Slashdot Mirror
MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable
Briefs defending Grokster's right to exist were filed yesterday in MGM v. Grokster, from Intel, Creative Commons [PDF], and many others. Among them, 17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based." Pointedly, the EFF compares this case's arguments to those made over 20 years ago in the Betamax case, which established the public's right to use video-copying technology, because of its "substantial non-infringing uses," even though many used videotape to infringe copyright. We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software: the Supreme Court takes this up on March 29th.
This is why I bang my head on the wall so much when I hear people get completely wrong simple things which really aren't technical, yet appear to excuse their manglings as acceptable because only wizards with great intellects can fathom it. Probably has a lot to do with the same mentality which says, "it's ok to give up some of my rights in these trying times, it's for the good of the country."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Save the children! The Supreme Court is out to kill children, so it's safe to assume that they're also out to make mistakes in their rulings.
2. Corporate lobbyists are always in the Supreme Court telling the justices how to rule, and the justices rule as the lobbyists tell them to.
3. The sky is green.
No, it's not the right to execute children. 44% said that is ok to execute people who committed these crimes as children. There is a huge difference. In Arizona, there are 4 inmates who now won't be executed. They all are now in their late 20's and early 30's. They are incarcerated for crimes they committed when they were not yet 18. I am not advocating capital punishment at all, but I do think that you should understand what was decided.
All we need is a P2P BitTorrent and it will do away the need for torrent hosting sites like LokiTorrent and SuperNova
fuvoo: watch something
I'm curious to see what the results would be if this issue were put to the popular vote.
- I got my free iPod and a free Nintendo DS....why not
P2P has been established as a useful technology. Nobody is denying this. Nobody wants it to be banned (at least they're not officially).
Grokster is an application of P2P technology that appears to exist to allow people to swap copyrighted files without permission.
They are not the same thing. MGM just wants Grokster and StreamCast banned. Not P2P itself!
This isn't true. Four of the nine justices were of the opinion that it is not unconstitutional to sentance minors to the death penalty, this doesn't mean that those justices believe that it is fine to execute children. It is the justices' duty to make decisions based on their interpretations of the constitution and laws, not based on their personal opinions. For evidenece of this, look at their decision in the Flag-burning case (I'm too lazy to look up the name of the case). Justice Scalia, who is opposed to flag burning, was the swing vote in the case which upheld our right to burn the US flag. If you ever get the chance to hear him speak, ask him about the case and he'll tell you that it was one of the toughest decisions he had ever made on the court at the time.
the first is a moral issue, which has little bering on corporate profits (except the sick little monkeys in the execute-minors-industry). This case has to do with fear. Fear of losing control of 'properties'* and fighting tooth and nail (and no small amount of kicking under the table) to strangle consumption of their goods. Get the crap out there in volumes and at fair prices and pirates will be a thing of the past. Withhold it and then even rip off consumers with alleged-Widescreen (cropped from pan-and-scan) and you get those around the cracks and seams who will provide for themselves.
*most of which should have fallen into the public domain, by now, including a well known mouse caricature.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Oral arguments in this case will be held March 29. I am strongly considering making the trip up to DC for this one, especially since it's on a day when I only have one class and, frankly, MGM v. Grokster is slightly more interesting than Criminal Law. But my newfound loyalty to class attendance (compare to my undergraduate days, when I actually had a class that I only went to for exams and to get the syllabus the first day (I got a B)) will probably trump any desire to hear what the Supreme Court justices have to say on the matter in their colloquy with counsel.
Is anyone in the DC area going to go?
That's not the whole truth. Conservative judges just don't feel that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of values or morals. They feel that the role belongs to the legislature. It's about judicial self-restraint.
Referencing the two guys (one of which who was under 18) that were sniping people as they went about their daily business in Virgnia, Maryland, DC and several other states ranging from Alabama to Texas to Washington (State). And that Maryland seriously considered removing the moratorium on the death penalty when they caught those two, Something tells me the majority would be in favor of it in certain circumstances.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
If P2P is so valuable, then everyone who uses it to steal movies and music should realize that they're abusing something important. Those of us who use BitTorrent to get Linux distros and legal content don't really appreciate the fact that 30% of the entire Internet's traffic is from the transfer of pirated BitTorrent files, especially if that potentially leads to anti-P2P legislation.
"44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children."
I don't disagree with their reasoning. I'd go a lot further. Certainly there are 15 year olds who are aware of the consequences of their actions, and should be held accountable.
I have difficulty with the arbitrary age distinction for emancipation. A teenager with a very sheltered life actually has certain disadvantages versus one who grows up streetwise, for instance. There are adult 12 year olds, and there are 20 year olds who are still children.
People under 18 should have some means to emancipate themselves, gain the right to vote, run for office, manage their own finances, own real property, etc. Not all are capable of succeeding, but there should be a process where they are given the opportunity.
The Motion Picture Association of America has little to do with the distribution of music. The other evil **AA, though...
No, this was a recent decision. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional (having not read the opinion, I am assuming on "cruel and unusual punishment" grounds, although there may be other reasons) to execute people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced to execution. The decision was 5-4, whence the 44% bit. But the root comment appeals to emotion and non sequitur reasoning, as well as a misunderstanding of the ruling itself.
BitTorrent is a P2P software. The websites you cited are search engines.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
44% of the Supreme Court felt that policy decisions, like this one, properly belong to state legislatures. Please read Scalia's dissent.
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This is why I contribute.
Those justices' opinions were that it is not cruel or unusual to sentance a minor, or an adult who committed a crime as a minor, to death. Your original wording makes it sound as though the case was related to executing minors, which it wasn't.
On a side note, I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment in all forms. I'm just trying to help folks understand the difference between the court making decisions based on their moral values and making decisions based on their interpretation of the laws passed by (mostly) elected congressional representatives.
BURN!
Fucking awsome!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This has nothing to do with P2P as a method of communicating data. This has everything to do with the providers of P2P networks providing reasonable safeguards against copyright infringement, which, like it or not, is the law of the land.
Saying that P2P is an important network standard and therefore grokster cannot be held liable for what it enables with its software is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
There is a difference between eliminating a transmission method and policing the items that are actually purveyed. For example, everyone lives in a house. But that doesn't mean that we can't be against crackhouses, or that we can't demand that landlords take precautions to safeguard against their property being used as crackhouses.
If you are against copyright infringement, fine. If you don't think that the safeguards being proposed against copyright infringement over P2P networks are reasonable, fine. But don't pretend that this is an attack on P2P itself. The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring.
"First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based."
Exactly. I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
For instance, the Internet was designed with redundancy in mind, when where a dead end is put in place, data can find another route to it's destination. Then you have some idiotic politician out to try and score points saying he wants the censor the whole of the internet of porn, free speech etc "for the sake of the children" Please.
And then you have idiots in marketing who think that the Internet "Is a big untapped market" of people who are just itching to come to their dingy website spend billions.
Sigh...
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
The problem for MGM is that Grokster, along with other file sharing services, doesn't actually infringe on anything, although they do provide an avenue for doing so. Using MGM's thinking, the Internet as a whole should also be eliminated since it can be used to distribute material illegally.
Don't get me wrong; I am highly critical of those who wrongly distribute copyrighted material, but Grokster (in and of itself) is not to blame for this.
Because you know, we should allow these kids to get off with a slap on their wrist.
If, by slap on the wrist, you mean life in prison. It's not like we'll knock it down to probation os anything.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This will be interesting, but I'm a little nervous about *where* the Supreme Court will take this one. Applying constitutionality to modern technology is a little tricky; Roe v Wade, for instance, gave us a ruling based on the combined interpretation of several amendments resulting in a "right to privacy."
Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy? Which amendments will apply to the laws being challenged?
I certainly hope for a ruling favorable towards p2p. But not just for p2p--also because whatever ruling gets handed down will likely set a lot of precedent for other cases where corporate interests weigh in against developing technology.
Free Sony PlayStation Portables from Gratis.
I make it a point to make available on Gnutella the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, works by Thoreau, Poe and Twain, along with mp3's of early jazz blues albums all of which is in the public domain. I consider this my contribution to "Substantial non-infringing uses", I encourage everyone to do the same.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They are lawyers with expertise in law, not network designs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Read the rest of this thread. You are in the wrong on the actual holding in that case, and you are furthermore employing nothing but logical fallacies combined with an utter lack of understanding of US law to make a point that is entirely invalid. I'm through conversing with you on the topic, but this needed to be pointed out.
In order to win this, they'll have to demonstrate a use of P2P that exists today in wider spread use than the copyrighted file-sharing networks do.
What examples will they use?
While cases reviewed by the Supreme Court useally get clarity, that clarity is normally limited in application. Even if the SC rules that P2P is legit, the door for the RIAA and others to continue persue the P2P companies and users will likely be left wide open. Regardless the effect will be limited to confines of the USA.
If the Supreme Court is truly serous about Copyright Law then it will need to enact a heavy Copyright Infringement Tax on any goods being shipping in from China and other coutries where the Copyright Law is Totally Abused. Forget dinkering around with filesharing networks that cost pennies in relation to the world practice of not paying $10/movie like US citizens have to do to see the movie!
When I was a kid people used to record tapes off the radio. Is that legal?
If so, why not make a frieTunes that sucks songs off the Internet radio stations and, if you have a radio card, the radio? Just tell fT what you want and it trolls for it and then sucks it into your personal listening library.
BTW, corporations are having a hard time adapting their business models to new technology. One thing history has shown is that countries that burn their fleets to hide exposure to the rest of the world (China) or ignore technology (battery in India) fell woefully behind. Allowing a supreme court to drive technology adoption is ludicrous.
We all know that technology such as file sharing is not going to die. Some country will have copyright-bypassing DVD burners by the end of the year and then, again, China will sell movies for $1 while the USA people are gouged for $10 at the theater! So, then the US government-backed economists will tell us the cost of living is lower is why our jobs are making a mass exodus but have not the fortitude to admit they have enacted a legal system that financially attacks Americans/lets other coutries off scott free.
Sadly, this is a case of extracting money from whoever can pay rather than enforcing legal justice. To continue to turn a blind eye on the rampant Copyright Infringements in Asia while attacking filesharing is like giving a speeding ticket to the guy late for work while failing to even investigate thefts (oh yeah, I'm wure we've all experienced this!!!).
Expect Freedom.
I Must respectfully disagree with you ...
The Sky is not green.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I submit that Betamax has done more for this world than VHS ever will from this case alone. Thank you Sony! And I'm sorry the format didn't achieve better acceptance.
I'm especially reminded of this ever time I do a visual scan on a VHS machine, that has never worked as smoothly and easily as Betascan[tm] did from its very first incarnation.
RIP Betamax. Gone, but never forgotten!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Troll? He has a lower UID than the grandparent!
This is a civil matter, and is not as explicitly provided for in the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms. The main question here is whether MGM can sue Grokster for contributory copyright infringement. Note that the NRA aims to achieve its goals by legislative lobbying rather than amicus briefs to the Supreme Court - the gunmakers immunity bill of last year that they supported, for example, would have prevented you from suing Glock if someone shot you with a Glock. The NRA is better at throwing money at a problem than they are considering anything but their one-track understanding of what constitutes a "problem."
On a side note, the problem I had with that bill was that the courts should be making that distinction on their own, and the bill itself could have led to you being unable to sue Glock if you were shooting one and it exploded in your face. I am not an NRA fanboy, but I support many of the things they do nonetheless. This is just not their area of expertise.
Well, that tells you something about him. It should have been a no-brainer: A flimsy piece of cloth is obviously not as important as our freedoms. If he had to struggle over that for more than 30 seconds, he's not fit for his position.
And 100% of those "children" thought it was just fine to execute other human beings. Some of them even felt it was okay to execute other human beings because they were children still, and therefore the state couldn't do anything really bad to them.
Those are not people I want to live beside afterwards. So just where are your priorities?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Soundtracks.
"Piter, too, is dead."
No, we should get these kids help. What kind of teenager wants to kill people? And actually acts on it? One that needs to see a therapist.
And if he had somehow been 10 or 11 at the time, hell even 13, I might feel somehow that he doesn't deserve to be executed for this. He was what, though, 16 going on 17? Fry the bastard.
Since when was it his right to decide standards on absolutely everything I see and hear?
If you don't want the bad stuff, don't pay for it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was pointed there by Ed Felton in a response post on the brief's abstract page on Freedom to Tinker,
I love getting some free Ivy League insight (as an aside, I go to Rutgers where we are always using information from our Ivy League friends).
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
44% of the Court understood that what they personally thought was moral or immoral was irrelevant to serving their proper role within our constitutional framework.
They may very well be personally against the death penalty (probably not, but they could be).
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be composed of 9 philosopher-kings, they are supposed to merely interpret and apply the constitution. That is all the dissenting justices were saying.
Armchairgenius.com - Where everyone is a genius.
Oh wait, is it the IP packets after all?
I know some people that would do it free of charge to the state. That aside, there are also others who have commited murder on the day before their 18th birthday. As I understand it, the states that allow juveniles to be executed require this: That they have been at least 14 when the crime was commited, be tried as an adult, the prosecutor must seek to try them as an adult, and the judge AND jury must agree to the death penalty. At least that's how it is in VA. And the one reason why malvo didn't get the needle is because of the judge.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Applying constitutionality to modern technology is a little tricky
Maybe so. But this case has nothing to do with the Constitution. Just federal common law. No rights, and no amendments are implicated to any real degree.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This is more like the government asking copier manufacturers to design their machines so that someone who buys one and takes it home cannot copy U.S. Government currency with it...
SO the government tries to make the money 'copy proof' instead. And they HAVE done a reasonable job of that with holigrams and special threads in the paper.
Let the media try and make their stuff un-copyable. Wait... they have and that's against 'fair use'.
Just for curiosity, which are the non-murdering uses for a gun?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
The Supreme court however picked 18 as the cutoff, as that age is more universally considered 'adult.' You can join the army, vote, enter into contracts, etc.
If you feel a 16 yr old is an adult, then you should want to lower the age limits for all of the above as well.
(particularly in the case of late-term abortion of pregnancy caused by rape).
You just reminded me of an old saying:
Sins of the Father
Interesting how that applies here.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Back in 1968, when DARPA was creating the internet, Paul Baran pointed out that there are potentially 3 different kinds of networks, a centralized 'star' type network, a distributed network (basically what the internet is today), and a decentralized network (p2p).
Please click the link and look at the diagram. It's one of the single most important concepts vital to understanding the structure of the internet.
