16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

none of those are racial groups

Only when they serve serve your purpose? 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

It's one thing to say that you hate a certain genre of music and don't listen to it. OTOH, I have neither seen nor do I expect to see anyone who dislikes classical music or jazz suggest that it is absolutely terrible or make ridiculous outlandish statements equating either to "an indicator of the decline of western civilization".

 

Enough already with the silly hyperbole!

Enough already with this entire stupid thread! It serves no purpose. 

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, Sonicularity said:

 

It has been entertaining, which is good enough for me.

I'm glad somebody enjoyed it, because I wasn't one of them!

[gmgraves]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

hardly - there is only a single extant race of humans

Ah, You're one of those! Actually, I agree with you, but most people still think along the lines of Mongol, Caucasian, Negro, and French ?. But in the context that I was asked the question: "What if someone postulated that one race was smarter than another?" My answer was appropriate. 

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Ah, I'm one of those scientists. 

 

The results were incontrovertible in the 1970s based on electrophoretic data; subsequently confirmed by ripping apart DNA.

 

You can say "ethnic groups" and be more accurate.

 

or make fun of different countries or regions...

Yes I'm aware of that. There is absolutely no biological basis for the concept of race. And the term "ethnic groups" is as much cultural as biological. Maybe someday general usage will catch-up with anthropological usage but that day doesn't seem to with us yet. When one fills out a form, one is apt to still see a blank labeled "Race?". At least some allow you to decline to answer. I generally say "Yes; for pink slips*?"

 

*For those of non American location, a Pink Slip is American vernacular for car, motorbike or boat title.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

no, the Duke is dead

Hey! Let's not disparage the Duke. He was and remains my favorite movie star and I don't give a shit about his or any other Hollywood types politics. Good thing too because some of them are really bizarre!?

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

Perhaps he meant the Duke of Windsor, who was widely reputed to have Nazi sympathies?

Perhaps he did, but I would have thought that he would have said the Duke of Windsor or Perhaps just Edward Windsor. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

And for a notice of dismissal from employment!

Not in this context. 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes. Race is a fake concept that exists only in the minds of humans. No one can clearly define where one race ends and another begins. It is a human cultural concept, not a biological one.
We are all mixes of various genetic backgrounds. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that is "pure" anything. 

OK, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "fake concept", but it's just not a biological one. You can look at the DNA of any number of people from around the world, and if you didn't know exactly where to look, you'd never spot the differences, because we are more alike than different. In fact, there is so little difference, that apparently, a white man (for example) might have more in common, genetically, with an oriental than with another white man (so I've read. I'm far from an expert here). 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

For any sizable group of humans, it will virtually always be true that there will be greater variation within the group than among the averages of the groups. That's pretty much just math. 

 

For example, there is far more height difference between the tallest and shortest woman than between the average woman and average man. 

Interesting. I didn't know that. But now that you mention it, yes, It has to be that way. Thanks. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Close, but not really...

 

Races are real and race means a sub-species.  This reality is not diminished because it is more difficult to find the boundary than between full species.

 

Scientists do not designate races (sub-species) in extant humans because the genetic diversity between individuals is so large (> 80% of the total) as compared with any sub-species one might designate.

No matter how divide it, Most of humanity seems to accept the premise that race is a real, physical concept. Daily on the news you hear about "racial tensions" and the effect of race in America and how the "racial demographic" in Europe is changing due to the influx of black Africans and Middle Eastern peoples from Syria, Turkey and Iraq.   

[gmgraves]

22 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Are 'subjectivists' one of these so called sub-species then?

As are objectivists. I've always thought that this was a silly way to subdivide audiophiles. I don't think that I fall securely into either camp. I am an electronic engineer and I realize how important measurements can be. I know for instance that a lot of things that so-called subjectivists say that they hear is simply impossible, yet when I review something for the magazine, I rarely do any measurements, and my impressions of an audio component is fully based on what I hear and is described in those terms. When I buy a new piece of equipment, be it electronic (amps, DACs CD players, etc.) or electro-mechanical (speakers, phonograph cartridges, microphones) I go by how they sound. While with the latter group I might peruse the specs (to see what a cartridge might track at, for instance, or to determine whether its resonance point will be below 11 Hz so as to be compatible with my tone-arm or to avoid a rising top end.) still and all, I go by the sound of these devices as well. So what am I, a subjectivist or an objectivist? I find the two subdivisions of an audiophile to be largely irrelevant and mostly pejorative.

