash! The ship with 300 million guns has already docked, unloaded and sailed away. The situation here really isn't like other countries, never has been. You said that your way would take generations, but our way has already cut the rate in half in less than one generation and we're not finished.

Are you having the reading comprehension problem again? The data source is clearly indicated. I'm trying to explain to you the reality of the situation, but you keep ignoring it and resort to ad hom just like the last time we had a "discussion" on the topic. It's not my problem that some people have a hard time digesting fine details that actually mean something.

The title of that chart should be called "America's Most Dangerous Cities For White People," because for the blacks that live in the neighborhoods where most of the crime is taking place, it's pretty much all the same shit - and if they've lost a loved one in these areas, that stat really doesn't mean anything to them. Most of the homicides in Chicago occur where about 200,000 blacks are crammed into 15 square miles on the west side and about 600,000 blacks are crammed into 45 square miles on the south side. Contrast that with Detroit where 500,000 blacks are evenly spread throughout 142 square miles. In Chicago it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but at least in Detroit you have some room to duck and cover. I thinks it's important that we don't just look at this from a national level, or a state level, or a county level, or even at a city level. We have to look at the individual neighborhoods to recognize the problem, because in Chicago you have 800,000 "rich" white people living on one side with a homicide rate of 0-5, and then a couple miles away on the other side of the freeway, you have 800,000 poor black people living in neighborhoods like Englewood and West Garfield Park with homicide rates of 58 and 64 respectively. It's just sad to see how segregated we still are after almost 70 years. It's like "ya, ok, great, we can eat together, work together, go to school together, go to the bathroom together, share the same water fountain, but at the end of the day, just go back to your fish barrel and stay there for the next 100 years. . .oh and btw, don't get shot." Mapping Segregation - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/us/census-race-map.html

I agree, even though we may disagree on the treatment. There are some restrictions that I think will help immediately, others not so much - and I often find myself questioning the motives of seemingly very smart people recommending ineffective treatment plans that only make the symptoms worse. . .

Sorry, I missed that . LMAO, Good one!

There was a recent study by the Urban Institute showing that 50% of young men surveyed between the ages 18-26 carried guns illegally for protection in high crime neighborhoods in Chicago's south and west sides. The majority of those who took the survey — 69 percent — said it would only take hours to acquire a firearm. When asked how young people manage to get guns, huge majorities said common ways were through street dealers, buying or borrowing from a friend or family member, or stealing. Twenty-five percent said people were likely to acquire a gun by finding one on the street, in the garbage, or in a railroad train, while only 8 percent said they were likely to buy a weapon from a gun store or at a gun show. Closing that loophole will make it harder for criminals to get guns. Criminals are, in general, stupid and lazy. That's why they are criminals and not lawyers, insurance salesmen or hedge fund managers. Make something harder and the stupid, lazy criminals will tend to do it less. I read awhile back how Chicago made it much more difficult for blacks to be approved for a CC permit than whites, so they just carried illegally. I don't consider the young men from the study to be necessarily stupid for carrying illegally. There just tends to be a lack of opportunity in these areas along with the perception that they need it for protection. And who can they really trust to tell them otherwise? You? Me? The police that won't protect them? A city that apparently doesn't give a shit about them? Democrats that suck up their votes and give very little in return? One of those "stupid lazy criminals" was a college bound black kid that was visiting his parents in Chicago before he left for college. Unfortunately tho, he too felt the need for protection and was busted for illegal carry - and that was it for him, the viscous prison cycle continues. It's time we start treating the disease, rather than just the symptoms. . . https://www.thetrace.org/2018/10/chicago-youth-gun-carry-habits-protection/ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/we-carry-guns-stay-safe

Good post. Well that has yet to be determined, so I'm hooking up a third monitor for superior lateral reading capabilities.

