Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Idran posted:

What I might try then, if they refuse to believe the statistics, is asking them why welfare fraud is unacceptable. That is, even if, say, 50% of welfare recipients were committing fraud, would it be worth it to gut the system if that ends up hurting the 50% that actually need it?

You might also throw in the unrelated fact that when Florida decided to start drug testing welfare recipients, which was done under the assumption that people were getting on it in order to be able to buy drugs essentially, they foud that 97.5% of the people were drug free.

I feel like it's safe to assume that a guy who thinks there's a lot of fraud in welfare would also be thinking that they must be "worthless druggies" or something, so that might sway him.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

Is this because of the whole nature of how that debt is actually bonds or what not?

Yes, partially. Also because most of the debt is, IIRC, owed to Americans and American businesses and American lower level governments, all of whom are investing in their own country.

If someone wanted to compare it a household budget, it'd be like if a family's joint account owed money to one of the spouses and 2 of the teenage kids somehow. The money owed is staying in the family, much as most of the "debt" is owed to the American people.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

So just to be clear, that is saying that for every $1 the government spends on supplying food stamps, $1.73 is added to the economy? How did they arrive at this figure? And I don't understand how tax cuts figure into that equation, are they saying "for every $1 the Bush tax cuts lowered taxes, only 30 cents was added to the economy"?

When you give people money to buy food they can both buy the food AND spend more money on consumer goods. This is pretty productive for a capitalist economy that relies on consumer purchases.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Also a gold standard is terrible for anyone who invests in gold since the whole idea of it is "gold is now a fixed price; no more massive returns in investment". So that's funny when you see people who have invested in gold but also want the gold standard.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Habibi posted:

\. Thus I'm looking for assistance in getting familiar with and figuring out what the general most-likely-to-be-the-real-story of 9/11 currently is.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Done!

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Habibi posted:

Appreciate the link, but unfortunately it seems that experts of all kinds have come out of the woodwork since then to claim one thing or the other. Have their been any other credible studied into this since 2004?

No since the only people who disagree with it substantially are crazy wackaloons. There's no new information possible to learn about it, we know what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. We knew that stuff by September 18th, 2001.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning?

Presumably in the same way you'd counter someone who was a creationist claiming that "scientists support creation". Because... that's basically what it is.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Habibi posted:

This is sort of the thing I'm dealing with as well. Along with stuff about FEMA "conveniently" being there the night before (they were - reportedly for training exercises, although I guess there's some controversy regarding what the then-director said about them being there); claims about FEMA generally preparing for some disaster that the government is going to cause; and so on.

Also, what are some good sources on the history of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, US involvement, etc...?

I should point here: The World Trade Center complex held most of NYC's emergency management facilities, and I believe a FEMA office. Plus FEMA personnel have always been stationed around and in NYC just like they are in the other major American cities - you want quick response in them.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
One of the key features of the World Trade Center design, since they were going to be built so tall, was that they were designed to collapse downwards in case of catastrophic damage. Instead of falling over and wiping out a third of Lower Manhattan.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Yeah sorry I think I implied too much there. It's that the very way the structure was built, you couldn't topple it over; only force it to collapse pretty much straight down to its foot print.

And if it were built a different way, it would have posed a hazard should you have managed to knock it over onto lower Manhattan.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Assuming the CitiGroup building merely fell over by itself and didn't cause a domino effect, it would still devastate between 5 and 10 whole Manhattan blocks, mostly dependent on the direction it fell, as well as blocking off dozens of streets and likely destroying a large section of the busiest subway line in NYC.

And that's the best case scenario for the building falling over!

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

I can tell you about two dozen backwoods gravel roads that only have route numbers instead of names that take you between MS and Louisiana. Check points would be nigh impossible.

Why would Mississippi OR Louisiana be the sole state with gun control laws in the area in the first place?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

computer parts posted:

Because we're discussing a hypothetical where a state has gun control laws that a neighboring one does not, and sets up check points to make sure that their laws aren't being violated.

Just being a hypothetical doesn't mean going full moron though.

It would be way harder to process the traffic on the interstates crossing the same border or really any state borders than the 5 people a month trundling down each anonymous backroad when we're talking feasibility. Those backwoods path things could just have plain old fence put up along them, the interstate needs a full customs plaza.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

You think MS and/or Louisiana are the only two states that have hundreds of roads between them?

Don't think you can really wave the problem away and assume that checkpoints would be all encompassing.

