Slashdot Mirror
NYC Wants to Ban Geiger Counters
Ellis D. Tripp noted a village voice article about attempts in NYC to pass a law requiring permits for air monitoring devices including apparently geiger counters. I'm sure everyone will feel much safer not knowing anything.
The title is very misleading, its actual a response to a possible panic caused by people using bad detectors. Imagine if hundreds of people buy shitty detectors that can be tripped by high NOX counts(A car emission). Suddenly on a hot afternoon during rush hour, 100+ counters register a large nuclear presence. Thats a big worry.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
How does a Geiger counter monitor air?
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
I bet most New Yorkers don't know how to run a Geiger counter (or possibly even what one is).
All the same, slaves were prevented from learning how to read, Jews in the death camps were not given any information about the war, their future, and today, people we want to strip of power are kept in the dark.
Check my history, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that those in power (ALL of them, not just the Bushies) have gotten to the point of realizing that the American populace have become dumb sheep. Through fear, all is possible for them.
Refuse, resist.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Ha. Given the lawmakers usual understanding of things technological..... Anyone reckon that they will accidently ban Smoke Dectectors, Carbon Monoxide Alarms, Butane Gas Dectectors ?
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
This is ancient early 90s news but Brooklyn has been the site of nuclear waste storage and it concerns many citizens. There is a warehouse there called Radiac Research Corporation that has about enough nuclear material for one atom bomb, although I'm sure it's not refined to that. Citizen watch groups have formed that will walk around the streets with Geiger counters. You will find some shock reporting that has somethings factual and a lot of things anecdotal evidence. If you do watch those videos, ironically pay attention to the state employed inspector on the boat. Hard numbers and comparisons with other major cities are a must to make any effect in this kind of reporting. Still, I would be upset if stuff like this dried up. I think it's important so that the community at least feels like it has an independent non-interested voice--I would risk false alarms for that any day.
I've also heard from other sources that New York City offers permits for polluting which isn't so wrong except that some of these are ridiculous. A lot of the rivers and streams to this day still are being polluted but since the companies are 'grandfathered' into pollution control, they can keep doing it. Do you ever think they're going to clean that up? I hardly think so.
So they want to avoid false alarms that could cause a mass panic. But like a lot of things there is a trade off and the trade off is the ability to independently verify that the air quality or radiation levels are indeed safe. If I were a citizen living there, losing the latter in and of itself would cause me panic. Poor means you're at risk of being ignored & treated like you don't matter and I don't think New York City (especially historically) is any different from the rest of the world.
My work here is dung.
So, does a smoke detector qualify as an air-monitoring device? If so, this would be huge cash cow. First require them by law, next charge for the privilege of using the required devices, finally... profit!
8==8 Bones 8==8
From TFA, the rationale is because they're worried that a bunch of shoddy devices will throw tons of false positives, and cause havok amongst emergency responders who would have to run around town constantly trying to weed out false leads.
Frankly, it's crap. I seriously doubt as many people as they're representing are going to be buying these things; the vast majority will be installing them indoors, where they'll be lucky to detect ANYTHING, and the shoddy ones will tend to go off for crap that would set off your smoke alarm...I used to have a CO detector near my kitchen...It's somewhere in my backyard now, after the 10th time it went off when I dumped some liquor in a skillet to deglaze it.
People may buy this stuff, but the vast majority won't, and the ones that do are almost MORE likely to view an alarm as a false positive than the police themselves. New Yorkers are tough bastards. They'll piss and moan, but they're not super-hazard conscious...You can't be, and live in the City all the time, because you're far more likely to be killed by a manhole or a cracked out subway driver than any terrorist.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...that phone?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/0514215&from=rss
Oh, and read the first post. No, really - read it, and mod it up or reply that it's silly to pre-emptively ban 'unlicensed' used of geiger detectors on the off-chance that crappy ones will cause some manner of mass hysteria (imho - your reply may differ.. free will and all that.)
The Russians mass produced personal gieger counters 6 months after the accident in Cherynobyl I bought one.
It saved my ass in the 90s when I took my Wife and Kids to Ruggle's Mine in Maine! Basically it's a mica mine but when were were hiking I told my kids not to touch the yellow chalk like rocks that some kid was using to write his name on in the caves. i took my gieger counter out and measured 350millirads. I told the kids parents that the rock was radioactive and they should take him to wash his hand and to change his clothes and get him in a tub. I believe the yellow rock was pitchblend.
heck.. I think a pocket gieger counter would come in handy.. why are they banning them? Is New York City's background radiation level higher than normal?
Seastead this.
they are called Radiation Detectors, instead of the Nazi criminal name.
Well, immediately, this sounds retarded. However, I can picture one benign reason for this.