Off topic, but I agree. Search in forums is now nearly useless. I hope it can be strengthened because the archives here were a great resource in the past. I think it will be. This seems to be a popular forum template used by many websites. If certain features can't be fixed by site admins, hopefully they'll be addressed by the template owners. This is where I tend to disagree. I think Switzerland is a country who has proven that. I think the US has generally proven the opposite in my opinion. As a country as a whole you clearly have proven not to be able to own dangerous tools safely. I'm talking in terms of the sheer number of people in this country with hundreds of millions of guns and the fact that almost all them live safely with very little to no gun crime. Again, how many of the 300 million guns will we have to eliminate to have an affect on the 8000 guns used in murders. And then there are all the other considerations that I mentioned. But you keep ignoring the fact that we have already cut it in half without reducing the number of firearms. It's ok to imagine what life would be like without guns, but in the mean time, how about we continue with what's been proven to work and see how far we can take it.

This has become the "what-about" within the conservative news cycle concerning this attack. Perhaps, but it was in response to Billvon's post about the Global Terrorism Index. After reading BV's post I saw all the problems Kenya was having with by Al-Shabab and the beheadings and how 150 Christians were killed in one day, etc, etc. And then you see how the index placed Kenya #19 right above the U.S at #20 for being the most affected by terrorism. It just suggests how the index is based on a bunch of arbitrary bullshit, and biased at that. And though the index quickly mentioned that animal rights and environmental activists were the number one cause of terrorist attacks in the U.S, it gives special attention to far right terrorism and how there were 66 deaths and 113 attacks spanning 22 countries in 2 continents over a 5 year period! And then the same people making a big deal out of this are the same people that were mocking conservatives for blowing Islamic terrorism out of proportion, go figure. . .

Imagine how much lower the crime rate could be, how much safer your community could be I don't have to, gun crime primarily happens in isolated areas of the country. The vast majority of people in the US live in safe suburban/rural neighborhoods with little to no gun crime despite owning the majority of the 300 million guns in this country. When I go back home to Detroit tho, it's a little different story. I've explained this and why I don't carry a gun, especially when I'm in Detroit, but apparently all that content - along with other data that I was hoping to build upon in the future - is all gone and cannot be found with the new sucky search function. I think reducing the amount/access of guns would certainly reduce the amount of suicides, but primarily because of more failed attempts by methods less effective than using a gun. I think it's more practical to address the underlying cause of suicide which again has to do with our culture, child-parent relationships, social relationships and how we talk to each other. A bigger issue might be our mental/healthcare system and how our unique and excessive reliance on psychotropic drugs may play a roll. This would also help address the lone wolf school shootings/massacres in the suburbs where most of these suicides occur as well. It's all related. However, I'm not so convinced that reducing guns will necessarily reduce the number of gun crimes. Of the 300 million guns, approximately 8000 are used to commit murder every year. How many of those 300 million guns would we have to get rid of in order to have an effect on that number and get them out of the hands of criminals? You also have to consider illegal gun dealers and all the additional/counteractive problems that arise when trying to fill a void that prohibitive laws tend to create. If you address the underlying issues of violence at a fundamental level, then you reduce the demand that fuels the black-market to begin with. We also need to be mindful of past mistakes like the crime bill of 1994 and It's negative effect on the black community and the viscous cycle that it created. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I believe we're a country that's capable of safely owning dangerous tools, and in many ways we've already proven that, tho we still have a long way to go. I think the quickest and most practical way to get there is to continue addressing our violent culture and socioeconomic disparities in urban areas as it's been proven to work, despite doubling the amount of guns.

Yeah, looks like she sold them in 2013 and Kraft 'did the deed' in 2018. I thought she had sold it more recently than that. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that she was "running a brothel" other than one internet review that I've found. Another review reported by the Miami Herald that was posted shortly after Yang sold the chain mentioned that the same girls were still working there. I wonder if some of those same girls were among those believed to have been trafficked in the recent sting. I'm sure that would be part of the investigation as well if they decide to move forward.