No I'm saying it's extremely unlikely that either of those two particular states would enact that law except together at once. Considering their politics and all. However:

I'm also saying the hundreds roads aren't even the problem in the first place, the actual problem is handling all the traffic on major roads that would have to be checked. 5 guys a month use anonymous track #512 between Louisiana and Mississippi. 40,000 vehicles a day are crossing between Louisiana and Mississippi at the point I-55 crosses the border. Covering those 40,000 vehicles each day at that crossing alone would require monumental effort whereas minor roads in the woods you could just block at the state line if you really wanted.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

eSports Chaebol posted:

That's pretty much the same thing though: the problem with being distanced from the human costs of warfare isn't that it is dishonorable, it's that it makes it easier and therefore more likely to conduct war without considering the consequences.

(Okay, to be fair from that quote it is possible that the author means it is bad because it is unchivalrous or that it removes the opportunity for men to experience the glory of war, but I kind of doubt it.)

You're also plenty distanced from it using cruise missiles or even a modern plane. It's not like we're going from dropping bombs out the side of an open cockpit biplane straight to drones here.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

So, having the less-lethal (to pilots) weapon has decreased pilot deaths but has increased use of weapons in general.

Is there actual evidence of that? Bearing in mind that drones have been in use in a combat capacity since the late 1980s (the Iranians happening to be the first to use one in combat, and Israel being the first to use them widely).

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
The store still gets to jack up prices by 10% legally anyway. Why is that not enough? What use is it to the rest of us to let them jack it up by more than that?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

FISHMANPET posted:

By no means is capitalism perfect, but I'm not sure what else to do here, practically.

We let the retailers jack up prices by 10% legally, and then they put signs up saying "two packs of batteries per customer" or something like that. Works perfectly fine?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
What states don't have anti-gouging laws, and are the merchants there actually stocking way more of supplies than they need to in case of major disasters?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

icantfindaname posted:

The price gouging law only applies in emergency situations, right? That sounds entirely reasonable. The reason we think poor people should get their water and batteries is because they might need them to survive. Is that really such an unbearable restriction on the beloved free market, that one week of the year you can't gently caress people over so bad they might actually die?

I think it's technically in place year round, but there's rarely an occasion where prices would ever suddenly rise more than 10% in a few days otherwise. Pretty much only an approaching/currently happening disaster would get stores to do it in the first place.

Similarly, there's a law in place in NJ and some other states that says you can only raise the price of gas at a given station once each day.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Again, I'm not seeing what good thing the people get out of "go hog wild and raise prices to whatever ya want" instead of the current system of "stores can charge 10% more and they usually put up a 'X items per person only' sign".

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Also, stores are already free to raise their prices however much they want outside of an approaching disaster. So if someone wants to sell batteries for $20 during a disaster, they can just keep the $20 battery price on the shelf at all times. Or keep a price on the shelf that can be legally raised to $20 under the price gouging laws.

Golbez posted:

So the best method is a middle ground between price increases and rationing, rather than going whole hog into either? But what if one person wants to ration to 1 pack per customer and charge less, but the other wants to experiment and go 2 packs but charge more, etc etc? Give a little room for the market to figure out what the best method is?

The middle ground is how it already works in states with anti-gouging laws, and frankly it works well. Store owners are allowed to raise prices a little, and they can choose whether or not they'll ration stuff.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Nov 1, 2012

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Cobweb Heart posted:

This is a very general question, but can anyone give me a primer on what Gary Johnson's like, specifically his economic policies?

He's a libertarian who believes taxes have to made lower, and also supports the FairTax aka the gently caress the poor tax.

"a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget through a 43% reduction of all federal government spending, protection of civil liberties, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan and his advocacy of the FairTax."

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Cobweb Heart posted:

Having done some reading on the FairTax, would it be accurate to say that it relies on tax evasion not existing and reduces taxes for the very wealthy?

Yes and yes! Also they try to trick people, because the tax is actually a tax on the price of the item and the rate... eg when they say a FairTax rate of "23%" then for a $1 item you actually get taxed $1.30! Because they use a weird way to quote percentages, instead of quoting the percentage of tax based on the pre-tax item price.


They claim that "prebates" issued to people will make it progressive by giving poor people money upfront to pay for this tax on every single thing you can buy, but since it'd only come once per month it'd gently caress most people who aren't rich over severely.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Other things they hate, gathered from osmosis due to living in the deep south all my life:
  • US Post Office (Inefficient, UPS/FedEx does it better!)


This one is doubly great because UPS and FedEx both rely on the USPS heavily, and vice versa.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

icantfindaname posted:

Does anybody have any information about the prevalence of NSA or other government domestic surveillance, and about whether the war on terror has actually stopped any domestic terror attacks? Does actual data for this even exist?

