🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

While I have no doubt it would require an unreasonable amount of material and resources, so not doable... I wonder.... would a space-elevator made out of modern materials, but shapped like a pyramid with a broad base, be able to be made tall enough to extend into space. I figure if the base is wide enough and the materials at least as strong as solid rock, it should be possible... but without running the numbers I dunno... I do know there is a limit on the maximum size of a mountain so .... i dunno.

Internet has no answers.

@mzan

> sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf also
>
> USA had a massive spike in homicides rates. More than Canada. And the USA not banned guns.

uhhh what are you even arguing for here?

That would be like this conversation:

Scientist: "We see the death rate in every country increases once COVID-19 is introduced intot he country. Therefore we can conclude COVID-19 will increase the mortality rate of the country"

You: "But look, this one time in solenea we see the death rate increased and there were no COVID cases in the whole country... this makes your argument very suspicious, maybe COVID doesnt kill people"

The logic makes no sense... the fact that a pattern is born out and consistent is not invalidated simply because things other than guns can and have influenced these rates in the past... thats the very reason we look at multiple examples (and why i looked at every country in europe and around the world not just one)... its also why we use cause-effect tests and not correlation, to ensure we are limiting our scope to events related to guns and not other potential unrelated causes.

> Maybe you are correct, but I had to study a lot of stats, before being sure.

As well you should... But at least for the moment given the facts that have been presented in this thread, I think its clear my point is the one that is reasoned and fact based... that may change if you have new evidence, but clearly this evidence points to only one conclusion an objective person could make based on what we have said so far and argued.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

> I have no access to the other statistics about the rise of homicides in case of ban of the guns. So if you have some link, I will read.

Thats why i provided the data for you to see as a chart. The source is clearly listed for the data, you are welcome to go to the source and check it if you'd like.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

While we are at it,a nd just to show im not cherry picking... lets address the OP with regard to canada, two topics you both picked so I cant be the one cherry picking here...

So canada a long time ago banned a lot of types of guns, but you can still in some cases get a license if you have a strong need. So handguns still had some use as self defense among a privilaged class.... But they never required training to get a license... Training to obtain a firearm license was enacted by Canada and passed into law in 2014 as an additional restriction on getting a license and a gun. This of course limited access to guns or at least put a barrier in front of it reducing the number of guns on the street...

So what did this relatively minor restriction due to the violent crime rates... well yet again, a restriction on access to guns caused a **skyrocketing** of crime rates. See the chart attached.

As is clear despite violent crimes being well on the decline the day the training requirement law passed we see a huge and continued upward spike in violent crime rates. On that appears to be continuing to climb....

Seems even your example of Canada shows quite clearly banning guns kills people.

#2A

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

In fact you only have to look at the numbers.... Significant hand gun bans in canada were enacted in 1966 with bill C-150 .. these banned many types of guns and got quite a few guns, particularly hand guns used in self defense, off the streets.

What was the result to homicide rate? well lets look at a chart...

Well look at that, the homicide rate goes through the roof, doubling for about a decade (just as i suggest)... and while it does start to decrease eventually it never falls below pre-ban levels... meaning a lot of peopel died over very very many decades due to this policy.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

So you are telling me his military didnt have guns, and those guns didnt stop unarmed jews from defending themselves?

Thats some significant rewriting of history you got going there. To think hitlers guns and everyone else he invaded not having guns played no role is bull...

You act like unarmed poland or unarmed civilians of other nations just voted him in...

Hell even when he got to power in germany he 1) used guns more than once 2) explicitly used guns to murder his opposition so as to fix the vote 3) used his access to guns to murder and frame someone in the reichstag fire.... yes his use of guns both allowed him to gain power, and to keep it.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

> They told me that Canada has a lot less murders by gun respect USA, because they have also more controls on the license.

As a professional statistician I can tell you you just got into the territory of "bad science" using objectively bad analysis that would be rejected immediately by any math-literate (statistics) scientist for good reason.

We are trying to show causation, to do that you need to show a cause being **followed** by an event... you cant compare two countries that have hundreds of millions of influencing factors and say "look this country has less crime and no guns its related!" no, thats just no better than a lie, a well intentioned one, but a lie... There are far far too many factors for you to even suspect or hint at any one cause.

In fact even if you could directly establish correlation this does nothing to address post hox ergo procter hoc fallacy... which is the cause and which is the effect... Does high crime rate cause people to want to legalize guns, or does legalizing guns cause high criem rate.. if the correlation is valid either direction of causation would likewise be valid, so you still did absolutely nothing to even **hint** at a causation here.

This is why i choose my wording carefully. What we do see, and what does actually tell us causation, is that when guns are banned (the cause) in the 5 - 10 years that **follow** (the effect) homicide and violent act rates sky rocket through the roof in almost all cases. They also almost never recover to below pre-ban rates... at best they settle slightly above pre-ban rates, at worse they remain quite higher.

> Is this article wrong? Apparently the only logical conclusion is that the Canada way is better than the USA way. Were am I wrong?