[gmgraves]

14 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

No I don't accept that race is a real physical concept. The news stories you refer to are consequences of racism, they certainly don't prove the 'race is a real concept'.

It's not a real biological concept, but it remains a social concept based largely on physical appearance and what the individual wants to think of themselves as being. For instance, I have an acquaintance who will tell you he's a negro even though he is as white as a Scandinavian and has no negro physiological features. When asked why he refers to himself that way, he says it's because his great grandfather was a black man.  It's quite true that governments and the media use it to gauge demographics among other things. Even my current driver's license has a category for race on it as did my former CA driver's license. Most government forms both state and federal ask for the race of the person filling out the form. I'm afraid that as s civilization we are some ways from eliminating the concept altogether, but someday, I suspect, it will cease to be an issue. 

[gmgraves]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

That's true.  It is what the liberal arts profs. call "socially constructed."

 

But while race (subspecies) is a valid concept for animals and plants ("varieties") there is only a single race left in Homo sapiens.  The now extinct neanderthals were either a separate species or separate sub-species (besides gettin' it on with the Denisovians) and did get it on with modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) hence the traces of their DNA in modern human popns.

 

But despite the "large numbers" and "many, many" who believe one thing or another, we don't do science by consensus.

Well we know now that it is a social construct, but that knowledge is relatively recent. It will take some time to completely assimilate into the social zeitgeist.

You might be conflating race and species Ralf11.  Homo Sapiens is a species, not a race. We are in fact the only species left in our genus (hominids) but not in our family (primates). Even though we are often referred to as the "human race", it is, biologically a misnomer. It is now believed that European and Asian cro-magnon man assimilated the neanderthal, meaning that neanderthal was not a separate species as was once believed, but a subspecies according to the definition of a species, which is that when two members of the same species mate, they produce viable offspring. In other words the offspring can mate and produce offspring that can also reproduce. An example of near-species mating is the mule. The offspring of a donkey and a horse, mules are sterile. The two species are close enough genetically  to mate together and produce one generation of offspring, but that's a far as it goes. 

Race as a concept, on the other hand, has evolved. For millennia the concept of race was and is used to describe regional physiological differences between groups of humans. But until recently, it was believed that these physiological differences were believed to bespeak less superficial differences than than skin color, eye shape, nose shape, etc. We now know that this is biologically, the extent of those differences and they, themselves were the result of natural selection over many generations and nothing more. Perceived differences in intelligence or degree of civilization are wholly cultural. For thousands of years, Europeans considered negroes sub-human because they seemed to not be of sufficient intelligence to understand European concepts such as literacy, art, or technology. Some people, to this day, still feel this way. While some of it was an excuse for slavery, it was largely true that African negroes had sub-normal IQ's when compared to Europeans, and most Asians because they had a culture that did not require a lot of intellect to be successful. We know now that given an IQ test designed for people who are illiterate, negro tribesmen and women do show average IQs in the 60s and 70's compared to the average European. But here comes the big anthropological surprise. When these tribes people are given formal schooling, their IQ's quickly rise to that of the average European! Now some suspect that this is because the IQ tests designed for Illiterates is flawed, because the average IQ of the Chinese, for instance, is somewhat higher than that of the general European (that includes Americans of European descent BTW) population. It is obvious that this area requires a lot more study. But it's difficult when the prevailing social environment tends to regard any inquiry into socio-ethnic differences as racist and therefore politically incorrect (in my estimation a stupid and generally destructive social construct, seemingly designed to curb various freedoms). 

[gmgraves]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

You will not find that in Europe.

Until fairly recently, the homogeneity of Europe made it unnecessary. 

[gmgraves]

38 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Yes, I agree it is unfortunate that racist ideas are so deeply embedded in some people's personal views, particularly in the USA, and the way the driver's licenses in America appear to be categorised in terms of these discredited racist ideas.

I suspect it is done not for racist motives but to keep track of changing demographics and possibly to add one more layer of abstraction to the process of individual identification. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

An identical twin to your friend would call himself white in a different culture or place

Well, that's kind of my point...

 

5 hours ago, firedog said:

The fact that the US is obsessed with race and it's historic legacy of racism and it appears on government documents also doesn't make it real. It makes it a social construct based on a fiction.

Certainly. But, until the the late 1980's when the human genome project was completed, nobody knew for sure that race was a socio-economic and a socio-ethnic construct and not a biological distinction. There were many who suspected it, but suspicion is not proof. 

