Thanks for the links. They were highly informative.

True, and in the present case, there were some patrons of the bar who were actually wounded by police weapons as well. Mostly this happened as they were emerging from the hole that the police just blew into the wall of the building, and during the attempts to escape from the madman, they were shot at as they tried to escape.

It is instructive to look at the holes remaining in that wall, as well. They teach us that we are responsible for every bullet until it comes to rest. Yet some of those, hitting at ground level or near roof level, could not have been accurately fired, or even aimed. The term "spray and pray" is used when you are outnumbered and you have a target-rich environment. But these cops were presumably aiming at a single individual, with a rifle to identify him, and yet they hit more innocents than anything else.

So what if a bunch of people inside the club were to have done the same thing? Does it make it any less lethal if it is the cops doing it?

(pic at http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/2016... and more about friendly fire here http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now...

I read it but did not comment.
I agree with everything he said.

Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy Seals Lead and Win by Jocko Williams and Leif Babin, St. Martin's Press, 2015.

If I had checked the premises, I might have found the perp hiding in the bushes. Again, my bad....

Thanks for the detailed answer. I understand the first part about how words change. I think odor used to me neutral like Spanish olor, but now it mean a bad odor. Smell may be going the same way. I also think this has happened with retarded, which I think was not offensive in my parents time, was a joke when I was a kid, and is now nearly a curse word for my kids. At the same time, SOB and GD were a severe curses for me as a kid but not my kids.

So I get how language changes over time and region, but I do not see the sinister aspect of this. It seems to me people already assign value to thinks and the words are just markers of that.

The thing you suggest reminds me of Newspeak in 1984, but I don't see that happening. I don't see words being consolidated and simplified.

I do not understand what you're saying about "Make America Great Again" as it relates to PC. It seems like a straightforward thing for politicians to say. Someone said President Clinton and other politicians have used it.

"he expresses the underlying frustration felt by the people who do not see the emotional connection to a term or word,"
I don't get why people would vote differently just because of a word. There must be more going on. To me "retarded" doesn't sound as offensive to me as retarded, but I'm not looking for a candidate who uses the word.

" the "PC Programmed" crowd is much larger than the "Honest slogan" crowd"
I don't see any difference between "honest slogan" and "PC programmed". In either case it sounds like their putting too much focus on language.

Even in the one example you give, of questioning someone's impartiality based on their being Mexican, sounds like the wild-card straw man. Rational people would have to verify the Mexican in question is indeed Mexican and determine if the issue at hand is related to Mexico. Of course as you say the wild card can be played either way. "I reject the PC argument that this person is impartial." "Only in your PC narrative is this person biased." It's like they're too lazy to formulate a real straw man.

I appreciate your trying to explain it. I didn't mean to be snide about the wild card thing. I'm sort of doing the same straw man thing I criticize by creating a guess of what PC means when I really don't understand. I can still recall when I first heard the word in 1990, but it was because I was alone with a girl looking at magazines; I don't remember anything of what the article said.

I could care less if someone is of a different race. So I am not a racist and never have been

But the culture in which a person is raised has long lasting and deep effects on their behavior in my experience, anyway

There are elements of cultures that are good and bad, and some are bad enough to stay away from. ( discriminate against). So I would describe myself as a culturist. For example, I don't like the entitled culture today of the young blacks (and whites too for that matter). I don't want to live around them and I don't want to sell to them or hire them.
So I am politically incorrect when it comes to a lot of blacks today, especially after Obama has coddled them into entitlement at my expense. There are so many now that initially I tend to initially equate black with arrogance and entitlement. Big deal. It's a numbers game in our huge society. If I avoid all blacks, I will miss out on some black people but I correctly identify a lot more that I wouldn't want to deal with

Obama is a prime example of someone I want nothing to do with- an arrogant, petulant and entitled, brat in my view

My point was that it is a tool used to manipulate people into thinking something that is defined is not as defined. My example is the use of "negro". A word meant and used to define a person of a specific dark skin color and specific physical attributes:

