Signs of the times

Who would predicted it... a fleeting Pope tweeting !

There is also a oddly timed asteroid over Russia that is a death of a king asteroid.

Have found stash of hot nuns, screw pontificate. #yolo #vaticanswag

ZenGum;855077 wrote:

Have found stash of hot nuns, screw pontificate. #yolo #vaticanswag

Please redo your hashtags in Latin.

#carpe diem #regalia

Praesignis!

Much more... verus.

Graft: from Latin graphium, stylus; see graffito. Is that why all cardinals and the Pope speak Latin?

ZenGum;855077 wrote:

Have found stash of hot nuns, screw pontificate. #yolo #vaticanswag

At least it's not a stash of alter boys.:right:

You spelled altar wro- ... or did you? ;)

I just have to say it: Sister killed her baby because she couldn't afford to feed it--now they're sendin' people to the moon. In September my cousin tried reefer for the very first time, now he's doin' horse. It's June.

NY Times
SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT GEBELOFF
3/9/13

Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades,
a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states,
where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.<snip>
[ATTACH]43159[/ATTACH]
The geographic patterns were some of the most surprising in the General Social Survey, researchers said.
Gun ownership in both the South and the mountain region,
which includes states like Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming,
dropped to less than 40 percent of households this decade, down from 65 percent in the 1970s.
The Northeast, where the household ownership rate is lowest, changed the least, at 22 percent this decade,
compared with 29 percent in the 1970s.

Age groups presented another twist. While household ownership of guns among elderly Americans
remained virtually unchanged from the 1970s to this decade at about 43 percent,
ownership among young Americans plummeted. Household gun ownership among Americans
under the age of 30 fell to 23 percent this decade
from 47 percent in the 1970s. The survey showed a similar decline for Americans ages 30 to 44.

Since the White House has been bitterly complaining about the conservatives/NRA/et al, blocking the accumulation of any gun statistics other than commercial sales totals, I'd take these stats with a grain of salt.

The move away from hunting by the younger crowd isn't surprising, many can't be bothered to even get a drivers licence... wussies.
The increasing density of the burbs, would discourage many guns that were formerly bought for plinking or shooting sports. Towns like mine have instituted no discharge of firearms(outdoors) ordinances, although the 3200 member gun club, a few hundred yards from my house, is busy.

One thing I have noticed is less comment by owners about their own collections, in groups other than close friends who already know. It's become a polarizing subject like abortion.

I'd suspect the supposed drop in Wyoming can be attributed to a large population of survivalists that don't tell nobody nothin' nohow, about their preparations for the apocalypse.

I think first and foremost we need more data, which Obama has attempted to institute. Both sides(see, polarizing) are using outdated, incomplete, and downright wrong information to back their arguments. Even neutral, impartial parties, simply don't have enough valid, and current data.

Of course even with good data the emotional content will still be strong, and I think a majority imposing their will on a minority, which the constitution was supposed to prevent, will always be as bad an idea as the other way round.

Since the White House has been bitterly complaining about the conservatives/NRA/et al,
blocking the accumulation of any gun statistics other than commercial sales totals,
I'd take these stats with a grain of salt.

This survey is the biennial "General Social Survey" by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
... and so probably worthy of more than a grain of salt.
The NY Times article is 4 pages, and contains additional information.

The the NRA lobbied Congress to put language in funding bills to prevent
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from publishing data on gun statistics.

The latter is what Obama was criticizing

I agree the "2nd Amendment people" are being much more secretive.
Is it paranoia?
or, just being unpopular among their friends ?
[COLOR="White"]or both ![/COLOR]

The NY Times link in your post only gives me 2 pages? But I read that and also the General Social Survey link in the Times article. You have more faith in these small samplings being representative, than I do. People like myself that don't do polls, suspect the people that do, just like to talk and will say anything to keep the contact going. OK, that's a little extreme :blush:, but the suspicion is genuine.

I had the unfortunate luck to be chosen by the US Census to be grilled as a follow up to track between the 10 years censuses. This woman hounded me day and night, waking me up(day sleeper), at all hours. Then her supervisor called on the phone leaving messages until I finally talked to him. I told him it was none of his fucking business, and he threatened to have me "brought" to the federal building in Philly for "questioning". My response was bring it on, and he must have been bluffing, because I didn't hear any more.

My impression was the NRA sponsored funding bill restrictions, prevented publishing incidental information that was gathered in there normal data collection, and expressly forbid gathering background information on gun deaths and injuries. This included trying to determine how it happened, to whom, by whom, and their relationship.

I think paranoia is perhaps wishful thinking on your part, like I said, it's a polarized hot button issue that civil people sick of the national divisiveness, prefer to avoid.

Here's a good take from boingboing on why gun violence research is so weak.
Part 1
Part 2

You have more faith in these small samplings being representative, than I do.
People like myself that don't do polls, suspect the people that do, ...