The specific facts of the article may be right.. but as per above this isnt even **suggestive** of a cause-effect relationship between guns and deaths.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@TruthSandwich

Even their rehtoric is suprisingly similar if you look deep enough... usually both sides are highly racist/prejudice/sexist whatever.. but who they attack and how they express that varies.

I just watched a video last night of black conservatives debating white liberals... The one white liberal who was clearly int he extreme was literally the most toxic person int he group and very obnoxious to the blacks... In one scene one of the black people makes a statement about "insufferable white people with a savior complex" and the camera pans over to him with the saltiest look on his face you have ever seen... It was priceless.

@davetroy

@mzan

> Summing up: a nation should do the contrary of USA: public health-care system; legal drugs; prohibition of guns. 🙂

While I'd agree with you on legal drugs, the other two sorta..

I wouldnt replicate the USA's healthcare system, it is a broken disaster... But then again so is every European system just in a very different way. So I agree, dont do anything that copies the american system, but also for the love of god, dont copy the european one either... clearly we need something that works and no one has one.

As for prohibition of guns, seeing as america is the only place that didnt witness the death of tens to hundreds to thousands of thousands of people as a direct result of gun prohibition, yea this is false, maybe america is exactly who you should be replicating... not only did we not have the massive deaths, but we also have yet to have a Hitler, something we claimed long before Hitler would be the result... and we were right.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@TruthSandwich

Presuming thats what they meant then yea, they dont have to change their views too much anyway. As you point out horseshoe theory garuntees they are already far more compatible with eachother than they admit.

@davetroy

@TruthSandwich

Ahh they meant the tea party folks then I guess...

@davetroy

@mzan

Agreed, but you have to be careful to do it right.

For example this mentality is exactly what lead to my stance on gun-rights. The fact that virtually every state and nation, when banning guns, saw a **huge** spike in homicides and/or violent crimes in the 5 - 10 years following before those numbers sometimes go down but almost never reach pre-ban levels or below again... that pattern clearly shows that other nations banning guns has had a very harmful effect.

Obviously we can take one step further and also look at wars and falls of nations... in virtually every case a nation with a dictator was limited to countries where people were unarmed either in the past, or during the rise of the dictator.

Hitler is often cited as an example of this, there was a massive disarmenment of Europe in most countries (including germany) following WWI and surprise surprise, after the decade or so it took to get rid of guns Hitler pops up almost immediately.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@SETIEric

> Copyright is automatic on works that are subject to copyright, (i.e. creative works.) Works that are not creative are not subject to copyright, automatic or otherwise.

You are of course correct that copyright is only automatic on things that are copyrigtable. You are also correct that some lists are not copyrightable, but to claim lists as a whole are not is completely false... Collections, even if everything collected is in the public domain, **are** covered (automatically) by copyright. However what qualifies as a collection depends partly on its substantiability and other factors... A list of food items in isolation isnt copyrightable, for example... But a list of public-domain recipies, the list itself IS copyrightable even if the individual items in it are not on their own.

> You can copyright a program you wrote to create a list of prime numbers. You cannot copyright a list of prime numbers, no matter how much effort it takes to compile.

This is actually also false, and a counter example. While not all prime numbers (like 3 or 5) can be copyright, and not all list of prime numbers can be copyrighted (like 3,5,7) it would be false to claim you can never copyright a list of prime numbers... Not only can you copyright a list of prime numbers, but it has been done, and defended successfully in court.

For example in 2001 someone was charged with breaking copyright law by publishing a list of only two prime numbers. These primes were effectively the private key needed to decrypt DRM information on DVDs. Despite being a list of two prime numbers, because it was substantial according to the legal definition, it rose to the level of copyright status.

There are tons of legal examples of prime numbers, and numbers in general being copyrighted. They are called "illegal numbers".

> Writing a novel featuring the numbers on the list is, on the other hand, creative.

As pointed out while this writing would also be copyrighted it is not needed for something to be copywritable. Collections alone can be copyrightable, though a mere list is not necessarily copy-writable unless meeting the legal definition which requires among other things for it to be "substantial"

> But if someone extracts the numbers from the novel and makes a list of them, the list is likely neither a copyright violation nor can it be copyrighted.

Nope this would absolutely be a copyright violation... Just as copying from a collection of public domain recipes by repeating the same collection or a subset that was directly copied from the book would be a copyright violation.

> Or a list of the first word of every paragraph for that matter, although the copyright holder could try to convince a jury that there was something original and creative about the words and their order, and financially harmful about its publication.

This would be considered a derivative work, and thus illegal under copyright. Putting somethingin list form doesnt give you a work around on copyrights. Since as we covered collections that meet the legal definitions are copyrightable, this includes lists.. even a list of just 2 numbers in one case I cited.

> Since “Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.” effort is not a criterion for copyright. The work must be creative and original.

Yes effort alone is not enough, the definition of when a collection is substantive enough to grant copyright is a bit complicated.

You can read about the legal criteria for a collection to be substantial enough to be allowed copyright here, but it is clearly stated that collections are themselves copyrightable:

https://copyright.gov/eco/help-collective-work.html

@vwbusguy