This is nothing new. The decentralized design was chosen to maximize the price to redundancy ratio. A distributed network is too prone to failure and was not feasable back in 1968 (and still isn't today because of the basic economic structure in America. The internet will remain decentralized as long as the telcos own the phone lines.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
P2P is a tool. It can be used for good or bad, it can be used for serious work or entertainment. But at the end of the day, P2P is a tool, just like a screwdriver, hammer, knife, or gun. The hands that you put tools in decide how the tool is going to be used. There is nothing enharently evil about a gun, it is how it gets used that makes the difference.
I don't really want gang-bangers to have guns, but I think that having a police officer with a gun is usually a good thing.
P2P should not be illegal, the act of piracy is already illegal. We do not need new laws, or even need the old laws "fleshed out" - they are perfectly adequate and can address the issue of piracy.
I'm sure we'll find a technical solution to the problems presented by this Tragedy of the Commons just like we were able to find a technical solution for the similar one with Spam.
Oh, wait...
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I'd go with Mass Sharing and File Trade
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
And 100% of them are definitely guilty. We know that how?
I don't think the Supreme Court thinks it's OK to execute children. The case was whether it was unconstitutional or not. Personally, I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I do have reservations about it. In which case, Congress should pass a new law. The courts shouldn't use their power to make their own laws. It takes a smart Justice to know where his/her authority lies.
The point I'm making is that for years, ISPs have been providing Usenet services to their subscribers, everyone knows that pirated material is on Usenet yet I've not heard of an ISP being forced to shut down the service due to pressures from the likes of the MPAA or RIAA.
Just strikes me as curios, that's all...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Heh.. Well most copier manufacturers have headed this whole arguement off at the pass by using a marking system that allows people to track what has been copied on what machine. I know Konica Minolta copiers lay down a super small yellow marking that contains the serial number of the copier that can only be seen under a blue light to help track down which machine was doing the illegal copying of items.
Exactly. It's so clearly a case of political expression that no self-respecting judge should have to even think about it.
The only reason it comes up is that legislators, who show-boat for re-election continue to try to win points with the political equivalent of the morality police. It's odd that the right-wing, which so often complains about being forced to be "politically correct" should want to force this form of correctness on everyone else.
44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children.
What a provocative misstatement.
4 out of 9 justices believed that there was no distinction in the law as it's written between a person who committed a crime at the age of 18, and a person who committed a crime at the age of 17.
No one has suggested it's proper to strap an 8-year-old into an electric chair.
It's the wires! Wires and fiber are tools of the theives! Outlaw the tools and only criminals will use them!
Outlaw oxygen and only criminals will breathe!
Expect Freedom.
"Analogy time! Knives:HTTP/FTP/etc::Guns:P2P. There's plenty of non-infringing (non-murdering) uses for both, but the latter group certainly makes it easier."
So what? In the US, guns are still legal even though don't seem to have ANY legitimate use. The irony is that we are more likely to see P2P banned before guns are. After all, when the NRA comes to protest in numbers on your doorstep, you take notice. When a bunch of iPod toting teens show up, you probably think, "meh".
"There was a guild of canon balls;
Their motto was 'don't tread on me'."
Your are not consistant. Its mans law they broke, and no man should have the right to take the life of another man for any reason. So are you pro-life, and thus apparently inconsistent because you are for the Iraq war, or pro-choice, and thus inconsistent because you are against killing anyone after they are born?
While many pro-lifers are for the Iraq war, the two issues have little in common. There are plenty who are against the Iraq war.
Even among those who are for the war, they are not in consistant. They make a distinction between taking an innocent life, taking the guilty, and accidental death. Since the unborn are innocent of wrong doing it is not right to kill them for any reason. (most stop just short of that and make allowances for mothers health, but this is such a tiny amount of abortions that it hardly counts) By contrast, those in Iraq are either guilty of intending to harm the US, or innocents that we are taking all precaution to prevent their deaths, but accidents happen. (and it isn't right to count deaths by terrorists just because the US is now there)
Open your mind. Look at what these people really believe, not some strawman argument that you want them to believe so you can consider yourself better.
Toughest decision? WTF. The Boy Scout manual lists flag burning as one of the proper ways to dispose of a flag should it become worn and tattered, touch the ground, etc. Burning the flag can also be a form of political speech, which is clearly protected under the First Amendment.
Read the reasoning though; the other 56% said that people under 18 cannot do many (most) adult things, so why is it allowable to hand out adult punishments? In order to receive an adult punishment, you should be capable of making adult decisions. If they aren't competent enough to vote or join the army or enter contracts, how are they competent enough to fully understand thier actions? If you aren't capable of entering a contract, i doubt you are capable of fulling understanding the crime you commited.
Therapy isn't always a solution, sometimes it's at best a band-aid. I'm not saying I entirely agree with the death penalty (mixed feelings), let alone with 16 or 17 year olds, but Therapy isn't going to help in all cases.
One could make the argument that for someone to commit cold-blooded murder (as opposed to self-defense, heat-of-the-moment, or greed) that there HAS to be something wrong with them; after all it's just so morally devient. But does this really mean that some therapy sessions twice a week and a prescription for valium is going to do anything for them?
It's possible that a kid could be a sociopath and thus pretty much beyond help. I'm not saying he/she deserves to die, but a life-sentence or some other long-term sentence (20 years, etc) might be appropriate.
Sure, many criminals can be rehabilitated and change while in prison; I'm not saying once a bad seed always a bad seed. And those that have issues should definately seek help.
Fortunately, what liquidpele says, does not the law make.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
Great so the tax payers have to foot the bill for the next 60 years or so. No thanks...kill em - fry em, hang em, shoot em...hell let the family beat them in the head with a bad for a few hours. I don't feel like I should have to pay for them to sit in jail, especially when one of them has "fond" memories of his actions.
I believe the girl who testified is getting murder 3, so she will probably get off in 20 years or less (probably around 5). So we will have a hardened criminal, who comes out of jail at the ripe age of 21...great she can get drunk AND go help someone else to get killed.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
is the air through which we speak.
Personally, my priorities are right in line with my state's laws: not putting anyone to death. Maximum penalty for *anything* in my state is life without parole.
Where are you reading that those pardoned from the death sentence from this ruling are going to be let out to live beside you? In almost every case, it's going to be turned into life without parole.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
17 year old kid with a 20 year sentence comes out of jail at the age of 37 --- may still be a sociopath, has been hardened by jail...his life is pretty much ruined (between the record, and spending the last 20 years in jail without any kind of job experience/training)....yea the kid we want in society.
If this was a crime of passion (i.e. the person they killed had actually killed there brother, or something else that might spark a crime of passion) then I could understand...but these kids planned this. They lured the dead kid out, beat him to death - took his money - and then LAUGHED about it. They deserve, all of them, the death penalty.
Again, why should I have to foot the bill for the next 20+ years...and 20 years is NOTHING for what they did.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
P2P the design on which the Internet is based? Ban the Internet!
A 16 year old may not understand a contract very well - but a 16 year old does know what death is about...so does a 14 year old and a 10 year old, and even an 8 year old. And yes, anyone who goes around killing people (like the DC area snipers) deserves to fry in a painful way - I could care less what the age.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
So the question becomes then, what is the difference between someone who is 17 years and 364 days and 23 hours old who brutaly rapes and muders a woman compared to someone who is 18 years 0 days and 0 hours old? When one becomes 18 is one magicaly more capable of understanding the right and wrong of a situation?
If you actualy read anything, you would notice most of the disenting opinions beleived that competency should be established on a case by case basis. This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The non-murdering uses of a gun:
Warning Shots
Target Practice
Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions
Track & Field
Happiness (if warm)
Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards
Network Administration (see LART, definition of)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
You do know the average time served on a life sentence in the US is ~30 year right?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
But I would suggest strongly that you look at many of the other briefs available on EFF's site. Respondents' Brief (the one by StreamCast and Grokster) is the most important, and there are many high quality amicus briefs. Eben Moglen, who wrote on behalf of FSF, has some great lines in his; and there are many other excellent ones.
Guns have a various legitimate uses.
One example is the one that the framers were thinking of when put in the ammendment, which is to overthrow the government by force. One of the many excellent checks and balances in the US constitution....
As another example of how guns clearly have uses which are not illegal, you might note how policemen often seem to have them about their person...
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
And how long before Life w/o Parole is determined to be "Cruel and Unusual" for children? After all, "They have their whole lives ahead of them." And, "It's unfair, because an older murderer sentenced to life has less time to live." Don't tell me someone isn't already trying to make this case.
Will someone please show me where in the United State's Constitution the Federal Government and Supreme Court are specifically empowered to rule on state imposed death penality statutes, and differentiate defendents by age. I'd really like to read that part again.
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Just for curiosity, which are the non-murdering uses for a gun?
You've heard of skeet shooting, sporting clays, target competition, and literally dozens of other forms of non-killing competition, including programs for the disabled, right? Have a look at the calendar - there might be a match near you so you can see first hand what shooting sports are all about. Remember those funny-looking guys in the Olympics with rifles and skis? I don't remember any murders committed by biatheletes recently.
It torques me greatly when self-proclaimed experts on firearm usage declare that there are no non-killing uses for guns. It is quite challenging to be able to accurately poke pencil-sized holes in a target at 50 yds with a pistol or 300+ yds with a rifle.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Why'd they have to name it edonkey2000?
MGM versus DonkeyPunch!! Oh that would be a riot.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To me this should be a very simple case to rule on. The government shouldn't be concerned that certain companies are supposedly losing money. After all, it is not the government's job to ensure the wealth of certain people/organizations. What the government should be concerned with is the application of law and specifically if the law is being broken. By definition, technology cannot break the law. Therefore, I believe that the government has no choice but to keep the precident set with Sony v. Universal. Also, if they did decide to alter the law to make technology that is used for mostly illegal purposes outlawed, who is going to decide what technology fits in this category, and who is able to predict what new inventions will fit? If anything, a reversal in the Betamax ruling will make innovation difficult and only benefit corporations that are already insanely rich.
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
SIGFAULT
You've heard of skeet shooting, sporting clays, target competition, and literally dozens of other forms of non-killing competition [nrahq.org], including programs for the disabled, right? Have a look at the calendar [nrahq.org] - there might be a match near you so you can see first hand what shooting sports are all about. Remember those funny-looking guys in the Olympics with rifles and skis? I don't remember any murders committed by biatheletes recently. It torques me greatly when self-proclaimed experts on firearm usage declare that there are no non-killing uses for guns. It is quite challenging to be able to accurately poke pencil-sized holes in a target at 50 yds with a pistol or 300+ yds with a rifle.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
The non-murdering uses of a gun:
Warning Shots- warning that you're going to murder
Target Practice- practicing murder
Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions- threatening murder
Track & Field- competing at murdering skills
Happiness (if warm)- warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife
Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards- murdering poor, innocent walnuts
Network Administration (see LART, definition of)- they'll have a different attitude if you murder them
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
Well... yes please, actually.
If the majority of the human race is disgusted by something the USA is doing, and the only nations that are doing the same thing as the USA are places like China and Iran that have despicable human rights records, then it strikes me as eminently sensible to consider the possibility that the USA might be doing the wrong thing.
When evil dictators start looking at you funny and saying "man, I may boil dissidents alive, but at least I don't murder kids like you Americans do", then something is clearly wrong.
If America wants to be a shining beacon on the moral high ground, it helps to consider whether we're sending out mixed messages or not...
Even still, the RIAA has more interest in movie soundtracks that the MPAA.
Soundtracks contain music that is owned and published by labels that are members of the RIAA and that is licensed to be used in the movie. An original score may be funded by a movie studio, and the copyrights may even be owned by the movie studio, but the recording is still released by an RIAA record label, and (most likly) published by an ASCAP/BMI publishing company.
Judging by your sig you're probably not being serious, but should anyone overlook the sarcasm, they should know that the MPAA would have little to do with controlling the distribution of movie sountracks on P2P networks.
Sinch
Have you seen the like?
Their walls are built of cannonballs, their motto is "Don't tread on me".
Don't worry, most people get it wrong.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
And this is no different than not letting people vote until the age of majority, or be 16 when they get their drivers licence, or buy alcohol until their 21. It's a well-established principle, unless you think we should consider on a case-by-case basis whether 15 year olds can by Jack Daniels.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What world do live in where somebody who buries a 16 month old toddler alive does not deserve to die. You are a bigger man then me if you can forgive that. How can you set a firm cutoff for something that has always been dependant on the situation.
Cheap storage VM.
Well, not completely - at certain times of the day, and with certain optical conditions, parts of the sky have certainly appeared green to me. It didn't last long though.
The problem is that someone made an off-topic, inflammatory, trolling, and utterly fallacious post that got modded up more than once, and then this entire thread came about from people trying to choke it to death, and in so doing generated all the insightful, informative, and interesting comments that it has. The "off-topic" mod, when applied 3 or more times to one comment, should probably delete the comment and all its replies. That would save a lot of the hassle here. ;)
killing someone for the crimes of someone else
Incorrect. Killing a non-someone for the crimes of someone else. It's only fair that there be a sliding scale of morality on this one, because there is no magical moment. No chorus of angels sings during the seconds that sperm DNA merges with egg DNA. On the other hand, neither does it happen as soon as a fetus leaves a woman's body.
You need to look at what makes us seem "human". Do we hold a great deal of affection for DNA? It's just a chemical; it doesn't think, love, etc. Do you cry when your skin cells die? Do we cry when unique combinations of DNA (all around us, every day) die? Do we pity all of the embryos that miscarry before the woman even realizes that she was pregnant (about half of them)? And most importantly, do we find it acceptable to kill one of a pair of identical twins, since their DNA is the same?
It's not DNA that makes a person; it is who they are. Their thoughts, their emotions, their hopes and dreams. This doesn't appear overnight. It doesn't appear at the hour of conception, at birth, or at their 18th birthday. It builds up. There should be no issue at all with aborting an embryo that doesn't have a single neuron; however, a slow moral issue should build up as cognition increases, leading to a general rule that abortion at the end of pregnancy should only be allowed in the case of a risk to the mother's life.
Interestingly enough, this corresponds fairly well to our current abortion laws. You'd be hard-pressed to find where you can just go into a clinic at month 8 and say "I want an abortion"; on the other hand, getting morning after pills isn't hard at all. And it's a reasonable compromise; if you can't decide within a few months whether you should carry the potential child, something is probably wrong with you.
Lastly, there are some serious problems with just a general ban on abortion. Suicides. Coat hangers. Etc. I once knew someone who was raped when she was a teenager and starved herself until she miscarried so that her parents would never find out that she was pregnant. I can't even imagine this being a general situation. It's not something to take lightly... at all.
Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean'.
Actually you raise an interesting issue. The SCotUS decided that, for the purposes of applying the death penalty, a person who committed their crime at the age of 17 years and 364 days must be in law treated differently than a person who was 18 years of age at the time of the crime. The trend of the law before this has been to acknowledge a grey area between youth and adulthood, and that defendents under the age of 18 would be evaluated by the court on several factors before determining if the defendent would be treated as an adult or a juvenile.
If we accept the SC's decision that a minor one day short of his eighteenth birthday should not be treated as an adult for the purpose of administering a capital sentence, why should that minor still be eligible for another severe sentence. Is Life without Possibility of Parole any less cruel and unusual?
If I was a defense attorney for such a client, I'd be running as fast as I can to file an appeal for my life sentenced minor.
Shooting those who wish to do me harm is a legitimate use, as are hunting, target practice and pissing off gun control nuts.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I don't think it's age-I think it's citizenship
as in, the goverment is empowered to execute citizens who wrong the goverment, and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such, they are chattel, with some rights, but damn few privledges, and in exchange for not getting those privledges, they are not liable to the same extent.
What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not?? it's been acceptably proven that the individual in question is as responsible as an adult....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Happiness (if warm)- warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife
;)
Apparently you missed the joke. There are several versions of the song - the Tori Amos one is my favorite, as she even worked Bush speaking into the song
Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean'.
"Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy?"
Why not all of the above? And do not forget Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If you consider that any computer network is a form of P2P application, where the "peers" are the client computer and the server computer, than all computer networks can be considered a P2P network.
Therefore, if the Supreme Court decides that P2P networks are illegal/unconstituational, than all computer networks should immediately be dismantled and all computers should be standalone to be in complience with the law.
Bye, bye internet, extranets, and intranets. Bye, bye global economy.
At least the cylons won't get us.
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
Rather a shortsighted view, in a way.
When you give up your rights, it helps give them a precedent for taking away my rights.
The US legal system runs on precedents.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Hmm...ok, if they, at 18, are legally adults and mature enough to be put to death for murder....can go fight and die in the military....and enjoy just about every right and penalty as an adult....Why can they not buy and consume alcohol legally?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hmm. I didn't say LEGAL, I said LEGITIMATE. According to your comments, legitimate uses for guns are:
1) overthrowing governments
2) jewlery for police officers
as for 1) isn't civil protest more appropriate than armed overthrow? Didn't the mahatma regain a country and win over the mind and hearts of people everywhere with that concept? Besides, have you noticed how the US government reacts when it is attacked (or percieves an attack? or suggests it has been attacked?) You'd need something bigger a little bit bigger than a handgun to deal with *that* noise. Sorry, guns can't do what you claim for that case 1) so it is not a legitimate use.
as for 2) can't officers wear nose rings like everyone else? Seriously, not all officers carry guns (eg. most Bobbies still do not); however, most US officers will tell you that they MUST carry guns -- after all, the *bad guys* have guns. Where I'm from, that's called a catch-22. I'll grant that it is probably prudent for an _officer_ to carry a gun, but I still think it is less than legitimate.
"Guns don't kill people -- I kill people."
Manslaughter, justifiable homicide, keeping a wife locked in her room, etc.
Oh, and hunting.
After all, I am strangely colored.
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
So, what you're saying is that if the majority of the world says one thing, but the United States says another, then the United States is right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a Democracy, majority rules.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
In most states, the determination of whether a minor is competent to consume alcohol is mad on a case by case basis by the guardian of that minor, and the guardian will be held responsible for the actions of that minor both before and after consuming alcohol, with the exception of heinous(under the law) acts such as rape, murder, grand theft.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
"17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based."
Now how long until some MPAA/RIAA lawyer twists it around and sues the whole internet as a unit? C&D letters to all ISP's, backbone operators, server ops etc etc... Far fetched and impractical yes, but still as recent filings have shown nothing is impossible in a dying mind.
As I understand it, the primary challenge is entirely interpretation of current copyright law, with its foundation in Article 1, section 8. To grossly oversimplify (and IANAL), MGM &c claim the technology is fundamentally for copyright violation, and that they should be able to collect damages from the Grokkers for the infringements; the Grokkers say it has substantial non-infringing uses, and that the actions of the users are the fault of the users, and go collect money from them.
The proposed legislation to ban peer to peer would need to be challenged on 1st amendment grounds, but that's not the case before the court. MGM &c are not directly challenging the legality of the product, but merely claiming the maker has responsibility for its consequential use. It may touch on the issues, but that's not where the focus lies.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Nope, didn't miss the joke. It's a good joke. Clever. Just making a joke of my own.
Slashdot is a forum for discussion, get over it.
Except for this little concept called sovereignty, it is one of the things necessairy to be considered a country (or at least it was back when I took political science). Now the US hasn't been very good at letting other people have it, but honestly you're just stooping to that level if you violate it. Also the world has never been a Democracy, the world has always gone to the strongest. I belive Locke said it was nasty, brutish, and short.
This lead me down a related line of thought that I think shows clearly how logically bankrupt the justice system currently is:
Often, if a minor commits a serious enough crime, the call is made to try them as an adult 'due to the seriousness of the crime', that is, anyone capable of that is already thinking and acting as an adult, so we may treat them accordingly.
In the first place, that is violating their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law since the above argument can only hold if we assume that they committed the act. Legally, we must assume they did NOT until we can prove otherwise.
As an aside, note that in the event the minor tried as an adult (because the nature of the crime 'showed' that they acted as an adult) is found not guilty, they do not get released from the court as an adult (with at least the right to vote), suddenly we cease presuming that they are adult in mind again as soon as that presumption ceases to serve the prosecutor's agenda.
In any event, all of the above flies in the face of the argument that minors have a diminished capacity as compared to an adult and therfore their rights may be limited and their criminal culpability is reduced. You can't have it both ways, but it appears that the courts sure want to try.
"So the question becomes then, what is the difference between someone who is 17 years and 364 days and 23 hours old who brutaly rapes and muders a woman compared to someone who is 18 years 0 days and 0 hours old?"
The difference is that you have failed to get anyone who is 17 years and 364 days old to be declared a legal adult. As soon as you do that, then maybe you will have a legal leg to stand on, but until then it's all La La Land.
Accountable, not responsible.
Holding someone accountable as an adult is different than declaring that they are responsible to behave as an adult. Previously minors committing capital offenses would be evaluated to ascertain if they where able to be held to account as adults and then tried as adults.
This is different from emancipation which means that an individual has demonstrated that they can respond or be responsible as an adult.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Yeah, of course you are right. Of course, those were very strange years for me :)
Those are not people I want to live beside afterwards.
So put them in prison for the rest of their life. They are removed from society and therefore no longer a danger, you don't have to 'live beside' them. You also don't have any of the associated problems with wrong convictions and, to be honest, from a crime deterrent point of view I consider life in prison a more unpleasant prospect than death anyway.
This is like arguing that whether a minor is murdered in his sleep on any given night is decided by his or her guardians on a case by case basis. Sure it is, but that doesn't make it either legal or morally correct for a parent to sneak into their child's room to kill them. Your comment is a complete non sequitur.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
They all are now in their late 20's and early 30's. They are incarcerated for crimes they committed when they were not yet 18.
Now spending 10+ years in prison awaiting to be executed not being cruel and unusual punishment is an entirely different story.
Well to start with the 21 age for alcohol is ridiculous. There's no reason why one should be able to kill, vote and be killed but not purchase alcohol.
Furthermore, both the drinking and driving ages are STATE defined laws and not federal*. Originaly, so was the minor execution laws. It was a state by state decision. Some states banned it, some states allowed it, some states required the minor be tried as an adult first.
Furthermore, we're talking about different things here. In one case, we're talking about a minor being able to make decisions for themselves or being competent to do something, the other is talking about punishment for a minor and whether that minor WAS competent enough. As was pointed out in another example, minors can drink alcohol, but their parents are then responsible for the results.
*The federal drinking age is not actualy a mandatory law. Rather the federal drinking age is a condition of recieving federal money for highway and road matenence in the state. A state could have a lower drinking age. Most chose not to.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
question: If its found to be unconstitutional - why would that affect it in the slightest?
illegal obviously has an effect but unconstitutional is ( if i understand american law right ) used as a reason to strike down laws.
I agree with your point entirely though, if peer to peer is found to be illegal its not that big a jump to outlawing the internet entirely ( in america anyway, i doubt other countries would be as daft as to do this )
I may be out to lunch here, but my understanding is that most jurisdictions in the US and Canada expressely forbid the sale of alcohol to minors (though "minors" may be variously defined), and that one can, in fact, be charged in many jurisdictions if one provides alcohol to minors.
It's very clear that most jurisdictions want to prevent the consumption of alcohol by minors. Authorities may turn something of a blind eye to parents giving their kids alcohol, but I'm quite certain that in many jurisdictions a parent could at least theoretically be charged for doing so.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe they are trying the child as an adult because the crime comitted is serious enough that it is along the level of an adult... So, for example, if they find the child not guilty - but they catch someone else - they would instantly try him as an adult because the crime was already deemed as such? Just my rationale.
Minors, typically, do have a diminished capacity for certain things (compared to adults).... but knowing the difference of life and death does not require someone to be 18, 21, or any age above 6-8. I knew, from a young age (around 6-8) what life and death was about. I knew that I was scared when my dad drove a motorcycle because I was scared he would die. I knew that killed people was wrong, and that hurting people was wrong. If I, and many others know that at the ripe young age of 6-8...then a 14 year old should easily be held accountable.
I will go with some minor things, if a 8 year old says "I didn't think pushing him off the slide was going to hurt him." but the kids we are referencing planned, murdered, and LAUGHED about it - no remorse or stating that "we didn't know what would happen"...
Fry em - even better yet, give the grieving family the option to fry em.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"A 16 year old may not understand a contract very well - but a 16 year old does know what death is about..."
Yet, the law requires that someone who is found to be an adult in one area, is an adult in all areas. If you're hot about getting 16 year olds into the chair, then all of the penalities and benefits of adulthood must be extended to them. Pick-and-choose adulthood is LAAAAAAME, and the *only* reason there are 21+ drinking laws in the U.S. is because the federal government extorts states into passing 21+ laws or else lose their highway funding.
In most of the states, the person in question had to be tried as an adult before they could be given the death penalty, so they were leglay established as an adult.
Unfortunately, the new ban says if they were younger than 18, they can't be executed.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If 16 (or 17) is to be old enough to be killed by the government, it should be old enough to vote.
That was a glaring inconsistancy.
Just like when you needed to be 21 to vote, but only 18 to get sent to Vietnam during the war.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Yes, it is challenging to toss pencils so that they stick into a tile ceiling, and challenging to cut a carrot with a thrown playing card, but SO WHAT!!, it isn't useful.
A pencil is useful when writing and a playing card is useful for playing, just like a gun is useful for killing.
God created man equal in value. Sam Colt made them equal in power.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Cut back on the LSD, dude. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Well that's really a separate debate. I do think an 18 year old is responsible enough to vote, and fortunately up here in Canada, in Federal (and most if not all provincial and municipal elections) they can. One can argue about when the age of majority is reached, but clearly a line has to be set, and the SCOTUS majority position is, so far as I understand it, that society does not view minors as being as responsible for their actions as adults, and that it follows that they should not have the same degree of consequences.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"17 year old kid with a 20 year sentence comes out of jail at the age of 37 --- may still be a sociopath, has been hardened by jail...his life is pretty much ruined (between the record, and spending the last 20 years in jail without any kind of job experience/training)....yea the kid we want in society."
Well, let's make it easy. If anyone gets sentenced to 20 years or more in jail, just make it automatic life with no parole.
"Again, why should I have to foot the bill for the next 20+ years...and 20 years is NOTHING for what they did."
You should be so lucky. Housing a person for life costs less than all the legal appeals cost you if they're on their way to the chamber, look it up if you don't believe me. Additionally, you're already footing the bill for hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders, courtesy of the For-Profit U.S. prison system, so stop whining about a few dozen death row inmates in your stste.
Yes, the state legislatures should change their laws so that they're no longer unconstitutional. But if they refuse to (see Alabama's constitution), the laws are just as invalid as they'd be if they were repealed.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Here's a serious question for you -- why has nobody ever attempted to invade America?
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
Short, isn't it? But what's the point? What's it talking about?
What it says is this: the security of a free state depends on a well-regulated militia, which itself is provided by a well-armed populace.
Since it's unlikely that the founding fathers intended to force members of a free nation to participate in military action without their consent (see, for instance, Amendment #3, which addresses providing quarter to soldiers) it is reasonable to claim that they meant for the populace to both keep and bear arms on a strictly voluntary basis.
Why would the populace keep and bear arms on a voluntary basis? According to the quoted text, it's to further the "security of a free state".
You could restate the Second Amendment as the following:
Thoughts?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Who says it has to be all or none? Is that similar to things have to be black or white? Good or bad? Yes or no? 1 or 0? This is real life, there is a lot of in between. It is not lame at all. The law takes many rights away from those convicted of crimes - if they want to extend that to a kid being put on trial for murder then that is fine. Just so you know - the trial will run just the same. If the kid is found not-guilty then they will go home, if the kid is found guilty then the "tried as an adult" comes into play as they are punished as an adult. The trial, in and of itself, will be run the same exact way.
The fed does not extort anything - you are looking at the glass half empty, as a punishment. I am looking at it as a reward..."You guys do something we feel is necessary, and you get a reward...you do not have to do it, but if you want to we will give you a benefit." Nobody is forcing the state to do it. A great example is Penn State University. They are a state school that is a wet campus...they do not get the bonus funding that other state schools in PA get. Nobody is extorting from them.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"And how long before Life w/o Parole is determined to be "Cruel and Unusual" for children?"
Glad you asked, Slashdotter! So far, in thousands of cases decided before the U.S. Supreme Court since 1900, that question has never been accepted by the Court, nor has it even made its way for hearing before any of the 9 Federal Circuit Courts.
However, don't let that stop you from pulling this completely bogus piece o' crap example from your butt as an an example of your historical or legal stupidity.
Super. Now, how many for the war are against abortion?
I'm not sure where you live, but at least here in florida as of 4 years ago, it was legal for a parent to give their child alcohol. It was something I cleared with the police in my town out of curiosity. A random adult cannot give a minor alcohol but a parent has the right to. I can't remember, but I believe there is also a mandate that it is the privacy of the home or similar abode(like personal house boat).
are emancipated teens allowed to vote?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So, by your logic, if late-term abortion is legal, then so is post-term abortion up through the age of 17.
