JayB

Yeah - don't have the time. As you've indicated on a number of previous occasions, you have mastered your circumstances and freed yourself of the normal occupational/domestic responsibilities that bind and constrain the great mass of humanity, and are blessed with a glorious hyper-abundance of un-restricted time...and you've evidently read the study and found it convincing enough to present as evidence here. In the passage that you cited, the authors are conducting their analysis at the level "violent offenses" and give no indication that they they've controlled for the nature of the offenses or the criminal history of the offender into account when generating the ratios that they present. Your response suggests that either a) you read it and it didn't occur to them to discriminate between execution-style murder and purse snatching, or b) that you cut and pasted and haven't read it closely enough to know whether they controlled for those factors or not. I'm going with a), but I'll actually be relieved if that's not correct.

Speaking of excessive force: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/lapd-officers-fired-22-shots-unarmed-driver-after-corvette-chase-f2D11779731 LAPD officers fired 22 shots at unarmed driver after Corvette chase, review says BY ANDREW BLANKSTEIN Three LAPD officers have been temporarily relieved of patrol duty after a departmental review found they fired 22 shots and killed the unarmed driver of a Corvette after he led them on a high-speed chase Friday night. “After hearing the preliminary briefing, I am very concerned about the circumstances that led up to and resulted in this Officer Involved Shooting,” said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. “Because of those concerns I have directed that the three involved officers be assigned home pending the final results of the investigation. Determinations regarding training or possible disciplining of the involved officers will be made at that time.” The crash and the shooting were captured by local TV helicopters that had been following the Corvette during an hour-long chase through crowded city streets. Police opened fire at Brian Newt Beaird, 51, after he slammed his silver sports car into a Nissan at a downtown L.A. intersection, drove the vehicle onto the curb and hit a tree, and then got out and tried to walk away from the vehicle. Beaird was pronounced dead at a local hospital from multiple gunshot wounds. “No weapon was recovered” at the accident scene, said Chief Beck. The LAPD did not immediately say how many shots hit Beaird, or offer an explanation for why deadly force was employed. Chief Beck made his decision to send the officers home, with pay, after the results of an initial review known as a “72-hour briefing.” Criminal and administrative investigations are continuing and could take months to complete.

"Violent offenses" is such a broad category that comparing incarceration rates across all crimes that involve violence isn't going to tell you anything meaningful about potential bias in sentencing and incarceration. You also need to correct for whether or not the defendant had a prior record, the nature of the said record, any other offenses that may have been committed along with the violent offense, etc, etc, etc, etc. Are those stats that you presented net of controls for the nature of the violent offense, etc? I'm too busy to read through study any time soon, but it sounds like you've personally read through it carefully so perhaps you can cite the relevant passages in the methods section. The disparity may be real, but the mere fact of a statistical dichotomy itself isn't convincing on its own.

you know full well those things are far more driven by economic conditions than policing reform, but then the point of such reform is to reduce the # of folks cops kill unnecessarily, not to make crime itself go away. I'm all for ending the drug prohibition, etc, etc, etc so I'm fully on board with that, but I also think that you know full well that the number of encounters that a given population has with the police isn't simply a function of economics. Just to take one example - is there an economic explanation for the reason that white southerners tend have a higher murder rate than whites in the rest of the country with comparable incomes? If not - what do you make of that?

Per the argument from statistical proportionality, the vastly disproportionate rate at which men are arrested and imprisoned relative to women in every conceivable category of criminal behavior is necessarily evidence of a systematic hostility to men embedded in every facet of our criminal justice system, no?

if i could see the future i probably wouldn't be working anymore who knows? what bostonian knew in 1770 that the violent incident they'd just witnessed would result in a such a sea-change 5 years later? certainly many of those folks yelling in the street today would hope, as did the sons of liberty, for a radical change in the status quo. obviously, like the said sons, there's those among them willing to do more than just shout. playing the odds though, i imagine this incident will be just another drop in the ocean and that the Next Big Thing, as sam says, will yank the public's attention elsewhere, leaving hte whole thing to brew and fester and molder some more. if the incident does no more than encourage the cop body-camera craze, i suppose that's at least something positive. I should have been clearer. What tangible impact do you expect any post-Ferguson policing reforms, such as body cameras, to have on the number of black victims of murder, assault, robbery every year? How about the high-school dropout rate, percentage of two-parent households, etc, etc, etc.

Let's assume that you agree with their cause, and that discussion is off of the table. What is the tangible effect of this crusade (and is there anyone who isn't in the prime demo for intravenous Levitra or high dose hormone-replacement therapy who can recall a time when lots of Very Upset People marching and chanting had any discernable effect on any tangible social reality whatsoever?)going to be, in your estimation?

Bonus points to anyone who cares to dredge up the last Willstrickland sighting on cc.com. 'm thinking ~2007? Moved out of Alaska in ~04ish to CA and then?