From merriams:
Negro adjective sometimes offensive
negroid play \ˈnē-ˌgrȯid\ adjective or noun often capitalized sometimes offensive
Negroness play -grō-nəs\ noun sometimes offensive

Yet "black" (same source):
a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : swarthy b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin (2) : of or relating to the African-American people or their culture (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture

The terms describe the same thing, exactly. Yet one is pejorative, the other is not. Why? Who determined that? The political class did, in concert with people who felt oppressed and were trying to destroy anything associated with that oppression. Yet other terms (the infamous "n word") are used by the same people, and accepted, but if someone else uses it, it is not.

Groups are manipulated by small groups to use words as hot button triggers for some action. MLK used the term "negro" as it had always been used, yet never did I hear of him saying it was "offensive". Instead, a group of people who wanted power ascribe offense to it in the late 60's after he was killed, and made it into "offensive". PC is all about manipulation of meaning, and assigning YOUR value to it, to incite an emotional response, whether warranted or not. It is a tool used by people who want to control others, and employ a form of powerr and violence on them, so they HAVE to give in and cave to their demands. As soon as a term enters into the PC realm, that group is immediately granted legitimacy, and can proceed with their agenda. That was why it started to grow from the 60's on. It became a way to manipulate and control opinion and induce power in the group supposedly "offended". This is a root reason for Donald Trumps success, he expresses the underlying frustration felt by the people who do not see the emotional connection to a term or word, and thus do not participate in the "PC" world. They are self appointed realists, who will believe their own observations and develop their own opinions and not care about the manipulation. I also see some skew to the "PC" world with some of their actions but they rely on the emotional slogan tool, "Make America Great Again" to drive their emotional button pushing. In fact, Trump turns the PC thing around and uses it to retaliate oon those who go after him, and it works sometimes, and not others (such as the Mexican thing). I think it will end badly for him, as I think the "PC Programmed" crowd is much larger than the "Honest slogan" crowd, and will be easily persuaded that HillaryBeasts criminal acts, incompetence, corruption and general low lifeness, is better than someone who offends the gods by calling someone "Mexican" and questions their impartiality. After all, the vast majority of America knows if you cannot speak civilly and correctly, with proper deference to every easily offended person, you are not worth defecatory output variation.

"I just dislike the way PC is used today to not call a spade a spade for fear of upsetting someone."
I have seen this behavior. I don't call it "PC", but I really oppose that thing where we create safe spaces free of disagreement. At first I thought it wasn't real, but I've seen some signs of it.

Also, if someone is offended by "ace erasure" or "otherkin hate", I find that amusing. They can excuse my insensitivity b/c I'm over 40. :)

"Political correctness has never had any concrete meaning"
This is a very good point. In the 90s it meant not saying "handicapped", but rather "disabled", "differently-abled" or "challenged" if you're super-PC. Term was talking about PC meaning not calling religious people on the carpet for the actions of extremists who say they act in the name of religion. I strongly believe in not doing that for many reasons that maybe merit a new thread.

My opinion the 90s PC is pointless b/c eventually the PC word comes to mean the old word. If you associated "challenged" with someone whose legs don't function, what's the difference what it's called. It's also someone insulting to people who have a disability to suggest we need to invent special language to describe it.

My opinion on the modern PC is it's the wild-card straw man. You don't actually have to think of a straw man to refute. You can say, "We need to stop being PC and [insert some policy here.]"

In one case above PC meant "pluralism." So while the PC wild card is being played as "pluralism", I'm a huge supporter of it.

CG, I am confused. I have been around a wee while and I have never heard of anything called "political correctness" beyond the mindless use of terminology approved by a small group of people who, when not satisfied, will scream and yell and kick, until they get their way. I see the Obamanation as PC personified (and you can add the whole cabal that hang out with him). They do not give a tinkers damn about the people, as long as they "comply". And that compliance is to call a turd a "defecatory relational object". Political correctness has never had any concrete meaning, it has always been a variable value based on whatever power creature is thinking they are in control. So, please explain what "Political Correctness" you are speaking of in support? This would actually make a very good thread in Philosophy.