Funny you should mention that. My high-school government teach was in favor of legalizing "retroactive abortion" up through the age of 17. OTOH, we *did* give him good grounds to be, little bastards that we were.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"No one has suggested it's proper to strap an 8-year-old into an electric chair."
d =11825183
Actually, yes they have, higher up in this thread.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141135&ci
but damnit when is Push Computing going to take off... I'm still sitting on half a billion dollars of PointCast stock!
-pyrrho
if it's valuable or not?? If it's valuable to YOU, then just use it, or biuld it, whatever. The net is P2P. What are they going to do? Ban the net? Real P2P'ers keep their mouths shut, and continue their work unaffected by all this. Only those on the "blabbernet" are having any real trouble.
What?
actually, depending on your stance, there is a reason for it. Look at the under age drinking and driving deaths for before and after the law, there was a huge drop in occurance, even though hte number of people who could illegally drink and drive suddenly jumped(all those people who were 18, 19 , and 20 and could do it legally couldn't after the law). It has proven itself as a good deterrent for drinking and driving, probalby because of a judgement issue. While you might be smart ehough to choose the president at 18, statistics doesn't show you are smart enough to be allowed to legally drink. Of course, again, this rests on wether or not you believe government should regulate towards stupid people in some cases.
In Europe the kings and their officials held all of the weapons. When someone was knighted that person was granted the right "to bear arms". The general population was not granted that right. That meant that the serfs were forever dominated by Lords unless some rapscallion like Cromwell showed up.
The US has not been invaded because it is protected geographically. With the exception of Latin America and Canada, any country with visions of conquering the US would have to have an Army numbering in the tens of millions. Just think of what the Allies had to do to grab Normandy in June, 1944. Now remember, that was just across the English Channel. Now think about crossing the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean.
Now you know what atom bombs mounted on ICBMs are good for. :)
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
"isn't civil protest more appropriate than armed overthrow?"
Given that the people writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights just finished an armed overthrow of the government, I don't think they were against the concept.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Ah, well, if it's legitimacy we talk of, then it is a personal moral opinion. Enjoy yours!
I would take some issue with your points though:
1) a)the efficacy of a course of action is irrelevant as to it's legitimacy as a morally acceptible course of action. I cannot poop gold; but this is of no bearing to a discussion of whether I should or not.
1) b)the fact that the US federal and state governments constantly try to get round the constitution's limits on their powers does not invalidate the legitimacy of that document. I have no doubt that any attempt to overthrow the US government from within would be met with crushing force. This is largely the point of the ammendment: to try and prevent the Govt. from supressing legitimate dissent with force. It has probably now failed. The Republic is probably now an Empire. What can you do?
2) a)Most people in the world accept the principle that sometimes it is legitimate to use deadly force to act for the greater good. I think the Mahatma put it best when he said "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." Obviously, he prefered when possible the third way, of non-violence, but he accepted that sometimes violence was, regretably, necessary.
If you disagree with him, and do not believe that the use of force against other humans is ever legitimate, no matter how many Jews they gas, then indeed, guns are probably not legitimate. What did Monty Python say again? "Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."
2) b)If it is acceptable for the police to have weapons to defend themselves, how much more so is it for the people to have weapons to defend themselves? Particularly since the police are under no legal obligation to do anything to protect the people. You seem to have accidentally suggested another legitimate reason, whoops!
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
that is the nature of rights.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We have a serious problem in this counrty with being unable to compromise on the whole subject of abortion, with either side advocating an extreme, and flame wars erupting.
The argument in Rei's post has one *major* point in its favor: it allows compromise. The government is in the business of picking arbitary dates to indicate maturity: drinking age, driving age, drafting age, and so on. These are all arbitrary points along a gradual curve, but we *need* arbitrary points to have any law at all. If the government were to pick an arbitrary point at which a fetus becomes "a person" (or several incremental points), the debate would then be about picking a number, and that's a good procedure for producing compromise.
The law largely works this way today, but the political argument doesn't.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I don't really care if the death penalty can or cannot be applied to minors - as long as they can still be tried as an adult and receive life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Removing the death penalty for minors and keeping the really bad ones in prison for life will probably save tax payers millions (due to all the appeals), and will still not be a free pass.
I have done the research in one of my comm classes (debate)...the process of appeals is expensive as hell - but that is a fault of the legal process... it does not make the law wrong - just means the red-tape is a problem.
According to CBS News the cost is 20k/year/inmate. This does not include the cost of a prison cell which is 100k/cell.
Or Here which lists the cost as about 20-40k per year per inmate.
Remember these are prices from a few years ago, rising costs everyday... According to the second article, prices went up by 250% since 1980. That article used data from 1997.
Here is another link to a site that talks about the costs Here
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Having read through the CC brief in entirety and the Intel and computer scientists' briefs in abstract, it occurs to me that not one mentions the facts that 1) Everything is copyrighted now thanks to laws making those copyrights automatic and 2) That not all copyrighted material is then restricted from being published, altered, distributed, or otherwise used. The CC brief mentions 2) as practically an aside in mentioning its own licenses, without discussing the end result, that a minority copyright holder (MGM might have thousands of movies under its belt, but the average sad livejournaller in snow has that many angst-ridden entries in a year) cannot dictate how the majority of copyright holders behave with respect to their intellectual property.
Is it too late to file another brief?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Specifically, prison costs about $25k/year, while the Death penalty costs a couple mil.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
18-year-olds cannot buy and consume alcohol legally to keep alcohol off of high school campuses. Maybe not the most effective law, but I'm sympathetic to the principle.
Extending the drininkg age to 21 was the first in a series of attempts to treat college-age adults as children. That's an absurd idea, and we can only hope it goes no farther. I hear of several states where it's increasingly difficult to get a driver's license under 21 now.
People between the ages of 15 and 18 sould be allowed to make all kinds of mistakes (especially involving alcohol), screw up their lives, and learn the error of their ways before they get to college. This was the way for most of mankind's history, and it's sad that the "for the ccchhhiiillldddrrreeennn" people have gained so much control.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, SCP, blah blah blah blah blah, can all be used to send files across the Internet to another party.
If that's the case, then I think that the solution is pretty clear.
Ban acronyms.
Please cite the source of millions for the death penalty. The highest (legit) sources I have seen talked about 1.5 million...that includes housing them for 20 years, all the appeals they get, and finally killing. The actual killing is about 50-70k...the rest is all the BS red tape. Even if the inmate wants to be put to death some stupid lawyer with a publicity agenda will fight it in court - against the inmates wishes...the 1.5 million cost is largely due to a moronic legislative system....the cost of housing consistantly increases (it will be alot more in 20 years then what it is now, especially with the explosion of Aids/HIV and other medical costs).
Fry em and forget about them...including the kids.
Again, please site legit sources about the "millions" to put someone to death.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Its funny because you seriously seem to think that despite having the most (and best) armaments in the world, it is the great unwashed -- but armed -- populace that are keeping invaders at bay.
By-the-way, as to your question regarding whether I read the Bill of Rights or not, Of COURSE I read it -- I'm Canadian.
Unless, of course, it's done as part of a religious service. There's money in that idea, somewhere ...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I would add that in allowing the state to execute minors, you are executing a class of people who, previous to their crimes, have had absolutely no say as to whether the death penalty should be enforced (i.e.- the right to vote). Might as well call open season on the lives of all minors. It's not like they can do anything about it.
As OP pulled out the corporation personhood thingy, I find it curious people even mention the idea of corporate right to free speech without any responsibilities. I have the right to free speech, but I am answerable for my crimes, including being put to death for them.
Shall we put every member of a corporation in jail for the illegal action of the corporation? No. Of course not. That is absurd. The corporation has the rights of a citizen without having to bear the same costs as a citizen. It's another instance when the court wants to have it both ways.
I am dumbstruck by the people who manage the contortions of thought to justify these incongruities. The logic twists back on itself into a Gordian knot.
I won't even touch when the state mistakenly executes one of its citizens compared to when the citizenry mistakenly kills.
-- Self- and home defense. Good to stay alive if someone breaks into your home and tries to kill you.
-- Hunting. Mmm, pheasants taste good.
...... kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Is not murder, and guns are best at it.
That doesn't bring up the *nonviolent* uses of a gun, but this is about legality. It's perfectly legal and moral to shoot someone between the eyes under certain situations.
Excellent post, even though neither of us seems to be using the proper definition of legitimate (which is "lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law").
1a) You can not poop gold because that is not in accordance with physical laws (unless you actually eat gold, I suppose). Whether you should or not is therefore irrelevant.
1b) ahh, so you agree. In this day and age, the 2nd ammendment holds no bearing because it can not achieve its aims.
2a) I'm not arguing against using deadly force, am I? I am arguing the legitimate uses of guns. Are you implying it is impossible to defend oneself WITHOUT a gun?
2b) Like I said, it was a catch-22. "Cops need guns because civilians have guns." "Civilians need guns because cops have guns." Legitimate? I think not.
"Now I know how god must feel when HE'S holding a gun!"
Again, excellent post -- thanks for the response!
The costs may be due to BS red tape, but they are real. Given the current system, and the real tax dollars, I think the costs to society should be a consideration. One also has to consider that the appeals for someone under 18 could be much more extensive due to the age/maturity/responsibility/ emotional development arguments.
4 5&did=385
c le?AID=/20050220/OPINION03/502190321/1058
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti
http://www.nyadp.org/main/police811.html
Here's a few sources I found - if you want more, google them "death penalty taxpayers millions"
Funny....I thought that was what college was for..to get it all out of the way before you had to go out into the real world and earn a living as an adult.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Actually, a recent study was out that said the 30%. IIRC, it was discussed here. So rather than getting nasty to somebody, you could easily google or simply search here and test the veracity of the statement.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
MGM ought to talk to InterTrust. They figured out how media companies can make money on P2P networks in the early '90s. Revenue streams from viewing, revenue streams from sharing, protected content, etc. MGM and the rest of those ostriches are missing out on some big dinero by not dealing with InterTrust.
......... kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Originally, that what the young teens years were for, as we wanted people productive as early as possible. Today, for some baffling reason, we want to keep treating people as children for as long as possible. It's a disturbing trend.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
By your own logic all art, toys, sports and associated equipment are not 'useful' and therefore should be able to be outlawed. Try to take a golfer's clubs from him - they'll show you a new use for golf clubs (they are CLUBS, after all). Just because something isn't 'useful' (whatever that means), doesn't mean it should be outlawed. My free speech isn't always 'useful', but you'd better not try to outlaw it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
texas law
alaska code
findlaw's link to various state codes so you can check for yourself.
MA law is vague
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
No, it isn't really useful to target practice. But neither is watching TV, playing sports, playing video games, or really anything besides eating, sleeping, and making offspring.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
With the rise of a wealthy middle class in the late middle ages / early Renaissance who could afford the trappings of nobility, many towns and cities adopted sumptuary laws. These laws regulated all manner of dress and apparel, not just weaponry. In this period it was not unusual for commoners to be prohibited from carrying SWORDS, not because they were weapons but because they were a symbol of nobility. Similarly, certian furs (EG, ermine) and even some dyes (purple) were typically reserved for the hereditary nobility.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Well, you might not find that book in the library, but here's the electronic version. It has: a dash of victim info, which we can consider to be our list of potential targets; lists of known organisations which you can either use to select a place to join or a group to blame for your own activities; and a large number of terrorist actions and their efficacy over time, which may help you choose overly effective methods or plan new methods with some idea of their efficacy. By the way, I don't recommend printing it. You probably don't have enough paper.
Now, should we ban Google, pass laws saying that news can't be put online, make a list of words that we can't use in searches, or what? It's about time you realized that information for the inquiring mind is out there, and the idiots will either not read it or follow directions poorly. This has been the case since cavemen first had to say to their thicker contemporaries, "Don't use the club on your own head."
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You state that some people believe that there is a distinction between taking an innocent life, taking the life of the guilty, and accidental death. There is not.
I agree that accidental death is different. There is no intent to kill. The other two are no different, though. Either knowingly killing someone is wrong, or it is not. A person may believe that the wrong avoided by killing someone makes it justifiable, but that does not change the underlying moral decision on whether killing is right or wrong.
My belief is that the only time killing a person is justifiable is when it is done because there is no choice - the person must be killed to protect another person or people. If a person is in prison, they cannot harm other people. So, executing them is wrong. If that same person were out of jail and was attempting to kill someone else, the police would be justified in killing him to stop him.
This has nothing to do with abortion. As another poster said very well, what is involved when deciding on abortion is deciding what makes a human. Becoming human is a process. Until that mass of cells that is created by the joining of the sperm and the egg becomes human, abortion is not killing. Since there is not a scientific or medical definition of when that happens, it is up to each person to decide. Therefore, under the law, abortion should remain a personal choice.
But that's just the point. A responsible person hopes that by possessing a gun he will *prevent* violence against himself and his family through the *threat* of using the gun. Violence avoided, no murder committed.
We used a huge collection of nuclear weapons for the same purpose during the Cold War. It was a scary time, but it worked out OK, and all life on Earth was repeatedly not extinguished in a nuclear apocalypse.
The primary purpose of a gun is to prevent violence. This may involve one of the secondary purposes of a gun, which is killing people, but that is not the goal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It seems that the eventual legal answer will be a federal policy requiring content publishers to be licensed like radio. You and I may recognize that the www is bi-directional, but, at a higher level, websites are considered publishers. Before you flame me with "1st Amendment" bullshit, consider that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you have a right to avoid licensing. Most major media have license requirements to some degree, so, the precedent is there. Even low level "consumer" publishing has license requirements: HAM, CB, CableAccess TV. Jurisdiction? Also, it can be said that, in the US, internet content is subject to FCC regulations, especially WiFi, and any data conduits subsidized by tax payer money. It will be a matter of time before some senator realizes there is a triple win here: a public schmooze fest of "decency on the web", content protection for hollywood [licensing introduces accountability] and a new tax avenue for these "licenses". In this case, it will no longer be about the "Pirates" trading the MP3s, but, about enforcement sweeps that lean on ISPs to prove their the webbies have valid licenses. Sucky days ahead!
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
And if you want to know the law, check the code, don't go on a feeling or belief.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Target shooting. Plinking soda cans, long range benchrest shooting, skeet and trap shooting, etc. Or modding. Some people get a get out of hacking X-boxes or putting neon lights and windows in their cases. I've got a Turkish Mauser that I swaped the barrel out to a .257 Roberts, put on a laminate wood stock, reforged the bolt handle, and installed a replacement scope safety for. It's a fun project, and when I completely finish this one, I'll likely do another.