I guess I should have added a third possibility... denial

To argue that sample size is too small is weak.
It only takes a sample of a few hundred to sample a large population
(e.g., ~350 for a population of 500,000 or more at 95% confidence level),
and above that population, sample size has negligible effect on the results.
To play with these variables, there are on-line calculators
to determine sample size for given confidence levels, intervals, and population sizes.

I don't disagree with the general thesis of the author in your links in the boingboing articles.

Social surveys are difficult. They are not counting marbles in a jar.
People don't always answer questions truthfully/completely/at all
Also, given a little bit of paranoia the answers may be deliberately misleading.
And paranoia does exist in a big way among some 2nd Amendment advocates,
and to a lesser extent even among the general population of hunters and sportsmen/women.

In the boingboing articles (how many times a year are guns used in self defense)
the range of results to that question is very broad.
But politically, it cuts both ways.
The argument that it's a large of times is no stronger than
an argument it's a small number of times.

All in all, the NY Times article presented the results of the repeated surveys
over many years,with valid sample sizes, and reasonable confidence intervals,
such that to not respect the trend line fits well with my third possibility.

One thing I've learned for a hard fact is everyone, and I mean every fucking person on earth, is different. Trying to pigeonhole them does a disservice to that diversity.

It only takes a sample of a few hundred to sample a large population
(e.g., ~350 for a population of 500,000 or more at 95% confidence level)

How do you know that? Because some statistician told you? Because it's been proven repeatedly? No it hasn't, it's just become gospel among statistics wonks.

1700 out of 2000 people say their favorite color is blue, so automatically people's favorite color is blue, case closed. BUT, we don't know what those people are seeing when they call it blue. There are a million nuances you could group as blue, but my blue and your blue could be very very different.

That's the danger of polls, they try to lump us into defined groups.
On hot button issues like guns, abortion, religion, everyone must be fer us or agin us. And if they're fer us, they must think exactly as we do, so if they're agin us, they must think exactly the opposite. That's not true, like the colors, there are a million nuances to peoples thinking on any subject that only dialog will reveal. Polls are the antithesis of dialog.

I'm willing to bet that a large majority of the people who join/support the NRA do so strictly because they've been told the liberals/government wants to take away all guns. That same fer us or agin us mentality that makes the other side feel anyone who joins/supports the NRA wants to drive a nuclear powered tank to the mall.

When you throw out loaded words like denial and paranoia to dismiss anyone that doesn't toe your line, it puts you in the same league as assholes like LaPierre, Beck, and Breitbart. You can be better than that.

ZenGum;855674 wrote:

You spelled altar wro- ... or did you? ;)

Ha!

I filled out a Boy Scout survey yesterday that had the goal of gauging how adult volunteers would react to having homosexuals be allowed into BSA. I had, days before, filled out a similar one as a parent of an enrolled boy. The survey was written in a way that made it really hard to tell how they were going to twist my answers. So I tried really hard to answer in the most extreme way possible so they would count me the way I want to be counted. But the survey bugged me, the way it was written.

The household "trust implicitly" rate has fallen ...
The number of households that answer questions about ANYTHING has fallen dramatically for 40 years. The more we know they know, the less we trust.

"according to the survey data, [COLOR="Red"]analyzed [/COLOR]by The New York Times." :confused:

glatt;856465 wrote:

But the survey bugged me, the way it was written.

Many people used to be anxious to participate thinking their opinion would be counted. But as more and more people see how their answers can be, and are, manipulated, they're less inclined to participate.

<snip>I'm willing to bet that a large majority of the people
who join/support the NRA do so strictly because they've been told the
liberals/government wants to take away all guns.
That same fer us or agin us mentality that makes the other side feel
anyone who joins/supports the NRA wants to drive a nuclear powered tank to the mall.

Ha, that's funny. Such a bet... those mean old liberals are intimidating the gun-owners of America !
Oh wait, maybe it means the NRA has been lying to it's members.

In any case, let me know if you win your bet... after you have gone around
and asked each and every member and supporter of the NRA.
Remember, no surveys because you wouldn't want to become one of those "statistics wonks".

Of course they're lying, they're bastard children of unelected politicians and self serving capitalists. They'll say whatever brings the most to the coffers, which they split three ways between themselves, buying congress critters, and fund raising. The days of the NRA promoting hunting/shooting safety, and other public service work, are just a memory.

A friend just became an NRA Life Member.
Me - You realize by being a Life Member you can't quit if they piss you off.
He - I'd never quit no matter what they do.
Me- No. Matter. What. :eyebrow: :rolleyes:

I don't have to talk to every single NRA member, I can't lose unless someone else does and can prove it. :p:

Mother Jones, "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down".

They make some valid points. Some are debatable, like "For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home."
There is no possible way to know how many times guns are used for self defense in the home, only reported cases, and most are not.

