ISP Information:
The largest size of a data packet that can be sent over a TCP/IP or other packet- or frame-based network. Ethernet uses an MTU of 1,500 bytes, while the standard Internet MTU is 576 bytes. Using a higher MTU is recommended for fast networks, while slower or more congested networks need a smaller MTU, as there is a greater chance that not all of the packet will make it through in one shot. Of course, using a small MTU on
ISP Glossary:
MTU - The story, "Dad, Teen Track Gun Use" reaches unsupported conclusions,but gets front-page coverage anyway.By Alan Korwin, AuthorGun Laws of AmericaIn a nutshell:An ASU professor and his young son counted some newspaper stories ongun use, and from this concluded that guns are rarely used in selfdefense. The results of this "research" appeared on the front page of"The Tribune" (Arizona) and is being published in the Canadian journal"Injury Prevention." The results, declared scientific by theprofessor, were said to cast doubt on a famous scholarly study (Kleck,1995) that found guns are used constantly in self defense. The fatherand son conclude that perhaps guns should be sold, "without bullets."My open letter to Prof. Fabricius (and ASU leaders, the newspaperbrass and the journal editor) appears below. The original storyappears at the end for reference, after some devastating remarksexchanged candidly by the reporter, another contact at "The Tribune,"and myself.Alan.May 6, 2004From: BLOOMFIELD PRESS4718 E. Cactus #440Phoenix, AZ 85032gunlaws.comOffice 602-996-4020Fax 602-494-0679Sales 1-800-707-4020To: Associate Professor William FabriciusDept. of PsychologyArizona State UniversityP.O. Box 871104Tempe, AZ 85287-1104Dear Professor Fabricius,I was dismayed to read the recent story in "The Tribune" about you,your son, and your tabulation of old newspaper stories, presented as ascientific study of guns used in self defense in America.It's hard to believe that no one in the editing chain saw the obviouserrors in the tale, "Teen, Dad Track Gun Use" (4/8/04). I'm sorry toinform you that you have merely tracked the story selection choices ofthe newspaper, not the use of firearms in American life. The storyreflects an unfortunate and embarrassing lack of judgment.Although you declared in the story that the work was scientific, it isclearly anything but that. The concept is flawed, the sampleunrepresentative, and the published conclusion is literallypreposterous. It is a glaring instance of what is meant by the term,"junk science."Perhaps an example will help illuminate the problem.Can you imagine conducting a similar "study" that finds most blackpeople are either criminals, entertainers or sports figures, based onan analysis of blacks who are covered in the paper? It is toooutrageous to consider! Can you then see how similarly flawed yourfather-and-son project was, as far as meaningful research goes?Can you see how the newspaper's non-critical retelling of thisnonsense, with no counterpoint whatsoever, is biased and derogatory?Every ethical tenet of journalism and scholarship requires a prominentcorrection. I understand how difficult this is, but admitting theerrors is the honorable course and it is the best choice. Your mistakehas been detected, acknowledge it, and move on.Although your child is quoted as saying: "Almost nobody uses theirguns in self-defense," the only accurate statement he could have madefrom the research described by reporter Marija Potkonjak is that"almost no stories about using guns in self defense appeared in thenewspaper clippings I collected when I was 12 years old, six yearsago." While it is clever that you spent time to track down judicialresolutions of those shoot-em-up stories, that is no substitute for,and does not mitigate, using such an egregiously biased sample.This misrepresentation harms a huge segment of the body politic thatexercise their civil right to keep and bear arms. It is typical of akind of endemic bias that observers have noted for many years. By anymeasure it is a great enough deception to warrant a prominentcorrection to the front-page Tribune story.People who unfortunately hate guns and gun owners -- and there aremany of them out there, paradoxically thinking of themselves as beyondhate -- no doubt loved your story, took heart in its unsupportedconclusions, and will retell it. They have been misled. Your reportfalsely denigrates cherished rights Americans have, and have alwayshad.You have exposed, and are a victim of, a situation
|