People are far too assume that guns are somehow evil. This opinion usually stems from ignorance on the subject in the exact same manner as it does in the P2P debates. Don't understand P2P? Those crazy software pirates need to be stopped. Don't understand guns and shooting? Those crazy murderers need to be stopped. Neither of the statements is accurate.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Thank you for your reasoned reply. I looked up weapon since we seem to disagree on its definition. According to MW, a weapon is, "something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy", and according to dictrionary.com, "An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword". According to these definitions anything can be a weapon when USED to attack, injure, defeat, or destroy. This is of course close to the common definition of a weapon. I guess the critical difference is that an object must be put to use to injure, etc to be a weapon - otherwise it's a tool, ashtray, whatever. Your comments " Guns are still essentially weapons" and "Likewise, in competitive shooting, guns are still being used as weapons, but you're competing at who's better at using the weapon" hinge on the notion that an object has the immutable characteristic of either being a weapon or not. I say a gun isn't a weapon until fired at a living thing. When fired at paper, it's a tool, plain and simple.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
sometimes. depends on the base and the base commander. Just like the governor and legislature make the law in the state, the commander makes the law on the base. MOST bases today are "dry" if you are under 18, but I know of one or two CONUS locations that permit consumption by minors on base.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
-- Target shooting and sport. Pure entertainment, and good hand-eye coordination practice.
Get a lazer gun..
-- Self- and home defense. Good to stay alive if someone breaks into your home and tries to kill you.
(because they found you gun and wondered if it worked!).
-- Hunting. Mmm, pheasants taste good.
Sorry, this comes under 'murder'.
You should add, pointing at you local representative when he passes laws that prevent you from using p2p networks. Viva P2P.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
*The federal drinking age is not actualy a mandatory law. Rather the federal drinking age is a condition of recieving federal money for highway and road matenence in the state. A state could have a lower drinking age. Most chose not to.
This is why the federal government couldn't collect income tax as an indirect tax, as decided by the courts, from its citizens.
It is a state's rights issue and the feds shouldn't be involved. The fact that money=power has turned our form of government upside-down because of this.
The conclusion is to abolsh the IRS with the FairTax legislation and then take the next step to begin to starve the beast...then we the people can get our power back.
One example is the one that the framers were thinking of when put in the ammendment, which is to overthrow the government by force. One of the many excellent checks and balances in the US constitution
I get really pissed off when I read this rational. This goes beyond idiotic. Perhaps -=perhaps=- in the late 1700s you could overthrow the government by keeping a few muskets around the house. Today this is meaningless.
If things ever come to the point where you need to overthrow the government and all you've got are the guns in your house you aren't going to get very far. If you do get very far, rest assured someone will simply drop a few tons of high explosives on your house from 50,000 feet.
Claiming you need to have guns to overthrow a tyranical government is a lot like claiming you have to have rutabegas to overthrow the same.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
washington state
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Uh, that is your belief. It is not the belief of the people in question, and thus not a useful response.
You can disagree all you want. However do not confuse your beliefs with pure facts.
Following your reasoning, you would have to assume that if Congress were to pass a clearly immoral law, such as permitting the permanent enslavement of juvenile offenders that it would be proper for the Supreme Court to uphold such a law under the premise of "judicial self-restraint". Of course, that's pure foolishness.
It is an error to assume that the judiciary's sole responsibility is to interpret statute. If that were the case, then congress could simply codify what is and what is not "cruel and unusual" punishment; and if congress could do that then the Consitution would be pretty meaningless, now wouldn't it? The judiciary must in fact interpret constitutional rights within the framework of contemporary values and morals. Indeed, the Supreme Court does this all the time and this is the principle the majority applied in this case.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
This is really just more meaningless litigation to tie up legal recources in this country. The MPAA or RIAA can accept it or not, but people are always going to be able to get around copywrite laws, and the like -- they may close one door, but another will always be opened. If litigation and regulation did anything than Napster would have been the end of music sharing as we know it. Pointing the finger at the protocols used to share copywritted media is a futile effort to force people to pay outlandish prices for that media. Personally, I would much rather download an artists album over the internet and send the artists themselves $16, than go to a store and buy a $16 cd of which the artist may see 25 cents of. But if the RIAA would like to lower prices of cds to $5-8 and assure me that a good portion of that is going to the artist themselves (not some distribution companies profit margin), or lower my movie ticket price $3, or make dvds never cost more than $9, I would stop downloading all-together. Sure, copywrite infringement may be against the law, but so it high-way robbery.
I say a gun isn't a weapon until fired at a living thing. When fired at paper, it's a tool
Not a very useful tool, though. There is little or no intrinsic value in using a gun to poke holes in paper, except for the sporting. A gun is PRINCIPALLY a weapon, and even its secondary uses are non-utilitarian.
Whereas a knife (bayonet, butterfly, etc, excluded) is PRINCIPALLY a tool, where the purpose of the knife is to modify some other object in a useful way.
I agree with the original poster, comparing P2P to knives is a MUCH better analogy than comparing P2P to guns.
For reasons not clear to me, NO. That may have to do with the intersection of federal and state law. State law defines adulthood, federal law defines voting restritions.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Guns are excellent for revolutions and such things. Those can healthy every now and then. Ask the Americans and the French about revolutions, they love to talk about them.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=accou ntable
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: accountable
Pronunciation: &-'kaun-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : LIABLE
2 : obliged to accept responsibility
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
but I got it right in the message body :)
What keeps me going is my inertia.
And as far as I can tell 2004->Ch0562->Section%2011#0562.11>florida code does not make the parental/guardianship exemption.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Wait a moment! Butterfly knives serve a very useful purpose. They make it easier to spot the people with no clue how to use a knife in a fight or as a tool.
Yes, OBLIGED, whether capable or not. Thank you. You've made my point quite well. Someone can be liable for an action that they aren't responsible for.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
.. an 'ol-school rock and roll band to get out there on the steps, put on a free public gig, seriously rock out, get the whole thing on tape, and put it on the 'net for free .. causing a wild storm .. this would be it.
the point of this is: substantial public non-infringing use, and this means one thing: Art.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Damn they missed one (raised eyebrow)
My Doom. The gift that keeps on giving
I think googling that specific term will tend to bring back sites that only talk about death penalty that runs in the millions - which could be biased. I would rather google "death penalty cost" or "death penalty taxpayer"....and see all the results. I think a high run (my searches) of 1.5 million is a long shot from millions which implies at least 2 million, but hints towards higher numbers (otherwise they would use couple of million). I know I am harping on the language, but as a communication degree holder I try to read between the lines (even though I sometimes write poorly for convenience).
:)
So lets agree to disagree.
I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The media companies are asserting that if a technology is primarily used for illegal activity, then it should be banned.
Since there are statistics showing that a majority of email is now SPAM, which is illegal, shouldn't we have to shut down email as well?
I don't think it's just about movies recorded in the theater. I think alot of it has to do with ripped DVD quality video. That has *great* value as pirated material.
suggesting that i would point a gun at my local representative to protect p2p crosses the line of decency. you, sir, are a serious dickhead.
....... kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Thank you, also, for your reasoned reply. I disagree with your contention that "A gun is PRINCIPALLY a weapon". A gun is principally a chunk of well-formed metal. It can make a very effective weapon, and is often used as a weapon, but it is not by its nature a weapon sitting quietly on a table. As I said before, the definition of weapon seems to include a precondition of use, not mere existence.
As far as the analogy with P2P goes, I agree that knives make a much less debatable and contentious choice.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
The "try as adult" bit simply means that killing someone with a butcher knife, carving out his eyeballs, eviscerating him and wrapping his intestines around his throat is sufficiently heinous to indicate that the person who committed the crime must be treated as an adult and punished as such, OH and by the way we think that this 16 year old did it because he gave her a failing grade in english.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Outlaw marriage, and only outlaws will have inlaws.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring. People were using HTTP, FTP and IRC to transfer mp3s and warez long before napster and it's ilk ever hit the market. None of those protocols offer any copyright protection. P2P networks simply canabalized the majority of such server-based copyright infringement, primarily because they decentralize network load, and legal accountability.
Really? Nobody has tried to invade America? How about the Spanish, the English, the French, the Russians, and the Mexicans? Oh... you mean not in your personal lifetime. Well, then I guess it doesn't count.
Of course Congress can't pass a law that goes against the Constitution, they'd need an Amendment for that.
When I said the court shouldn't make their own laws, I didn't expect anyone to take it literally. The court accomplishes the same thing through their rulings...normally referred to as "legislating from the bench".
What I'm saying, is either states should make their own laws prohibiting execution of minors (what you suggested) or the federal gov't should pass a federal law prohibiting execution of minors.
Either way, it's for the lawmakers to decide, not 9 people.
> "The primary purpose of a gun is to prevent violence."
A gun has no primary purpose; only a motivated person can have a purpose in mind for the gun. A gun may have a primary use: to launch bullets at things. But the purpose of that use varies on who's controlling the gun.
As for "preventing violence", that's all based on your perspective. Someone on a shooting spree isn't out to prevent violence for his victims. Someone with a gun in their home isn't either - the intruder won't know about the gun until threatened by it or shot by it. A sign on your door saying "WARNING: I AM ARMED WITH A GUN AND WILL DEFEND MYSELF IF THREATENED" has a primary goal of preventing violence, even if you don't really have a gun.
$8.95/mo web hosting
How about nail-guns and the like. They are definitely guns, using a propellent to accellerate a projectile. I would rather use that anyday when building a house.
There already is such a federal law. It's called the 8th Amendment.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Guns are very effective at maiming, not just murdering!
Oh yeah, they're also good for suicide!
The "try as adult" bit simply means that killing someone with a butcher knife, carving out his eyeballs, eviscerating him and wrapping his intestines around his throat is sufficiently heinous to indicate that the person who committed the crime must be treated as an adult and punished as such, OH and by the way we think that this 16 year old did it because he gave her a failing grade in english.
I don't argue that this was somehow a minor crime or unimportant, just that until the very instant the jury reached a verdict, the minor on trail could not legally be presumed to have done any of that. In other words, you say he committed a heinous crime so he will be tried as an adult for that crime so we can see if he did it.
OTOH, I would support modifying juvenile sentencing guidelines to be applied AFTER a coviction. There are, after all, some crimes that go well beyond the 'errors of youth', such as the one you cite.
This could take the form of a special hearing to sentence as an adult, which could take place after the juvenile trial. Since a conviction would then be in place, the court would no longer be required to presume innocence. Part of the reason for a special juvenile court as well as a seperate prison is that minors are presumed not to have the adult capacity needed to be tried in 'adult court'.
What would he have to do to make you point your gun at him?
I think anyone who owns a gun should seriously consider where the line is drawn.
suggesting that shooting pheasants isn't murder makes you a serious dick head in my book, so were about even.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
OK, your correction on "purpose" is pendantic, but noted. However, *any* powerful tool is dangerous when used irresponsibly or criminally. My comment was about usage by responsible gun owners. As has been demonstrated, an airliner is far more dangerous in irresponsible hands (or a car, or a cordless dril, etc.).
My point was the primary intended use of guns by responsible owners is the prevention of violence, not the perpetration of it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So what? In the US, guns are still legal even though don't seem to have ANY legitimate use. The irony is that we are more likely to see P2P banned before guns are. After all, when the NRA comes to protest in numbers on your doorstep, you take notice. When a bunch of iPod toting teens show up, you probably think, "meh".
yah, that whole being explicitly granted in the constitution thing helps a little too I think...
If things ever come to the point where you need to overthrow the government and all you've got are the guns in your house you aren't going to get very far. If you do get very far, rest assured someone will simply drop a few tons of high explosives on your house from 50,000 feet.
No, see, you're the one going beyond idiotic. The idea of overthrowing a government isn't intended for use by one house, or a neighborhood, or even a city. It's national. How is the government going to drop a few tons of high explosives on the houses of millions of people?
Surely you realize that military operations are planned, staged and executed by our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, and close friends? There aren't a million secret, dark agents running our military, capable of turning against the nation should the president give the word. These are our own citizens, and all indications say virtually none of them would cooperate in such a situation.
No; if the government was in danger of being overthrown, chances are very high those high explosives and the aircraft used to deliver them would not be in the hands of the government. They would be in the hands of a military loyal to the citizens of this country - their friends and family members - and would be used in our favor.
Minors, typically, do have a diminished capacity for certain things (compared to adults).... but knowing the difference of life and death does not require someone to be 18, 21, or any age above 6-8. I knew, from a young age (around 6-8) what life and death was about. I knew that I was scared when my dad drove a motorcycle because I was scared he would die. I knew that killed people was wrong, and that hurting people was wrong. If I, and many others know that at the ripe young age of 6-8...then a 14 year old should easily be held accountable.
I agree completely. However, until a verdict is returned, the accused minor is innocent in the eyes of the law. Therefor, the court may NOT treat the minor differently from any other minor on the basis of the seriousness of the crime.
As I suggested in another reply, once convicted, the court can and should have an additional hearing to determine the appropriateness of adult sentencing for the minor who has now been proven guilty in a court of law. That hearing would then weigh exactly the sorts of things you wrote about.
I imagine there are probably special dispensations in most legal codes for this, but the small amount of alcohol that a Catholic child is going to get during the Eucharist is hardly going to lead to drunkness. I'm sure any religious organization that was found to plying minors with alcohol in large quantities would be in deep trouble.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So they do it in reverse...there might be some legal reason to do it in reverse (as you suggested). I think the accused has to know what they are being tried for and what the state is seeking in penalties before being tried - so that might be the reason - otherwise it throws the legal process in disarray (isn't it always there). Personally, imho, as long as the person gets the chair I don't care in which order they announce it. I take that back, if a particular order 1) saves us money and 2) makes the kids life more miserable then that path is preferred. Though - a second hearing gives more chances for appeals, etc.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"yah, that whole being explicitly granted in the constitution thing helps a little too I think..."
Its not like the constitution was handed down to a moses like figure on the mount by god. Its a document written by people that was probably mostly appropriate at the time to protect the interests of the people writing it. Its not like there isn't a government body and judicial system that is forever interpreting, modifying and ammending those all-mighty documents of confederation.
"What's this? Are these facts? I specifically asked for _statistics_!"
Why did the mod's down this as flamebait? Just because this opinion is unpopular doesn't make it any less of a valid opinion.