The FBI has a report for 2002-2005 at least, with further info on the report going back to 1980: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05

Some examples of Terrorist Preventions according to the FBI:

February 13, 2003

Planned Attacks on Abortion Clinics and Minority Targets
Amwell Township, Pennsylvania.
(Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism)

On February 13, 2003, law enforcement officials arrested David Wayne Hull, a long-time member and self-professed leader of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Hull had been exploding pipe bombs on his property in Amwell Township, Pennsylvania, had built and detonated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) during KKK events, and was recorded instructing individuals on how to place IEDs to cause maximum damage. Hull had also made threats against minorities and abortion clinics. Hull was indicted in March 2003 for firearms charges, witness tampering, and instructing persons on procedures for creating destructive devices. A jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted Hull on seven counts of the ten-count indictment. On February 25, 2005, Hull was sentenced to 12 years in prison, followed by three years of probation.

April 16, 2004

Planned Attacks against Minorities
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
(Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism)

As noted in 2004 Terrorist Incidents, the FBI arrested Sean Michael Gillespie on April 16, 2004, for having firebombed the Temple B’nai Israel in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The attack against the synagogue in Oklahoma City was likely the first of a series of unspecified attacks Gillespie intended to commit. Following Gillespie’s arrest, a search of his residence revealed a videotape containing surveillance of a Las Vegas synagogue and a statement by Gillespie that he was on a “mission for the white race,” which was to involve a cross-country spree of unspecified terrorist acts. Concern for future attacks was also supported by Gillespie’s admission following his arrest to having previously committed random acts of vandalism and violence against minorities.

And so on.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

I've never seen one and imagine that a large, huge, swath of space in this country is "gun free".

Here I just made this for the gun thread, not exactly "gun free" but:

Hey friends here's a nice ol map of where the gun owners live and don't live!


KEY TO COLORS:
Green = States from 6.7% to 25.5% gun ownership (Hawaii to Delaware)
Light blue = States from 30% to 39.8% gun ownership (New Hampshire to Oregon)
Yellow = States from 40.3% to 42% gun ownership (Georgia to Vermont)
Orange = States from 42.1% to 47.7% gun ownership (Kansas to Kentucky)
Red = States from 50.7% to 59.7% gun ownership (North Dakota to Wyoming)

Just incidentally:
GREEN has 116,261,974 people.
LIGHT BLUE has 87,264,836 people.
YELLOW has 32,470,090 people.
ORANGE has 44,429,705 people.
RED has 17,833,570 people.

And here's one with states scaled for population with the same color scheme (sorry it isn't neat!)


Percentages are from http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm which cites http://www.usacarry.com/ as a source on this. Seems about as legit as anything else.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

It would be more useful to see a map of handgun ownership. Also to see it broken down by county, so Florida and California and Illinois would more reflect the actual populations.

Absolutely no one has data up for county-by-county so I'm afraid I can't do that. There also is only fragmentary at best data for handguns.

Florida's absolutely filled with people from other states who moved in recent times, and California and Illinois have had fairly long standing restrictions on gun ownership so it reflects the populations fairly well.

Here's what I mean with Florida:
Florida Population:
1950 2,771,305 46.1%
1960 4,951,560 78.7%
1970 6,789,443 37.1%
1980 9,746,324 43.6%
1990 12,937,926 32.7%
2000 15,982,378 23.5%
2010 18,801,310 17.6%

National Population:
1950 151,325,798 14.5%
1960 179,323,175 18.5%
1970 203,211,926 13.3%
1980 226,545,805 11.5%
1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
2010 308,745,538 9.7%

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
The total gun ownership in this country is expected to be somewhere around 35-45% depending on who you ask. So having Texas have 36% ownership would put it in line with national averages, or if not in line then still not far off.

As Golbez says, 60% of Wyoming folks have guns, but that means 360,000 people. 36% of Texans having guns means 9,242,885 people with guns and that's not a small number!

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:

Does anyone have some resources on Bitcoins? I have a couple of anarcho-libertarian friends that keep flooding my facebook with German Pirate Party articles about how it's a great idea to invest your pension in them

Oh dear man. The short answer is just don't do it. The long answer is to go to http://buttcoin.org/ and read some of the articles about bitcoins and the bitcoin community as a whole. Investing in them is a fool's game.

Here's the value of bitcoin in USD over the past couple of years:


Notice the sharp spikes and corresponding sudden declines? We are currently approaching the peak of an upswing right now, this is about the worst possible time to invest in it.

It's also quite a bit of a hassle to get real money into and out of bitcoins. You end up either having to deal with several intermediaries between you and a bitcoin exchange, or paying a premium to buy "over the counter" in IRC channels.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
The core of the problem with investing in bitcoin is actually explained in technical papers issued by the creators and lead programmers of the Bitcoin system. It is designed to be a proof of concept for how a crypto-currency can work, and not intended to really be used as an investment, a day to day currency system, or anything like that. The expectation of the people who actually created and founded the project is to show that such a thing is possible, but not be the final product which can be used.