Dino, go look up the post I did with Howard Stern on gun control and how he views it, I think you are right in line with his logic as well.

Absolutely!
(My power has been out since roughly 3 PM central time).

A very scary scenario, Dino, but you are correct.

You know, here's another thought on that neighborhood I went through. The so-called free people had to lock themselves behind bars while the thugs ran free as they pleased. Something wrong with that by my reckoning.

Edit add: I happen to notice that many of those "oh so wise more than equal elite betters" have armed security personnel protecting them at all times. Maybe their disarmament programs should start with those closest to them.

And our oh so wise more than equal elite betters think disarming everyone will solve the crime and terrorism problems.
Imagine the home invasions that even bars won't even then stop.
I recall a news photo I took of a hole in a cinder block wall when I was a reporter for seven years during the 70s. A thief found a way past a drug store's entrance security system with a simple sledgehammer.
Sledgehammers and cutting tools will be all gangs of thugs will need to get at families without firearms.
Why would a gang need a single gun in that scenario?

"... I find it grating." Agreed, CircuitGuy, I do to. However, on rare occasions, I will take on someone who strikes me as being deliberately nasty and I have the time to give them a hard time in hopes to make them think. Just to be clear, I am NOT fencing with MikeMarotta here. I believe he is a nice person who is genuinely trying to convey some truth as he sees it. I just don't agree and offered what I figured to be a prime example to illustrate my point. Hey, maybe I'm missing his point, but I don't currently think so.

THANK YOU for the link to the monostable multivibrator. That is exactly what was on my mind but just couldn't remember the details or the name (don't get old, it sucks). I am polling as you guessed because the SBC being used does not have an interrupt available. I wish it did. The train speed is unknown and the wheel separation car to car is variable - sort of. Actually, there are two prox switches and train speed is determined by the timing of a given wheel moving between them. There's a lot going on in the code, but at the appropriate moments it is dedicated to the digital inputs and they can be easily "scanned" and checked in less than 4 milliseconds. I can speed that up a bit, but isn't worth the trouble at this time. Theoretically, the system as coded should be able to handle train speeds up to 40mph but I believe the prox switch inputs will fail before that. The track it's being tested on right now will never have a train that fast so it's not a problem, but I want to be ready for future installations.

A few other individuals suffered the same fate as me and as far as I know the perps were never caught. There was a time in my neighborhood I could go out and forget to lock my doors and not worry as well as forget to lock my vehicles at night and not worry. Now I must not forget such things as well as having to install an alarm system and security cameras in my home. Times have changed.

A quick story: Some years back I had a contract to do some coding for the Chevron refinery just north of Oakland, California. Some local workers took me out to lunch one afternoon and we drove through what appeared to be a very nice working class neighborhood. Nice ranch homes, lawns, flower gardens, etc. Except I noticed all the houses had bars (decorative as possible) over all the windows and doors. I asked my hosts what kind of "style" was that and the answer I got back was the gangs and criminals own the area after dark and the people have to protect themselves as best they can. Free America, huh? Things aren't the same as they used to be in my neighborhood, but I hope they don't get that bad.

" With all due respect, I don't do "pointless attacks". [...] I'll fence with them just for the sport of it."
This doesn't agree with me. I don't mind other people thinking it's sporting, but I find it grating.

"I'm the software engineer and I have written some very "tight" code, but it isn't fast enough. "
It sounds like you're polling and don't have the option of making it a hardware interrupt. You need a one-shot circuit. http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/w...

Another thought I have is to use aliasing: that's the thing where when your sampling rate is < 2 * freq (Nyquist criterion), and you see a signal that looks like a difference between the actual signal and the sampling rate because of the way the samples line up. If you know the train speed and the wheel separation (big ifs), could you set a sampling rate so you're guaranteed to sample when at least one wheel is on the sensor?