I suggest re-moderation of this opinion as insightful at the very least. His opionion reflects his own opinion and understanding of children and never once suggested the contrary of a womans right to kill a living being growing inside of her.
I'll keep my opinion to myself. Mod's please moderate as such.
Or in the case of my co-workers killing anything that we have authorization to do so with. But then again all my co-workers will tell you that planes work so much better for that, they hit more things at once.
Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive
The truth is, anything *can be* a weapon if it's used in an attack. Anything can be a piece of furniture if you sit on it. Some things lend themselves easily toward being different things. Kitchen knives, basball bats, crow bars, and such-- they all make good weapons, but I wouldn't say they're *essentially* weapons, since they can be and are frequently used otherwise. In fact, use as a weapon is not the primary purpose for which these items were designed. Guns, on the other hand, don't lend themselves towards other purposes. Even if you're using a gun as "decoration" (the most passive purpose I can think of), the purpose of using such a thing for decorative purposes is usually to evoke a militant aesthetic, which is to say that its worth as a decoration comes from the fact that it's a weapon.
Ok, back to the point, which is that P2P networking (of which the internet as a whole is an example) is more of the class of things like kitchen knives than guns (in the context of this discussion). P2P networking is not *essentially* grounds for copyright violations, even though it makes quite a nice tool for that purpose.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: responsible Function: adjective 1 a : liable to be called on to answer b : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties 2 : characterized by trustworthiness, integrity, and requisite abilities and resources 3 : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong 4 : marked by or involving accountability
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
You are building a strawman to refute the point. Of course no one is going to directly attack the US government with handguns. Of course that is silly.
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent. The government cannot suppress the population by force without armed conflict. Armed conflict causes dissent amongst the military, splitting it and leading to greater conflicts and eventually overthrowing the government by it's own military since militia siding with the oppressive government face hostile evironments even without direct conflict whereas the populaces militia is supplied and reinforced at every turn. Because this is such a stupid position for a government to get itself into, it would never do so as long as the populace remains armed. So the point of ownership is not to fight the US military head to head, but to ensure you never have to.
If you want a look at a true modern regime change, look at the fall of the Soviet Union. They do happen successfully with or without rutebegas.
Absolutely! By the time of acquittal, the minor is probably 30. The wheels of justice grind quite slowly in this country...
It's not pedantic, it's central to the argument of whether you blame the product or the user. In P2P, the product is getting blamed for certain peoples' uses of it. Not once has guilt for a murder been placed on a gun manufacturer in a trial (though that argument has been proposed). So why is it different for P2P?
Since you added "use of guns by responsible owners", I totally agree - responsible gun owners keep a gun for use as a last resort way to fight back, or as a deterrent, or as sporting equipment (skeet shooting, hunting), or as part of an enthusiast collection.
If the owner used it for other reasons, I wouldn't consider him a responsible gun owner. (I'm sure there are some other responsible reasons that I've forgotten to list, but you know what I mean)
$8.95/mo web hosting
Of course it's idiotic. It's not like there are any wars in recent memory where a well-armed populace was able to beat a significantly superior force...
It's "funny" because the unwashed populace has historically been a huge pain in the ass of occupying forces.
I'm saying that the second amendment was intended to give the power of defense to the people -- be it defense from their own government, or defense from would-be invaders.
Can you provide an interpretation of the second amendment that runs counter to that statement?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
The design of the Internet is of a peer to peer nature because every device assigned an IP address was assumed to have an equal capability to send an IP packet to other IP nodes as receive them. If every device can equally send and receive to every other device, then the devices are equal, or peers.
The only difference between these peers is the bandwidth of their attachments to the network. However, that difference occurs at the link layer, not the network layer or IP layer. A the IP layer they are peers.
Technologies such as NAT have broken this design assumption. People now have to put the "peer to peer" nature back by coming up with work arounds, such as port forwarding etc. Sadly, this work on work arounds takes programmer time away from adding extra useful features, or fixing bugs. NAT is a cost that public address space and a standard firewall can avoid.
One of the reasons why IPv6 is important is that it will restore the peer to peer nature of the Internet, as NAT work arounds won't be necessary.
It's going to look like I changed my Slashdot signature just because of this story. Actually, I realised the design of the Internet was peer to peer a while ago, and changed my signature to reflect that, also a while ago. Here's something I wrote with it as my email signature last Sunday.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Not quite -- ICBM's are a good way to ensure mutual destruction. If you want to take the land that is America, that means occupation, not throwing explosives from afar.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
If it's a tool, where's the constructive or creative use?
It's not a tool, it's a toy when fired at paper -- a sporting device, like a ball or bat. A recreational thing.
Guns are tools only when used to kill, eg a farmer putting down wounded stock.
If other people want to execute other people... hell I have no problem with that. It's a problem when the State has the power to execute people. The State should have no right to life. We allow the State to exist.. not the State allowing us to exist.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
I can't get to your link since it's registration problems. But that should be immediate death penalty no matter how drunk or mentally ill you are.
2b - Unilateral disarmament simply isn't feasible -- or desirable. I moved to Texas several years ago, and gained a few new data points:
The definition of the object as a "gun" also seems to include precondition of use. Insofar as the object is a lump of well-formed metal sitting quietly on a table, the object is neither a gun nor a weapon, but merely a well-formed lump of metal.
Therefore, it is still valid to say that "guns are weapons", since its use as a gun (the precondition of it being a "gun") also constitutes use as a weapon. Admittedly, though, you could use it as a weapon without using it as a gun, which would be to club someone with it. However, at that point, it's a club, and not a gun, but still a weapon.
Hey.... Don't blame me, you started down this path.
Why couldn't we design a p2p system that uses EXISTING protcols, like HTTP, FTP, NNTP, etc (combine them to be effective)? These are already "legal" and they would demonstrate how ridiculous this whole discussion is.
Seems like you could do it as long as you had dedicated ports but I don't really know everything that is involved....
Anyone wanna take a crack at that one? Why couldn't it be done?
First off, it is utterly incorrect to call only call a gun a weapon when it is fired at a living target. That is equivalent to saying that what I am using something for defines what it is. So I use my Thinkpad T41 as a frisbee, therefore it is a frisbee. Or fiance is sitting on my lap, therefore I am a chair.
The difficulty is that there are many kinds of guns, and some are more weapon-like than others. That said there are some guns that are clearly weapons aimed at killing people. For example, outside target shooting & security guards, I see no need for handguns.
On that note, suppose you do have a handgun that is just used for target shooting. If it is only used for target shooting, and you recognise that it has the potential to be used as a weapon, then it should be regulated to ensure that it can only be used for target shooting. For example, requiring that it be stored at the target range.
meh
...and Hunting you morons.
Creative Commons music is really taking on on P2P...
Check this :
http://www.jamendo.com
It's Creative Commons Music + BitTorrent + iRATE + Ogg Vorbis... Awesome ! That's why P2P has to survive !
I wasn't laughing at the interpretation, I was laughing at the idea that it still means something in todays "civil" society. Oh sure, everyone needed a gun in-case the King of England came a-knocking way-back before there was a nation and a militia. Surely you have read that that was a very long time ago? Do you really think little 'ol you sitting on your pile of hand guns is keeping the rest of the world at bay? Is it keeping the US government off your back? It seems to me that 100 million people should have rushed into Washington with their guns a blaring back the moment the Dept of Homeland Security was created and began usurping their everyday rights and privledges (they probably didn't because no one threatened to mess with the second ammendment, yes?). These gun rights are all a bunch of lip-talk from people who are too damned afraid to sleep at night unless they have a gun under their pillow, a twitching finger on the trigger. What a life.
What else were guns good for two hundred years ago -- ergo what other reasons were there to have the pretext for a right to bear arms law? Lessee, if you needed to kill an indian or keep slaves in line -- use a gun! Take revenge on the person sleeping with your wife? GUN! Open a bottle? GUN!! GUN!! GUN!!
Basically, I heard the rhetoric. I read the book. I saw the thousand movies it spawned. I still don't "buy it". Its one of those ideas that sounds real good and proper on paper but when you extend it out two hundred years its just a bloody mess. Or maybe you just have to have been born there to appreciate it? I always get the feeling that few countries have citizens that enjoy a good Flag Waving and Goose Stepping more than America.
I don't know -- where I live, it would be considered a detriment to one's life to NEED a gun. You see, over here we think that the right to have a weapon implies the right to use the weapon and therefore implies the right to kill. That's something do not accept.
So lets ban them. All I ever hear on the news is people getting shot. I'm aware that some people might not use guns to shoot other people, however, I never hear of them on the news, so 99% of the use of guns must be to shoot people.
Of course, the 99% figure I'm assuming is probably wrong. You don't hear on the news that people aren't using guns to shoot people, because it isn't news worthy. There are plenty of farmers here in Australia who have guns, and use them to shoot vermin, including kangaroos (with appropriate permission).
My point is this; just because you hear about P2P being used a lot for IP violation, doesn't necessarily mean that it is being used substancially for that purpose, or that it should be banned. It may only be that you are hearing only one part of the figures. Don't extended those figures to represent the whole use.
If you want legal software you can go to sourceforge or download.com or wherever it is distributed. If you want legal music there are places for that.
What if you don't want to host your project on one of those sites, because you don't want to abide by their terms and conditions ? Say your software is really popular. How are you going to afford the bandwidth needed to distribute it ? An OC3 from an ISP is many, many thousands of dollars per month. What alternative have you got to share you software. Oh, that's right, peer to peer file sharing software. Too bad that in the future, you might be banned from using it, completely preventing you from sharing your software with anybody at all.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
1st rule of knife fights, if they've pulled a knife and haven't stabbed you chances are they won't.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
One thing I learned about gun folks: if its not the King of England after them, its an alligator. You know how alligators come into populated areas and eat people for no good reason? Of course you need a gun. Its a multi-purpose tool: on the one hand, it is the vindicator of freedom and on the other, it is the subduer of nature. Don't forget -- they are great for cracking nuts!! Of course, the best thing guns are for is killing. If you have some killing that needs done -- use a gun.
Oh, and speaking of nuts -- Texas. "Whydya shoot 'im?" "He needed Killin'". "Ahhh." The right to kill someone because they TP'd your house. Fantastic!! It fills my heart with ease knowing that every damn person I pass on the street is 1) carrying a gun, 2) feels that they have the right to be a judge, a jury and an executioner. That's a great system because it doesn't discriminate against anyone's right to ruin someone else's day. It amazes me that there are still people with guns who DON'T live in Texas. What are they waiting for? Texas was made for them!
On a serious note, the problem with guns is that if you can't trust your government with them, how in hell can you trust your "neighbor" with them? Moreso, if you are so untrusting of everyone (isn't that a sign of instability?) then how can anyone trust YOU with a gun?
Man, I am so sorry I got into this gun thing. I forgot how much Americans love guns. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
IIRC, he was fighting against a 'tyrant' had a functioning parliament.
Vietnam: A well armed populace backed by the might of the Chinese army and supplied by the military industrial complex built by the Chinese and the Soviets before 1962
Afghanistan: A well armed populace consisting of, among other, Osama Bin Laden. Armed by the United States of America and trained by the CIA.
Any examples where there's not a superpowe involved?
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
It's not as if our nations military consists of strategic bombers and a couple guys who guard them with wooden swords
Military grade weapons are successfully kept out of the hands of all but a few individuals. A full scale revolt might succeed in the United States, but never without the complacency of the military.
What, you think a couple of guys with hunting rifles are going to do any serious damage against an armored tank division? Did you see what the military bases looked like on Sept 12, 2001? The naval acadamy was guarding its doors with anti-tank rockets and claymore mines, and that was just the back gate.
Perhaps the senario you're talking about is possible with the co-operation of the military, but then... what do you need the guns for in that case? The military has pleanty of those.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I'm building a straw man to refute a straw point. If the argument is that an armed populace is a deterant to the military oppression of a city I'll run with that. That's a good argument.
Sorry, I come from a rural corner of Virginia where people seem to honestly belive that the South's gonna rise again and that Ted Kennedy is going to show up on their doorstep to personaly take their guns.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
So what? In the US, guns are still legal even though don't seem to have ANY legitimate use."
The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional tyranny. --Walter Williams
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I think Switzerland does a better job of that, considering every citizen is expected to have military training and be serve in the Swiss military.
Because its unfair maybe? Essentally what you are saying is they should have all of the consequences of being an adult without any of the benefits.
Pyschology disagrees with you also; a child does not have the capacity to really understand what they've done when they've commited murder.
The feds are extoring; they setup a situation where the states are finanically dependant on them, then force them to comply to get funding.
Except where noted in the Constition, the feds should have NO sway whatsoever on state governments.
The power structure should be a pyramid, with the Feds at the top, and local gov'ts at the bottom, where the people hold more sway.
Yes. The logic i've already spelled out; the belief held by law is that they are not mature enough to completely understand the ramifications of signing a contact, the issues being voted on, etc.
If they can't fully appreicate those, how are they to appreciate what they've done?
So you can argue if you feel 18 is the appropriate cut of age, but the reasoning still stands regardless of age; they simply are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
Im thinkin the real way to shotgun a beer.
"I think the rat bastards should fry, and you do not...we are allowed to think differently :)"
Actually, we are in agreement on this issue. I, in general, support the death penalty. I am just looking at it from a practical perspective. The death penalty already has enough opposition and is difficult enough to determine when it does or doesn't apply. I am in favor of setting the bar at 18 years old because it draws a clear line consistent with labelling someone an adult, and it removes the burdensome expenses of trying a death penalty case and working through all the appeals (including the age based ones).
We're having a sensible conversation, what will this do to our karma?
Hmmm... what definition of legitimate am I using them... I don't know. "Morally right" perhaps?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Well, then repeal it. You have a perfectly good mechanism for repealing an ammendment if you think it is out of date.
What I argue that you should not do is introduce laws that try and get round it, like every other state seems to be doing. I mean, can you own a gun legally in NYC? If not, it would seem to me that osmething is wrong.
But the Supreme Court seem not to agree. Ho hum.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
But skeet shooting / paper target shooting is just a method for the marksman to develop proficiency with the weapon so that they will be more effective when using it for its primary purpose - which is to kill or maim living things.
"The media companies are asserting that if a technology is primarily used for illegal activity, then it should be banned."
Where did you read that? I've read the brief and they appear to be saying nothing of the sort. They are trying to put Grokster out of business. They are not trying to ban P2P protocols. There are plenty of ways to implement P2P in a way that respects the rights of others (in fact, Wayne Rosso, Grokster's president, is working on just such a system), but Grokster sure ain't it.