Honestly it's a clever bit of programming, and a great proof of concept. But it's not able to sustain itself as anything other than an intermediary for certain kinds of transactions that are tricky to do with normal currencies. I suspect your friends just want to wither profit off you by selling you them, or are interested in buying some drugs online. They're probably not gonna be dissauded by anything you have to say, and they're gonna have to get burned by it themselves to wise up.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Golbez posted:

Does that make sense, to have a local abundant currency vs an external (though can still be the same country) scarce currency? The Wikipedia article on complimentary currency doesn't go into the differences in how the currencies are managed, just that they exist.

You could consider precious metal standard currencies to function like that. In day to day use while silver or gold backed money was in use, you'd of course just get paper currency or base metal coinage and those are not scarce. However for international transactions, they'd sometimes be denominated or even actually delivered on the basis of specific amounts of silver/gold/whatever.

Of course, especially in the middle ages, it would be common for there to be very little cash or coins in actual use among the public. A lot of day to day transactions would involve payment in kind or essentially running up a tab. For that you could consider what people had and did to be the "local abundant currency" while actual money was the scarce currency for external transactions.

Helsing posted:

From what I've been told bitcoins have found a certain amount of popular amongst certain international criminal elements.

True international criminals prefer to stick to mature real currency money laundering. The international criminal elements using bitcoin are like, a guy in France who sells 10 grams of cocaine to a dude in the US.

The amount of value available and liquid in the bitcoin system is not nearly enough for the use of large scale criminal operations.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

icantfindaname posted:

...
However in terms of 'actual material quality of life', $250,000 is basically rich no matter how you slice it. It's enough to live decently in NY and LA, and pretty dang well just about everywhere else. Remember the average household income is just over $50,000, and about 6% of households make over $150,000.
...

Just to expand on this: even in the richest parts of LA or NYC or SF; most of the census districts will have $100k to $200k as the median income. Thus leaving $250k as still well over median. And that's just the richest parts! The rest of the people in those and other cities make far less for median.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Don't UHC countries (specifically Britain) also have weird pseudo-insurance for the wealthier people, where if you get that you get special nicer hospitals and are automatically bumped to the front of the line?

It's not pseudo-insurance. It's plain old private health insurance and private medical care.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Freudian posted:

I agree about voter ID, but there's one thing that keeps bugging me - Florida 2000. There is a definite circumstance where less than 500 votes one way or another, in murky circumstances, dictated the victor of the Presidency. What do I say when people bring this up?

If less people had voted for Buchanan then Bush would have been a clear victor and the hassle would have been avoided.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Freudian posted:

I'm not sure we're talking on the same lines. I'm saying that the margin of votes that people keep talking about here shifted things into territory where the election was in doubt. Am I misunderstanding the argument?

Usually when people bring it up they are saying that Al Gore should have won if it weren't for those meddling Naderites. Bringing up that conservatives voting for Bush instead of Buchanan would also have shifted the election to a more decisive total gets them to think about it a little harder.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Herv posted:

I am having trouble locating a good source for the fallacy associated with the following sentiment:

'I don't mind if the government is watching everything I do, I don't do anything wrong so it's a non issue'.

I was hoping to get a good source that points out how this is rather short sighted/stupid with a better explanation than I can provide.

Thanks

That's not a fallacy, it's usually what they honestly believe and act by. It's like saying there's a fallacy in liking the color blue.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zeitgueist posted:

No it's a fallacy, based on human's need for privacy.

As I pointed out, many times people will look for privacy despite having nothing to hide.

Many humans do not need privacy. They don't want it either.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zeitgueist posted:

I assume you're a committed nudist with no curtains who says whatever is on his/her mind at all times?

Or are we talking about straw-people?

I didn't say I didn't, I said other people do. Stop projecting.

Gourd of Taste posted:

I mean in fairness one of Max-Neef's interaction needs is actually privacy. I'm not saying whether it's an actual need or whether 'some people' don't need it but there's definitely an argument to be made. (Past that, there's the idea of 'intimate spaces' or intimacy that get breached real hard by surveillance, and I do think that everyone needs something like that.)

There's a lot of people who simply don't care about it, and thus you can't say they need it. The only problem is when they say "since I don't need it, clearly no one else does".

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Zeitgueist posted:

You've missed my point. I don't think people with a complete absence of a need for privacy exist. I knew you didn't identify as one; I think you've created this type of person for the purpose of argument.

You can easily shut me up by proving the existence of multiple people with absolutely no need for privacy, which I don't think you can do.

I suspect what you will do is find people who feel no need for certain kinds of privacy, which is problematic to the argument of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".

It's nice that you think people don't exist, but that doesn't make it true.

Tons of people literally do believe and act on the basis that they do have nothing to hide, it's simply a fact. Don't project your own want for privacy as being a universal human trait.

  • Locked thread