Roughly 8 of 12 depending on how you define active. Thankfully the board comes pretty close to self-moderating other than the occasional spam-bot, so IMO there's much less need for moderator activity than there used to be way back when.

He attacked and assaulted a cop and tried to take his firearm because the cop told him not to jaywalk. There is that small detail. What part of it do you and Bob not understand? One does not need to be "armed" in order to inflict bodily damage. Being physically large and strong is relevant in that one is able to inflict more bodily damage. It also makes Darren Wilson's story credible in that he had a legitimate fear of being physically overpowered. In contrast, his claim wouldn't hold water if he was attacked by a 85 year old woman. That is how it is viewed in the eyes of the law and it also makes common fucking sense. This isn't about the facts or the evidence, this is about the opportunity to validate and broadcast one's own righteousness contra white privilege, racism, or...whatever...by transmuting Michael Brown into Emmett Till and themselves into some kind of postmodern version of the heroic 1960s activists they grew up idealizing, sans any of the actual elements of the South in the 1960s that could make that sort of grandstanding even the slightest bit risky or controversial. tl;dr...don't bother bringing up the evidence.

Steering this back on track; Comcast actually has been doing this since 2012 in certain test markets. They're starting to broaden these "tests". Although amount of data supplied by ISP is not really the issue of net neutrality. It's how the data is supplied and at what rate it's supplied to the end user. Good points. My take on this whole thing is that the bandwidth providers don't want to make the capital investments necessary to handle massive amounts of additional traffic unless they can get paid to do so. As things stand now - there are a few sites that generate a massively disproportionate share of the traffic, and they've basically cut a deal with the cable companies to compensate them for the load they're putting on their networks. Under a model where consumers pay by the gig - this sort of deal-cutting isn't necessary since the amount of money they take in is more directly proportional to the amount of data they move.

It's clearly no contest on the evolution issue - but I think there are enough formal policy safeguards in play and informal cultural defenses, such as mockery and ridicule, that I'm not particularly worried about the direct policy consequences that will follow from that conviction, and suspect that they'll be short lived to the extent that they materialize. Since you're making a rare appearance here and seem to be a Keynesian by default if not by conscious choice - I couldn't help but wonder if you also found the "trickle down" benefits of stimulus/infrastructure spending dubious or if you think that mode of distributing hunks of the economic pie is more effective. E.g. what's the tangible difference to the trickleees if, say, the government decides to pool tax money and build a generator factory in Flint versus a private business pooling money and doing the same thing. In each case what you are talking about is a mechanism to convert profits into investment of X dollars to build Y - the only difference is who made the decision. Ditto for stimulus funded construction vs private construction - etc, etc, etc. What - in your view - is the differences to the people selling the construction materials to the contractors, the people who are getting paid to build whatever's being built, the owner of the bars and strip-joints where they are spending the money, etc, etc?

What are the Euros doing about this? Not sure what's happening in Euroland but in NZ in 08/09 you paid according to the amount of data you used. They sold packages aimed at people who only used the internet for e-mail all the way to up to unlimited. Seemed quite rational and fair - so it has zero chance of ever being implemented here.

Reverse thread drift: -I'm sort of surprised I never hear anyone bring up local cable monopolies created via government licensing when the net-neutrality discussion comes up. The more competition there is amongst local ISP's, the harder it gets for them to throttle delivery of content from a particular website without customers leaving.

Well - the transmission mechanism from voter preferences to the policy that gets enacted is far from direct, and it's rare that anyone has the luxury of voting for someone who sees things their way on every issue. If I found myself choosing between a creationist Republican who supported free trade, and a progressive democrat who was great on evolution but supported economic protectionism - I'd vote for the free trade guy because that's the more important issue for me, and the tangible policy implications of their views on economic issues are more likely to result in long-lasting consequences than their views on evolution - so in that sense I'd be voting against at least one of my own interests when I pulled the lever for the wingnut who is good on trade. The other aspect of this discussion that often gets overlooked is that even if someone correctly understands their own interests and votes accordingly - that's not always the mark of enlightened citizenship. The folks who are raking in the corn ethanol subsidies that support politicians who are in favor of corn ethanol subsidies are certainly voting in accordance with their own economic interests, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's an ideal that would result in broadly beneficial policies if everyone else voted with only their own narrow interests in mind.

Channeling Gruber? Isn't it possible that people might simply understand and define their interests in ways that are at odds with progressive policy preferences, and have legitimate reasons for doing so in many cases? As dismaying as it may be for progressives to witness, say, auto workers in the South taking a collective look at gleaming Utopias that are Detroit, Flint, etc and decide that inviting the UAW in to stage a sequel in their own towns isn't in their best interests - is it entirely impossible for progressive folks to conceive of a rationale for doing so that doesn't involve the people working in that factory being too stupid to understand what their own interests are?