I see what you're saying when I consider an extreme case like laving cash or gold in plain sight on my front patio. It's not excusing the crime or blaming the victim to say I could have done more to prevent it.

I suspect many victims and perpetrators are involved in crime because they're involved in an underground enterprise like undocumented labor, drugs, or the sex trade. When a problem occurs, they have to solve it themselves. They don't have the option of calling the police.

Those punks who beat you up deserve prison time as punishment.
Not FOR punishment. AS punishment.
That is what I was taught at the Alabama Department of Corrections Academy in Selma, Alabama, during the eight week class of "'82-2."
As they are being punished, there are rehabilitation programs available.
Of course there are those who learn nothing and return to prison.
I saw that many times for 21 years. At least they were off the streets decent people walk one.

I'm nonplussed by how deeply ingrained into your psyche you have accepted a blame the victim mentality. A thieving criminal robs your employer and you blame yourself. Check your premises.

Hi CircuitGuy. With all due respect, I don't do "pointless attacks". They always have a point to illustrate the topic or to encourage the reader to think more clearly of what they may have written or what I am trying to convey. Sometimes I use sarcasm, humor, and even a smattering of hyperbole, but there is always a point. If I ever go too far and am called on it, I will admit it, and usually apologize if I really screwed up. However, I have gotten involved in conversation with individuals that are so nasty and arrogant, I'll fence with them just for the sport of it.

OK, with all that said, I have a totally off topic question for you. You've mentioned in other posts that you enjoy working with electronic circuits. I haven't studied digital electronics since the '80s and I have an interesting problem I know there is a solution for, but it escapes me at this time. I'm short on time right now so without going into the story as to all the 'what fors" here's a simple illustration of the problem: Imagine I have to detect railroad wheels going down a track. There is a proximity detector built into the track and is eventually input to a digital input of a simple computer system. The prox has some hysteresis, but signals from a fast train can be missed. The problem probably has a number of causes, but the main cause I believe is the signal becomes "faster" than the computer can detect it. I'm the software engineer and I have written some very "tight" code, but it isn't fast enough. I recall from my past studies a device or circuit can be had to receive a fast input pulse but latch up its output for a longer time. That is, if I can get a device or circuit than can receive a (hypothetically) 100 micro-sec pulse and hold its output high for 5 to 10 milliseconds, that would fix the hardware end of the problem. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

"... punishing them achieves nothing." I disagree. You have not offered a viable solution other than increasing the burden on the victim to not be a victim.

I've been a victim of the criminal minded in several ways, but I chose to use the "beating" scenario in my example above because I have been gang beaten for simply walking down the street on an otherwise beautiful day. Never saw it coming.

Ten years ago, the Ann Arbor area had a serial rapist-murderer. Having been enrolled at EMU, he was a topic in criminology. (For one thing, there was no rule allowing the school to expel him for his crimes.) He stalked his victims like any predator. In one case, he dropped out of a tree onto his victim. You cannot blame the targets. They were innocent and not involved with him in any way.

On the other hand, police reports show that many victims are repeat targets. The same people fall for different frauds, for instance. Clearly, some other dynamic is at work.

Similarly, we do not excuse domestic violence, but solving it requires working with both the batterer and his victim. Both must be healed to break the cycle of violence that otherwise will be passed on to another generation.

There's a scene in The Fountainhead where Gus Webb and the bad guys are bitching about Howard Roark. "You're just mad because he doesn't notice you." "He'd notice me if I bashed his head in with a club." "No he wouldn't. He would just blame himself for not getting out of the way of the club."

Long decades ago, I got a job as a dispatcher for a trucking company in my neighborhood. One night, instead of making the bank drop, I locked up the office, went home to shower and change and came to back to finish the bills of lading. When I came back, the cash was gone. The place was old; locks or not, it was a sieve. Blame the thief if you want, I did not. It was my fault.

Exactly!