[gmgraves]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:38 AM, firedog said:

It's a social concept based on a fiction and a false understanding. Your friend can believe whatever he wants, that doesn't make it true. An identical twin to your friend would call himself white in a different culture or place - because it is a social concept; and how people see it changes with time and culture - irrespective of the individual's actual genetics. 

The fact that the US is obsessed with race and it's historic legacy of racism and it appears on government documents also doesn't make it real. It makes it a social construct based on a fiction.

It's real enough when people kill each other over it and and one or more ethnicities are considered "the criminal class" in a society so that all are lumped together and assumed to be up to be up to no good irrespective of what they do or who they are. An example of this is a black actor named Levar Burton (Kintekuta in Roots, Geordie La Forge in Star Trek Next Generation) He had just bought himself a new Ferrari and was driving from Southern California to Northern California when he was stopped by the CA Highway Patrol, not because he was speeding, or reckless driving, but because a black man in a new Ferrari "looked suspicious". When burton showed the police paperwork establishing that he was, indeed, the legal registered owner of the Ferrari, the Police arrested him anyway on suspicion of drug trafficking!.The incident was resolved at the police station when he was recognized, but do you think that he would have even been stopped had he been a white man in that Ferrari?. Yet that kind of thing happens all the time. Don't tell me that the concept of race is a fiction, tell society at large.

[gmgraves]

On 9/5/2018 at 7:23 PM, diecaster said:

 

I think this is made up. I cannot find any mention of this anywhere on Google. Do you have a reference?

I recall reading it in the San Jose (CA) Mercury-News paper, for sure.  I also recall it being on TV news as well. It must have been in the late 70's when it occurred, so this would have been before STNG. I called a friend of mine and now that I mention it, he recalls the incident as well (for whatever that's worth). 

[gmgraves]

On 9/7/2018 at 4:15 PM, mansr said:

In any encounter with police, TSA, or anyone with such authority, I try to be calm and cooperative within reason. If you've somehow attracted their attention, reacting with hostility is a bad idea, even if you have the right to. The sooner they are convinced you're not a danger, the better.

I don't live in CA any more where the "lefties" who run the state are forever curtailing freedoms, raising taxes, and making traffic fines more and more draconian. I now live in a "red" state where the attitude is live and let live and the cops mostly leave motorists alone. 

But I remember when I did live in CA, the cops would set up road blocks on many occasions (especially around holidays) looking for drunk drivers. This is of course, highly illegal. Cops really need "probable cause" to stop motorists and the laws are written that way. But they do it anyway. This rubs my Libertarian sensibilities the wrong way, so when I found myself in one of these drunk driver dragnets, I started using the following ploy: They ask me for my drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, and while I'm retrieving these, I ask the cop for his probable cause for stopping me (that's YOUR right any time you're stopped). The cop usually answered "We're stopping every one sir - looking for drunk drivers." That's when I pulled this: "Officer, I am law professor at Stanford University" (of course,I'm not)"and I specialize as an expert in both California and Federal Constitutional law. I am telling you right now that what you are doing is illegal and "we're stopping everyone" is NOT acceptable probable cause. So you either wave me through without further delay, or you're city is going to have a law suit on it's hands." Many times, the cop would respond with ignorance and "I'm just doing what I was told to do." and often would call over a superior to deal with me. I would repeat my little speech and add: " Have you not heard of Miranda, officer, or Escovedo?" "Well yes," answered the cop. "Then you know what I am saying is correct! You have no right to stop people en masse without probable cause." Then they let me go without further ado. I might add, that since I never drink and drive, I have no reason to fear these Gestapo tactics (sort of my "These aren't the 'droids you're looking for" ploy  ). 

It didn't always work, at confusing the fuzz, but it did enough times to make that spiel a permanent part of my driving repertoire! It probably takes longer this way than if I just let the cop do his job, but it's more fun this way. If you let authorities get away with abusing the system, you'll find the system taking more and liberties until you suddenly feel like you're living in a police state. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

According to this article, they are legal under federal law and only illegal in the 11 states that have passed laws to specifically prohibit:

 

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

 

 

I'm not 100% sure about this (and neither, apparently, are the CA police) but I believe that the CA State Constitution prohibits police from stopping motorists without what they call "probable cause". Now probable cause can be interpreted as anything from the cops searching for a green sedan used in a recent felony (and you happen to be driving a green sedan) to you having a burned-out tail-light. But it is obvious that stopping everybody is not a legitimate probable cause. But the fun I had with them is based on the police themselves not being sure of the law. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Whatever the legal situation, I don't have a problem with cops looking for drunk drivers.