There is a debate technique known as a "straw man" in which one deliberately mischaracterizes one's opponent's argument to make it easier to tear down. I don't know if that was your intention, but there are plenty of intelligent things to say on both sides of this case without having to resort to this technique.
"Since there are statistics showing that a majority of email is now SPAM, which is illegal, shouldn't we have to shut down email as well?"
Of course not. But I can imagine an instance where a spammer that's being taken to court trying the same trick: painting it as an attack on e-mail itself, and not the action of the abuser.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"We're having a sensible conversation, what will this do to our karma?"
8 86 292573/102-3649919-6064127?v=glanceq up.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=808
My *real* karma won't be affected. What the mods make of all of this is up to them. I really could care less.
"Hmmm... what definition of legitimate am I using them... I don't know. "Morally right" perhaps?"
It would seem so. Apparently, morality has nothing to do with it. After looking it up, it appears to mean, generally, "lawful". I would have thought it had a moral angle too. Live and learn.
Here's a book you probably never heard of -- only because it is a book on Canadian politics (!) and lets be honest, even if you are from Canada chances are you never heard of it. I bring it up only because in order to frame the Canadian identity question, it is impossible to not first consider the influence of America. Professor Grant shows with simple lucidity that America is exactly like every other Empire that proceeded it with one exception -- it does not expand its borders of influence through military conquest per se. This is a consequence of the fact that the American constitution (or one of the documents) prohibits such activity. On the other hand, America has a broader influence (economic, social, cultural and foreign policy) than any other single culture or Empire that proceeded it. While it does not fit the traditional guise of "Empire" it most certainly *is* an Empire in every way that matters. The book is but a thin volume but really really well written (especially considering its subject matter) and it distills far more insight than one would expect from such a slight tome. Despite being written in the mid-sixties and for a Canadian audience, I wouldn't doubt that its insights are particularly relevant to the American experience at this point in history.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0
http://www.m
I would debate some more about guns but I don't like guns, I don't need guns and you aren't making any defence of actually keeping guns. Besides, I sort of got into this gun thing by accident by taking up the thread at a point that, in retrospect, was troll laden (who would have thought that guns would be a hot-button issue?) I don't own a gun. I probably shouldn't argue over the merit of guns with people who do own guns.
So how about that file-swapping fad?
I would disagree -- two hundred years later, the only thing that makes me think that the use for a firearm would ever arise is still my government.
My fellow citizens elected George Bush -- to paraphrase Catch-22, "everywhere I look is a nut, and it's all a sensible young gentleman like myself can do to maintain his perspective amid so much madness".
It's a nation with enough sheep to blindly trust whatever is told them by whomever thumps their chest the hardest. Would that my government held themselves to the same standards they impose upon everyone else, I wouldn't wonder about the need to defend America from anything.
Regarding the Department of Homeland Insecurity, FUDrakers, the lot of 'em, but when you've got the schools telling you from youth not to question the ones in charge, the local news tells you about how much better we all are now that you can't bring so much as a Bic lighter on an airplane, and the President of the Yoo-nited States himself telling you how much you're in danger, and that it's all Saddam's fault despite the lack of indicators that he did anything wrong at all other than be a general shit within the boundaries of his own country, it's understandable that those wanting to be good little citizens would gladly agree to show their papers when boarding flights, without question.
Does the right to bear arms act to keep the government from etching away at personal freedoms? No, because while we might have the right to own arms, the right to bear them has been long tossed aside. In fact, one of the quickest ways to get arrested would be to bear a firearm while expressing your dislike for the general invasion of privacy and standing in a public setting.
I guess the point is that the right to bear arms was intended by those who ran from a shitty government to protect us from a shitty government of our own, which is a noble cause. Heck, it's what they tell me America is supposed to be about -- allowing the citizens to enjoy personal freedoms unavailable elsewhere.
On the other hand, I'd wager that most MP3 swapping networks were intended to provide routes for copyright infringement, no matter how much people stand up and cry "there are legitimate uses!"
I don't think the two are that related, but people keep bringing up the gun-control thing in relation to P2P. It's interesting, though, that your reaction to my defense of the second amendment is so like the reaction of my government to those who defend of privacy -- by claiming that I don't need it (guns or privacy) unless I'm afraid of something, and that if I have nothing to fear I'd have no use for it.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
That works as long as your government is trustworthy. As it is, I'm quite glad I have the option not to be forced to be sent overseas to fuck up countries without the consent of their populace.
Although I do think that it would force our legislators to consider their actions a little more fully if it were their own sons and daughters being sent to die, and to kill the innocent.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
All of these have roots as weapons, but would probably not be considered as such since they now are all typically associated with games of skill.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
In the US, guns are still legal even though don't seem to have ANY legitimate use.
Guns have tons of legitimate uses. There's, uh.. making loud noises on holidays.. and, uhhhh.. It's faster to shoot a hole in something than to use a drill.. And don't forget making interesting films with highspeed cameras. And then there's ballistic tests to prove illegitimate use of a firearm. And.. did I mention loud noises on holidays?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
You mean you can't think of any? Let's start:
1) Target-shooting. Many people do this recreationally, as it is a test of one's physical ability (to hold a gun steady) and mental ability (to factor in external elements, like the wind, if it's a distance shot).
2) Hunting. Unless you consider killing animals to be "murder", in which case, let me lump you in with the PETA crowd.
3) Art/aesthetics. Some people use guns as decoration on their walls; who are you to say they cannot?
4) Self-defense (and yes, goddamn you, self-defense is a morally-justifiable, fundamental human right). Note that fending off somebody who is threatening your life does not necessarily require pulling the trigger -- often, the mere *threat* of violence is enough to scare somebody away. Moreover, it is possible to shoot somebody without killing them (e.g., shoot them in the arm, foot, knee, etc.), should the situation come to that (although, most people, if they are concerned at all for their safety, legal liability, and so on, will simply shoot towards the torso or head, lest they miss a smaller target (like the knee) and suffer the violent, quite-possibly deadly consequences of missing their attacker). I don't consider self-defense to be "murder" (assuming the case of self-defense comes to killing somebody in the first place - which is usually *not* the case in reality), as you probably think of it, but it can be reasonably described as "murder in defense of the person of one or another."
Of course, this is Slashdot, where all guns are bad all of the time. The argument typically goes that either:
1) As if the gun has a mind of its own, it clearly wants to kill people, or
2) Gun owners want to kill people and/or are too irresponsible to own a gun
The first assertion is ridiculous and logically-retarded; yet many on the anti-gun side of the debate promote it. Color me not surprised. For such people, especially computer geeks, ask them if their PC has a mind of its own, or if it obeys solely the commands issued to it as a result of developer work and end-user use. The answer, obviously, is the latter -- the computer's functioning is entirely dependent on the people operating it, hence, it is neither "good" or "evil", and nor does it "think" for itself (although we can program it to be artificially-intelligent, such programming still requires the work of a human).
The first part of the second assertion is not always ridiculous, but typically is. Most gun owners are not out to kill other people; more than anything, they fear for their own safety, or enjoy hunting, or enjoy the competition of target shooting.
The second part of the second assertion is relatively reasonable. There are certainly people too irresponsible to own guns; the question is, who are those people, and who decides who those people are? You? Are you so arrogant as to believe you can decide who is competent to own a gun - even if you've never met that person?
IMO, we can safely remove violent convicts from the list of people we allow to purchase any more than a bolt-action rifle or manually-reloadable (non-pump, non-autoloader) shotgun, if we allow even those (after all, why should somebody with a history of violence be permitted the means to cause more violence?)... I have no problem with non-violent convicts additionally being able to own handguns; I'm not too worried about embezzlers or pot-smokers shooting at me on the street, unlike with violent criminals.
But to purchase automatic weapons and small explosives - which I do believe people should be allowed to do, as well as manufacture (outlawed by that "conservative" Ronald Reagan in 1986) - IMO such purchases ought to require that a person have no criminal record beyond those of moving violations in vehicles or of "soft" drug use (e.g. weed, but not coke or heroin), be certifiably-sane and mentally-stable, and ought to be required to take a competence test to prove their competence to use such weapons and their understanding of their uses.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
1) b)the fact that the US federal and state governments constantly try to get round the constitution's limits on their powers does not invalidate the legitimacy of that document. I have no doubt that any attempt to overthrow the US government from within would be met with crushing force.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about taking up arms to overthrow the government.. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence which, as of yet, has not been made into law. The Constitution was drafted so that such violence can be avoided. The whole problem with the colonies was "taxation without representation." Whether you agree with your current representation or not, the fact is that you enjoy a much greater amount of input into your government than did colonial America.
Aside from that, most of the U.S. military (although not all) is comprised of real-life citizens who actually wouldn't relish the idea of killing their friends and family to protect a government which would be flawed enough to cause such an uprising in the first place.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Warning Shots - warning that you're going to murder -- This is not murder. Illogical; slippery slope argument.
Target Practice - practicing murder -- This is not murder; paper and clay targets are not alive. Illogical; begging the question argument.
Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions - threatening murder -- Threatening murder != murder.
Track & Field - competing at murdering skills -- This is not even *close* to murder (is there a trend here?). Gun fires a *blank*, not a bullet into the air.
Happiness (if warm) - warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife -- Straw-man argument. Illogical.
Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards - murdering poor, innocent walnuts -- Walnuts do not live once they have fallen from the tree. This is more akin to "shooting a dead horse." Will have to try shooting walnuts at 100 yards sometime...
Network Administration (see LART, definition of) - they'll have a different attitude if you murder them -- Illogical. Again, straw-man argument. Funny.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I did, and it's easy.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Dude, I hope you're kidding.
Conversely, voting, gambling, drinking, smoking are all restricted by age, yet there's no push to view people on a case-by-case basis for these activities.
Put another way, what if someone is 18, but still has a juvenile mindset (which isn't really uncommon)? Should they still be prosecuted as an adult? Should they be prohibited from seeing an R rated movie? It comes down to efficiency. It's not practical to review however many millions of people turn 18 every year to examine their mental competence.
You could make the arugment that crime costs society, whereas not letting a 20 year-old drink does not, and in fact possibly benefits society. But I think trying juveniles as adults is a slippery slope. It's easy to be carried away with desire for retribution and lose the ability to view the individual objectively. It seems like every year we hear about someone younger and younger being tried as an adult. So do we believe that juveniles are competent to make critical decisions, or do we not? I think it's fairly evident that by and large, they are not. There are many adults who are just as incompetent, but at some point you have to hold people accountable. 18 seems like a good age to me.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If a person is in prison, they cannot harm other people.
That's not entirely true. They can still harm other prisoners, guards, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a direct correlation between time sentenced and lack of regard for the lives of others.
I guess you could lock them all up in solitary for the rest of their lives. Personally, I'd rather be dead.. it seems more humane to me.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
There is a superpower involved. Us. If you arm yourself well now, no need for help later. Besides, what's to say the revolution wouldn't be backed by another superpower when the revolution comes? In 25 years, when the EU and the US are fighting Cold War part duex, maybe we'll be running the insurgency.
ok, in case you weren't kidding (because someone took me seriously enough to mod my post "flamebait"), you've just presented a logical refutation to a joke. Now, I hope, and I'm inclined to assume, that you're presenting a logical refutation to a joke as a joke, but I can't quite tell, and some people seem to be trying to turn this post into a pro/anti-gun argument of some kind, which is just weird.
"Doesn't the life of the unborn child come from both the mother and the father?"
Yes, but like everything else in this world the only rights that anybody seems to care about are womens.
Babies can die and men can get screwed till the cows come home just as long as mommy gets to kill the baby if it is inconvenient to her or have "daddy" pay the bills for her if it isn't.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
I'm sorry - could you be specific as to what is being stolen? As far as I can see copyrights are being infringed which != theft!
Libertas in infinitum
...The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent...
All this discussion on guns is off topic as far as I am concerned. However, gun ownership can be a deterrent to tyranny. If only one out of ten Jews in Nazi Germany and the occupied countries would have had a guns and managed to kill one or more Gestapo agents who came to arrest them in the middle of the night, the Nazis would have had 600,000 or more dead Gestapo goons. I suspect that places like Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz would have had few, if any Jewish prisoners. If a tyrant knows that statistically one of ten of the "enforcers" will die trying to arrest some members of a group of "undesireables", any tyranny government will find it difficult to find enough enforcers if the group of "undesireables" numbers in the millions. Many guns in the hands of many people DOES place severe, if not insurmountable retraints on potential tyrants. If enough people are unwilling to give up their guns, even if any government could or would declare them "illegal", there is no way to enforce such a "law", because a such government could not get enough enforcers willing to risk their necks. Only if that government can persuade a large percentage of the general population of the "undesireability" of a given group is there a possibility of eliminating that group. However if that group and their symphathizers numbers in the millions and most of them are armed, it may result in a civil war in that country.
All theory is gray
words, though ethereal, semiotic, insubstantial things, inevitably have negative and unintended consequences to the writer when expressed in malice and intolerance--especially so when misspelled.
........ kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Man, this thread boomed while I was off at work. I'm impressed.
Do me a favor. Think of the number of times guns are used in the US per day, okay? Now, try and do a vague mental breakdown of the proportions of legal and illegal uses (what's this "legitimate" crap?) of them. Legal: hunting, target shooting, scaring off criminals, cops shooting brown people. Illegal: armed robbery, murder, rape at gunpoint, cops shooting white people. (Not meant to be an all-inclusive list.) Do you seriously think that guns are used more often illegally than legally?
Now, think of the number of times public-network P2P software is used daily in this country. Legal: Linux distros. Illegal: Metallica, "The Incredibles", copies of Photoshop. Do you seriously think that public-network P2P is used more often legally than illegally?
Now, I'm not arguing that P2P should be illegal. There are substantial non-infringing uses (imagine how hard it would be to sling those ISOs around without BitTorrent!), and that's what matters. What I am saying is that it requires a remarkably distorted view to say that guns are made for evildoing and should be heavily controlled if not banned, while P2P is nothing of the sort.
I still think my analogy holds, and holds well.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Eh, I thought you were serious. My mistake...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use P2P to share legal files to set up a way to police the networks so that illegal materials are NOT shared.
Self-censoring and vigilante justice. Yep, sounds like progress to me. Oh, wait let's formalize this process. We can call the rules that we police the networks by "laws", and have a process where both sides get to plead their case. We could call this "court".
What makes you think we, the people can police ourselves better than we, the people?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You have have guns and rifles which are very bad at being weapons : compressed air guns with tiny lead bullets.