Some seem valid, like "A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater."
Easy to believe many people get a gun, and with no training or experience, feel suddenly feel invincible like in the movies.

xoxoxoBruce;856879 wrote:

Easy to believe many people get a gun, and with no training or experience, feel suddenly feel invincible like in the movies.

It is the 'big dic' mentality. If I have a big gun, then everyone will respect me. Reality. A gun is more likely to be used on its owner than on a criminal.

In a recent PBS show, children walking home from school walk down the center of the street. At first, teachers were appalled. And then learned why. Because they live in a neighborhood with so more guns, then kids learned the safest path home is in groups in the middle of a street; not on the sidewalk.

Take a book - Leave a book


WhitefishBayPatch
11/19/12
Village Cracks Down on Little Free Libraries

The Whitefish Bay Village Board took up the topic of Little Free Libraries
after a resident asked the village for permission to build one.
The structures technically go against the village code that prohibits structures on front lawns.
With the board's decision to enforce the existing code,
the village plans to order the Little Free Library at Christ Church be taken down.

[ATTACH]43637[/ATTACH]

From elselwhere:

The first Little Free Library was constructed two years ago by Todd Bol of Hudson, WI.
Now there are an estimated 1,800 libraries across the world,
and the Little Free Library organization hopes to see at least 2,510 Little Free Libraries worldwide,
according to the group's website.

The Village Board should be renamed as: The Village Board of Grouches

The lesson here is, don't ask permission. :ninja:

The Village Board should be renamed SHUT UP.
That's all.

In the following article, Eric Schmidt was talking about drone aircraft.

But since he, as the current Chairman of Google, has so changed the Google philosophy
to one of corporate ownership of all personal, and previously private, data of Google users,
I have taken the liberty of substituting "[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR]" for his word "drone".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/google-head-worried-about-privacy-risk-posed-by-civilian-drones/
arstechnia
Cyrus Farivar
4/14/13

Google head worried about privacy risk posed by civilian drones

In a subscribers-only interview published Saturday in The Guardian,
Google chairman Eric Schmidt called for increased regulation
for non-military and non-law enforcement uses of [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR].

"How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial
observation [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR] that they can launch from their backyard,” he said.
“It just flies over your house all day.

How would you feel about it?"

According to the BBC, which summarized Schmidt’s remarks,
he also expressed concern about small [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR]’ potential use as
an inexpensive weapon by unsavory characters.
<snip>
"It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments,
who have some legitimacy in what they're doing,
but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen."

Schmidt has previously made similar remarks to the British newspaper in January 2013.
"Terrorists and criminals could use [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR] to carry IEDs [improvised explosive devices]
—that could result in conflict between civil and military [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR]," he said.
"Or it could happen over the US-Mexico border.
Maybe we'll even see the world's first [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR] strike against cyber-terrorists.
That's how seriously evil part of this [growth in technology] could be.”

His remarks came just days after Idaho’s governor signed a bill into law
that now requires a warrant to collect evidence from [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR].
The bill goes on to impose other related restrictions on [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Google software[/COLOR] use by law enforcement.

:rolleyes:

Nice work, Lamplighter.

This is the result of our "non-profit" University of Oregon. :mad:

OKOBOJI, Iowa — A northwest Iowa school district superintendent says
the Okoboji Pioneers team will phase out its use of an "O'' logo
after receiving complaints from the University of Oregon.

The Sioux City Journal reported Friday that Superintendent Gary Janssen agreed
to phase out use of the district's maroon logo at the request of the university.
Oregon has trademarked its green or yellow emblem, which was designed by footwear and apparel company Nike.

Oregon is known nationally for its vivid uniforms, which incorporate the "O'' logo.
The logo has become known nationally in recent years as the school's football team
has experienced great success, finishing with a No. 2 ranking last season.

Now, I hope Oprah will come in to complain about the UofO using her "O" trademark.
Maybe Hawaii-Five-O could sue also.
Or, the software giant, Oracle, might join in too.
And all the Irish O'Brien's, O'Casey's, O'Connors, O'Donnells,... on the basis of prior use.

The UofO is in Nike's pocket, and has lost it's Objectivity. :yelgreedy

Lamplighter;862799 wrote:

The U[strike]o[/strike]f[strike]O[/strike] is in Nike's p[strike]o[/strike]cket, and has l[strike]o[/strike]st it's [strike] O[/strike]bjectivity.

Maybe they could use an 8, with one half the same color as the background.

xoxoxoBruce;862808 wrote:

Maybe they could use an 8, ...

Rotate that digit 90 degrees ... and the possibilities become endless.

A $million here, a $million there
... it's getting harder and harder to cover all those cracks in the bathroom wall


NY Times
By CAROL VOGEL
11/13/13
At $142.4 Million, Triptych Is the Most Expensive Artwork Ever Sold at an Auction

The 1969 triptych, "Three Studies of Lucian Freud,"
sold for $142.4 million at Christie's, described as the highest price
ever paid for an artwork at auction.

[ATTACH]46003[/ATTACH]