Just chiming in to take this opportunity to *agree* with Mattp on a political thread. In 2014.

With a 2.5 week itinerary I'd imagine that you'll be sticking to the South Island - but on the off chance that the North Island is on the menu the volcanoes on the Central Plateau - Ruapehu, Nguaruhoe (Mt Doom) are worth a look if you're willing to substitute some non-technical scrambling. There are some more technical routes on Mt. Taranaki, but I'm not sure what kind of shape they're in. Also - if you haven't already done so, make use of the NZAC site: Lot's of very helpful info there, and they can probably put you in touch with folks who will have good suggestions for the sort of route that you're looking for. https://alpineclub.org.nz/ Also - since this is a honeymoon trip you'll be taking...don't leave the country without trying a bottle of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc, particularly paired with some local seafood. I've never been a wine enthusiast, and was never a fan of whites, but that stuff won me over and I've been an addict ever since.

Nailed it.

Damn.

Buy a used version of whatever works best for the city then use the savings to add-on the ~15 year old Toyota Tacoma accessory package. Looks like the going rate for a '98 is ~6-8K. Taking a car that you actually need for essential day-to-day commuting places where it's not designed to go and where the cost and hassle of repairing the damage that you are/will-be doing has always been so unpleasant to me that it more than justifies the cost of a dedicated beater IMO.

I'd say he's definitely worth talking to. At the very minimum he should be able to reach out to multiple companies and get you a sense of what you are looking at in terms of costs. Unfortunately the numbers you are working with sound pretty on-the-money, and I'd be surprised if you can get anything under $4K/million unless you shorten the term to something like 10 years - but hopefully I'm wrong and when you talk to someone with some actual expertise they'll have better news. Speaking of actuaries - it's a touch puzzling to me that insurance companies tend to be so worried about climbing relative to other dangerous hobbies. I've heard from multiple people that kayaking rarely if ever shows up on the list of past-times they are concerned about, but it's always seemed at least as dangerous as climbing, if not more so. All I can guess is that the sample size is two small for them to work with and when the actuaries plug in the numbers the result they get back is "Tilt." Anyhow - good luck getting coverage, and hopefully it'll cost less than it seems.

I've heard competing testimonials, but have never been able to determine whether or not the idea that you can lie on your life insurance application and two years later the life insurance company has zero recourse to deny your claim is actually true or not. Interestingly, the one lawyer I know who a)has a pretty wide repertoire of higher risk outdoor activities opted and b) specializes in business contract law opted for full disclosure and paying the higher premiums. YMMV. I can't recall precisely what he said, but it was something to the effect of "there are whole departments dedicated to litigating both sides of claims denial" and if you've got a significant policy, it will be very worth their while to see if you violated the terms of the contract and they can avoid paying you. Anyhow - if you do decide to go the "full disclosure" route, here's my experience. We tried to get a policy for my wife through the same guy who handled her disability insurance policy (get a policy of you don't already have one - sometimes the financial impact of a disabling accident can be worse than death). We filled out the disclosure form, they sent a follow-up form asking for more detail - and they declined to offer us a policy. He subsequently put in applications with ~20 other companies and none of them would touch us. The folks in the business will probably know better, but it sure seemed like after one company denies you you basically wind up in the "do not underwrite" pile and it's very difficult to get a policy from that point forwards. We aren't sure what specific risk scared them away, but it seemed as though crossing an international border to go climbing was the trigger in our case. It didn't seem to matter that in my wife's case that literally meant a handful of days of single-pitch ice-cragging in Lilloet ~10 years ago and a half day of cragging at the Smoke Bluffs about a year ago. At that point we found a broker who specialized in high-risk policies and had specific experience getting coverage for climbers (link below - not spam). When we started working with him we finally felt like we were dealing with someone who understood the difference between a 5.7 top-rope and a grade V 5.7. A significant part of the application process involved completing a completed a super-detailed climbing history that seemed like it was actually put-together by a climber, and then AFAIK he basically sent that around to contacts at various companies to get an informal evaluation, then worked with the companies who said they'd be able to underwrite a policy to put together quotes for us and eventually we got the sort of coverage that we were looking for. It won't be cheap - depending on what your risk profile is I'd be prepared to pay $3K to 7K per year for a $1M 15-20 year term life policy. Not for everyone - but that's the path we opted to take. http://www.stevenkobrin.com/

Or maybe just this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goose_That_Laid_the_Golden_Eggs Time will tell. More like, "The Goose that laid the golden egg but only gave a few pennies of it to the farmer and kept the rest for the kids down the street who have rich parents" I mean, they live in a poor country! They should be GRATEFUL to get a pittance for their labors. They're lucky we give them anything at all!!! Ungrateful bastards. As I said above, the real question isn't why guide services and/or independent climbers paid them a relative pittance for the difficult and dangerous work that they do, but why - until recently, at least - they were willing to do so. Why do you think that was the case?