I'm sure it's a very good book,but surely it is a bizzare conclusion to say that America does not expand thru conquest because of it's constitution.
Surely it is because it has never needed to? For all of it's life it has had more empty land than it can use, and as many people as it cares to let in, and more minerals than it could want.
These days, perhaps that has changed because of oil, but it's hard to control a distant colony - simpler just to buy the damn stuff.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
One of the first things that Hitler did when he came to power, was to ban the possession of weapons by citizens.
This is something that pisses me of when certain members of political parties want to ban gun ownership here (in Belgium).
I am on a middle ground for gun ownership. I had to do my military service, so I have a used a real weapon (though for target practice only, I haven't even had assault training).
I think that everyone who wants to own a gun, should be compelled to serve some time in the military (be it some weekends or some months), and that there should be a administration setup for this purpose.
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
In all actuality, it probably serves to benefit the kid if he seems remorseful at all as the jury may be more lenient on a kid who is up for the death penalty.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I forget what the exact stats are - but the death penalty system is poor. I think, in Cali, the last person executed was about 20 years ago. Studies show that more people (by far) die on death row from natural causes then by the death penalty itself.
I think, and studies have shown, that kids younger then 18 understand what death is. I understood it at the age of about 8. I think the argument of not using the death penalty because of the appeals process is a faulty one; just like saying patent law should be abolished because it is faulty....a faulty law may be very useful - but just may need revision.
Imho, I would say that someone on death row has up to 3 appeals, and a max stay on death row of 10 years before execution; unless new "valid" evidence is shown and then a new trial could happen. That should give anyone, plenty of time to prove their innocence.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I can think of very few modern violent events that led to less freedom. It seems that since Runnymede, a populace with power - both educated *and* physically armed - has tended to demand and receive more rights.
Much like the "there are good and bad uses for P2P", there are good and bad reasons to shoot and kill someone. Beyond empowerment at a social level, I consider it a good thing to stop someone living who is actively threatening the lives of my wife or children. Perhaps you think that to be a terrible thing; I consider it an obligation.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Not really. My goal at target competition is not to hone my skills to shoot people - I shoot paper because its FUN and I enjoy it. There are tons of competitive shooters who don't hunt, and don't intend on shooting anyone. Other people play golf, I poke holes in paper.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I thought the "murdering poor, innocent walnuts" would give it away for sure.
Don't be ridiculous. It has never expanded through conquest (at least OFFICIALLY, it has occupied territories, eg: Philipines, Korea, etc) because of legal recourse. I'm glad though to hear your attitude: it means the American spirit that went into writing the consititution, declaration, et al, are still alive.
Cheers
I included my opinion on capital punishment to illustrate an example of that value judgement that I know many others would not share.
Saying that it's okay to kill the "guilty" but not okay to kill the innocent is meaningless because each person has to decide when someone is "guilty" enough to make killing them worth it.
An excellent answer all around, and one with which I relate quite a lot. My question was about 2/3 flippant humor and 1/3 curiosity at what people might sincerely think... I'm delighted to have confirmation that at least some folks think like I do on this issue. :)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Admittedly, in replying to the post, that seemed like an awfully far-fetched use for a firearm. :)
But then, I can imagine plenty of rednecks (some related to me) who would probably do just that from their front porch... Heck, I'd probably do it, but not so casually (I'd get up off the porch) - they'd make good and plentiful targets in the woods of Missouri or Arkansas or Tennessee probably - not that there'd be much left of the nuts inside, but still...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?
6 87-2005Jan31.html
See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52
Having been fortunate enough not to lose anyone close to me until I was 22, I couldn't say at 18 I knew what it meant to have someone die. Once I did, yes, I think I had a much clearer understanding of it. Besides, whether I personally understood it or not is irrelevent; 18 is an average, some people mature faster or slower then others.
Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).
Yes, and if you suddenly say that this person can be tried as an adult, don't you agree then he should immediately have the benefits adulthood? Society is telling them all along they are not adults and can't even be responsible for themselves, but now you want to just throw all that away? Its illegal and I believe its unusual as well.
As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.
Understood; unfortunatlly not all amendments make our gov't better. I see no reason why the pyramid should have been inverted, it seems to have been working fine to me.
So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.
Unless the Supreme court says said state laws are unconstitutional. Which is what the court did.
The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?
The states were supposed to be the 'litle' guy. The help shouldn't come at a cost because it distorts our system of government and leads to corruption...which is where we are at today.
Okay, let's set the parameters of the discussion we're having. We're talking about two things---P2P and guns---which are tools, that is, which can be used for good or for evil, for legal and illegal things. We are furthermore talking about whether or not it is rational to outlaw them on the grounds that the evil uses are the only real reason people uses them. This is the "substantial non-infringing uses" argument for P2P.
Indeed, I cannot show that guns ought to be legal because they already are. I can, however, show that guns ought to be legal if they have substantial legal uses. (Remember, we're discussing the connection between a tool and its use.) If you think I meant that guns are only "used" when fired, then you misinterpreted me. I consider it a "use" when a gun is brandished as well as when it is fired. The rapist who holds a gun to a woman's head and the shopkeeper who scares off a robber with the Lupo under his countertop are both using the gun. Clearer now?
It's lovely that you don't use P2P for copyright infringement. And I'm certain that people use BitTorrent a lot to download their Linux ISOs. (I know I do.) But I tell you that a quick survey of the Direct Connect hub at any university (I know, I ran one for some time) will show that the proportion of legitimate to illegitimate trade is very, very lopsided toward the illegitimate. Any search of a public network such as ed2k or KaZaA will show that infringing material is more prevalent than free content.
My point, as it has been in the last two posts, is that both guns and P2P have substantial legal uses. If you accept the "substantial [legitimate] uses" argument, then if you accept P2P, then you must accept gun ownership.
Furthermore, note that the actual usage of P2P applications is more likely to be illegal than legal, while the actual usage of a gun is more likely to be legal than illegal. (Are you going to seriously tell me that guns are used for crimes at a faster rate than they are used for target shooting?) If anything, this only underscores my point.
Then again, if you consider shooting clay or paper targets evil, if you consider self-defense evil, I suppose I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Tell me, is your knowledge of the American people limited to cowboy stereotypes? They're about as accurate as thinking of all Brits as effete limey wankers with last names like "Wyndham-Scunthorpe".
I mean, what's your encore? Do you engage in an interpretive dance in which you hunch forward, miming a deformed spine, put on a ten-gallon cowboy hat and ten-pound belt buckle in the shape of Texas, and say "Hyuck!" and "Y'all" in order to make... what sort of point?
What I get out of your comments is (1) you think Americans fit a stereotype, Texans doubly so. (2) You really, really don't like guns, so much that you're unable to discuss them without sinking to the level of a fifth-grader.
There's a wonderful and spirited debate to be had on the subject, but you've decided not to have it. I'm disappointed.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans.
/. stories become commercially available.
That's a pity, because I'd enjoy such a debate. Would you mind taking our ongoing thread of discussion elsewhere if you're uninterested in pursuing it here? My email address is available (albiet in obfuscated form) next to my username above.
I'm not a NRA member, I don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers for gun nuts and enthusiests, and indeed I don't even own a gun (though one of my housemates does, and I insist that he keep me informed of its location as a condition of having it in my house). I probably will buy one at some point in the future, though -- a pump-action shotgun is much better for intimidating belligerants on account of its distinctive sound (the violent asshole whose abused girlfriend I'm likely to harbor is not hypothetical), and I'll consider a handgun when the pistol-grip-based authentication mechanisms discussed in other
My point here is that I'm not too extreme in my views, and I'm not about to go spouting slogans or statistics at you (unless you really *want* to get into an I-can-quote-a-study-that-contradicts-you war).
So -- mind dropping an email with a refutation of the post I linked to above? I'd appreciate it.
Actually, I think that having a weapon myself would increase the risk that someone would threaten my life and that of my family. Not having a weapon, only my property would be at risk, and that can be prevented with an alarm system or a "panic room".
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
So, in such cases, I reduce it to the basic "what would I do" and "what would I want". I've lived in urban areas where I could hear the automatic weapon fire as I grilled out on my patios. The weapons are already out there to be turned on me, and the people who have them are happy to pull the trigger. I have no love nor hate of guns; I don't own a handgun, and the rifles I have date to when I was a Boy Scout and was target shooting. I am cognizant of the real personal risks associated with them - if you have a gun, you have the chance of accidents happening.
That's the background for how I think. My conclusions are not written in stone, but I think that gun ownership makes a society more safe at both a personal level and allows for a physical empowerment of the people - the ultimate (meaning final) level of democracy.
That said, the fact that there is question about the issue is *exactly* what I mean - they should not be outlawed when there is such a debate over their positive aspects. Rights should be inherent in the people, and selectively removed minimally as possible. There are some fairly clear ones - you shouldn't have the right to walk down the street and drag a random person off and cut their throat. But removing the right to run a certain type of application (versus removing the right to copy somebody's recent work without their permission) is very questionable.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
"and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such,"
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." No age qualifiers in the Fourteenth Amendment.
"What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not??"
Because voting is not a right. Nothing the US Constitution guarantees you a vote, and I'm willing to bet the same could be said of your state constitution. There are certain parts of the US Constitution that list reasons for which you cannot be denied voting privileges, but otherwise the litmus test is whether or not your state will let you vote for members of the most populous branch of your state's legislature.
I'm not actually American, BTW....
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
Geez, hyperbolize much?
The ban says no such thing. It says that everyone under 18 *can't be executed* - it doesn't say they can't be tried, conviced, and sent to jail.
I read the article, and it was an article performed about teenagers and driving - and do they understand what "high risk" is. It says the research "has implications" towards other things.
To re-emphasize - this research did not specifically talk about someone's concept of dying - if it is wrong or right. I fail to see how this article qualifies?
You said you did not understand life or death until someone died in your life? I did not ask if you knew how it felt to have someone close die to you - that is not the question - nobody can know that until they experience it. We want to know if you understand what death is - and if it is wrong to kill someone. Are you telling me you didn't realize it is wrong to kill someone until the age of 22? Does that mean if I have never had anyone die, who is close to me, and I am 35 I am exempt from being tried as an adult. YOu will find that 8 year olds can understand that hurting someone is wrong.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain. The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
No, the ban forbids executing people that comitted the crime while 18. If you kill someone 5 hours before you turn 18, when you get tried, you could be tried as an adult, you'll be convicted while an adult, and normaly you might get executed while an adult. The ban doesn't allow for this anymore.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer could convincingly argue that someone that close to being 18 is no different from someone who is 18, and thus get them executed...if that's what you *really* want.
Personally, I don't think there are many things terrible enough to be executed for, and they should all be treated on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the US legal system is so unbelievably screwed up that you can't let anything be taken on a case-by-case basis, you have to draw solid, inflexible lines, because otherwise, unscrupulous lawyers will twist the meanings to say whatever they want them to. (Note: I am saying that the lawyers who are unscrupulous will do this, not that all lawyers are unscrupulous.)
In the end, MoneyT, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 is the most traditional place for doing it. So...um...deal with it?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
From it, scientists believe, come judgments and values, long-term goals, the weighing of risks and consequences -- what parents call wisdom or common sense and what science calls "executive functions.
Did you happen to miss that part? Specifically 'judgements and values.' That would seem to me the part of the brain responsible for our values is one of the last places to develop.
As far as understanding death; no, i'm not sure one can FULLY understand it until they've lost someone. Your grandmother might be alive now,and you know someday she will be gone forever...but until she actually is, and you remember what the last things you might have said to her were...its hard to comphend you've lost them forever. I know my memories of my grandmother are even more precious to me now.
I also don't think a 35 should be tried as a child..most of my arguement is that the brain is not fully developed until much later then we thought. Because of this, its not possible for them to understand. Its a physical thing really.
An additional argument you utilize is that minors should be accorded all of the rights of an adult. This has nothing to do with our topic at hand. You want to let a kid start drinking, and gamble becuase they are on trial? Way to bring a positive influence to someone. So no I do not agree - it is not relevant
I said that if they are responsible enough in your eyes to be treated as an adult, then we should treat them as an adult, period. What exactly do you tell someone that you're forcing adult punishment on, yet still say they are a child and are too young to be responsible? It is relevent, in the same way that an 18yr old soldier that can die for his country should be able to have a beer.
The pyramid being inverted? Please explain.
Feds at the top of the pyramid, local government at teh bottom. The 'width' represents how much power they have over your life. So that the group with the most power over your life is also the group you have the most control over. My vote matters much more when I'm one of 10,000 instead of one of 260 million.
The death penalty has been around for a long time, and only in recent years (past century) has it been lightened. Back when our constitution was written, dying under the death penalty happend a lot more frequently then now.
The fact that we have the death penelty is not what we are discussing. We are discussing punishing a child as an adult, but still claiming they are a child for all other purposes. Either they are responsible enough to accept adult responsiblies (and thier consequences) or they are not.
The supreme court has been granted this power to overturn lower courts rules - or other laws of our gov't. If you do not agree with their decision, bring up a court case with new evidence.
I have no problem with the supreme court having that power. Its spelled out in the consitution.
There has to be a cost. We get federal programs at the cost of taxes - but it is not all under one blanket. So a state gets some extra funding if they comply with a law - nobody is forcing them.
The federal goverment is taking money from the citizens of a state, and then threatening not use any of that money for the benefit of those citizens. I don't understand why you don't see tha as wrong. I'd rather the state take more then the feds, as I know my tax money will be spent to better my state, no another state across the country.
I appologize for not citing a source at the top - I am extremely busy right now and doing a cursury glance through google is not the best way to get an valid & reliable article.
I await your proof.
[quote]What, you think a couple of guys with hunting rifles are going to do any serious damage against an armored tank division?[/quote]
No, my point was that the armored tank division is made up of our friends and family members. They would not attack our own citizens.
[quote]Perhaps the senario you're talking about is possible with the co-operation of the military[/quote]
Not necessarily the cooperation, but at the very least the "lack of" cooperation. What I mean by that: Other than a full scale, major revolt, I can't see the military cooperating by helping to overthrow the government. However, it is even less likely that they would cooperate WITH the government by attacking U.S. citizens.
As I said, they are our friends and family members. I know a lot of people who serve and have served in the military and none of them would cooperate in a large scale attack on U.S. citizens. Against a small group of extremists, sure. But not against us all. They'd either lay down arms and refuse to help the government, or "re-appropriate" the government's tools (weapons, aircraft, tanks, etc) and use them to help the people.