Neither do I. I have called the cops myself when I see somebody in another car driving erratically. You can usually tell. But stopping ordinary, law abiding citizens and delaying them from their legal business, rankles my Libertarian sensibilities as I said. I live in Nevada now, and it's a funny state. The northern part of the state is very conservative while the Las Vegas area is very liberal. Up here, one can legally carry firearms on one's person, there is no state income tax, and police are actually helpful. I had a tire failure on the freeway a couple of years ago. I pulled off onto a very narrow shoulder a Nevada state trouper pulled up behind me, appraised the situation and quietly got tools and a floor jack out of the back of his FORD SUV, and started to try and change my tire for me. But it was 5 PM, and traffic was heavy and the offending tire was mere inches from the outside lane. The officer told me that he couldn't get the leverage to get the tire off without actually stepping into the oncoming traffic. So he put his tools away asked me to get in the police vehicle where the air-conditioning could keep us cool (it was 95 degrees outside) and he then put in a call to the Nevada Highway Patrol's service truck. When they showed-up, they hooked my car up to the tuck lifted the front of my car off the road and towed it to a service station at the next exit where the service truck calmly removed the shredded tire and replaced it with my spare. No charge. The officer stayed with me until the job was done. This may be more common that I think, but I will tell you that after living almost my entire life in CA, I was flabbergasted. The CA Highway Patrol would never do anything like that. The best you'd get out of them is that they would call a tow truck for you (one that you have to pay for)! By the way. In the Las Vegas area, They do set-up road blocks to screen for drunk drivers, here in the Reno area, they don't, but if they catch you drunk driving you are in deep doo-doo anywhere in the state. 

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What I find odd is that these cops did not have full trust in the orders of their superiors.  

Well, they may have had full trust in their orders, but I think the point here is that they didn't know for sure whether they were on a firm legal footing. To avoid any misunderstanding here, these are always city cops, not CHP. I'ver never heard of the CHP setting up a drunk-driving dragnet. Also, just because I was able to confound some of the cops with my bullshit, doesn't mean that they closed-up shop after I went through the checkpoint. They did not - ever. 

One interesting point about the CHP, is that until fairly recently, they were enjoined by CA law from using radar to catch speeders! It was considered not "sporting". The  Legislature changed that a few years ago, though. IN CA (after the 1960's), money drives politics, not the needs of the people.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

George it is a crime to give false info to a police officer.  It may be a felony in some states.  You were very lucky.

Nah, I was fairly safe. There was really no way for the cops to check my bonafides at a street-level drunk check at 10:00PM to 1:00AM on a Friday or Saturday night, especially over the holidays. 

 

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Oregon has a statute that a police officer must immediately explain the reason for a traffic stop.  Widely violated by the city cops here.

 

In many small towns and cities, the "local cops" are little better trained than Andy and Barney in Mayberry. It doesn't surprise me that such a statute is widely violated

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

usually, state cops will be better educated and better trained than a city cop or a sheriff's deputy; only an FBI agent will be required to have a law degree...

Like I said.... But not all FBI agents have law degrees these days, although in the early days, I believe that Hoover required it. 

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Between 10 and 20% of FBI agents have either accounting or law degrees.

That's my understanding as well.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

George, it took less than a minute with Google to come up with numerous examples showing that you’re not the one to come to seeking legal advice. 

 

https://www.wklaw.com/dui-checkpoints-legal-california/

That's nice. But I never said anything about the 4th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. My reasoning is based upon the California "probable cause" law. I know that I said that I posed as a California Constitutional law Professor at Stanford, but frankly, I didn't know whether that statute was a CA Constitutional Amendment of just part of the state vehicle code. I was just assuming that those city cops didn't know either (and it looks like they didn't). I do know that the police need probable cause to stop a motorist as covered by VEH 2900.1, Article one. To whit: "The officer may only stop and inspect where said officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle is being operated in violation" (of the Vehicle Code).  To me, road blocks to catch drunk drivers are in clear violation of that rule. The fact that the state waives that rule in this case, just shows me that any authority in this country may change the laws to suit themselves and the people be damned! Now, I have no problem with any crackdown on drunk driving and as I said in an earlier post, I have called-in to authorities when I see a car that is obviously being driven by someone intoxicated. If a cop sees the same activity, to me that constitutes enough probable cause for that officer to stop that car. But road blocks no! A citizen has to stand up for his rights, not meekly submit to authority just because THEY ARE AUTHORITY. Know your rights and stand up for them. Any other course leads a police state, and when you get to that point it's too late.