We all saw what happened this month with Mass Effect. One idiot decides that it is equal to XXX porn without evver seeing it, and all sorts of people believe him and run with the story. Well, maybe they didn't believe him, but figured since he can be faulted for the mistake, they can run with it to scare people. I could see major "news" networks going nuts over a reading from some moron that wired his sensors wrong.
Is that any reason to excuse this law? No. Just saying I could see one possible reason. Since Journalists can't be trusted to fact check, an incorrect reading could cause a mass panic that would obviously be very problematic.
It seems that quite often, lawmakers listen (quite intently) to what government groups want the law to be. In this case, it is the city police who want this law. But the people don't benefit from it, just the police. The same thing holds for much of the Patriot Act; it is not a benefit for the people, but the FBI wanted it, and congress listened.
The biggest trouble isn't false alarms, terrorists, or corporate lobbying. The biggest trouble is that government listens to itself more that it listens to the people.
NYC actually has very strict gun laws... much stricter gun laws than the rest of the state of NY...
Hopefully there won't be large penalties for owning one, if at all. Otherwise half of the building owners in NYC will probably be in trouble, because any building with an old fallout shelter probably has an old yellow Civil Defense geiger counter stuffed somewhere in it. Those things are like cockroaches, not only are they everywhere in old buildings, but they'd uselessly survive our destruction.
I thought that all mobile phones were supposed to have radiation counters. Make your mind up fellas!
Jimmy Carter at Three Mile island!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Why would any police official want to have this responsibility added? There's enough of a problem already chasing real criminals in New York. Additionally, the police would be unqualified to review the scientific/engineering merits of any device. They would have to hire consultants, who would be expensive and may not be properly qualified either. Also, can you imagine the unending litigation which this law might cause as citizens try to exercise their rights?
The good citizens of New York should elect representatives who can think more clearly.
It's New York...Your average New Yorker, on plugging in a Geiger counter that immediately redlined and then exploded would say, "Eh, I figyaed as much." They know it's hazardous to live there, they take a weird sort of pride in it. I moved from New York to Georgia in 2002, and people were way more freaked out about 9/11 in Georgia than they were in New York...The city still had that "burnt tire" smell, but otherwise things were back to normal.
Not to say there weren't some deep fricking scars, but you can't live there and be that high strung about environmental safety issues; the first day you come home, take off your white shirt and your white undershirt, and notice that, while they were the same color when you put them on, one of them is now a sort of stinky grey...You have to accept it and move on, or you will lose your fricking mind.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Only outlaws will have geiger counters!
I totally disagree with this law. The mere POSSESSION of a device like a Geiger counter or air quality tester is a misdemeanor. That is insane, and everyone should acknowledge this. BUT there is a real problem here, which is people buying inaccurate devices that they do not know how to operate. This is resulting in false positives which, when reported, police officials are obligated to investigate. At the very least this is a defense mechanism by the NYPD, because if something was reported and they didn't respond, if it turned out to be legitimate they would be held responsible.
My problem is why is the citizen always perceived as the enemy? Why are criminal punishments always deemed the solution? Here is my solution: Establish a citizen corps of air/radiation testers. Require a minimum set of standards for equipment and require some sort of proof that the operator knows how to operate the device and that the device functions properly. This may involve some sort of licensure. If you meet the requirements and become a member, you will have established the repute required to report a crisis to the proper authorities.
If you are not a member, you will still be allowed to own or operate these devices. However, if you detect a problem, you are obligated to report it to your closest deputy as defined above, who will verify and report it to the authorities if legitimate. You will not be punished for false positives because the purpose of the deputy is to filter these. However, if by your irresponsible actions you cause a panic, you will be held responsible, possibly criminally.
This engages the community, establishes a system of responsibility and gives a method to report problems. No one has to give up their equipment. It's almost like we live in a society, where people work together and laws aren't just made on the spot to ban stuff and create criminals out of regular people.
http://www.rugglesmine.com/
I have dug a few hot rocks out of there, as well.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Without my geiger counter, how am I going to know if the leak in the mini-reactor in my basement has become dangerous to my health?
Wait, am I supposed to have permits for that, too?
Seriously, though... while I understand the concerns of law enforcement, this seems a little silly. Unless, of course, the NYC government is planning something.
BRB, need to find my tinfoil helmet.
If I only had a moose...
How do they plan to ban the geiger counter when they can't even catch the grubermeister? Huh? Oh, geiger counter isn't a mixed drink.. damn
Scientists warned that the giant ball of garbage could someday return to Earth, but their concerns were dismissed as "depressing."
Fire alarms can be triggered by steam from a shower. Should they require licensing too? People have actually died in their efforts to escape non-existent fires.
They should equip everyone with Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses while they're at it.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
America has come so, so far from my childhood when Popular Electronics (the terrorist, mob unleashing scum) would run feature articles on building the latest geiger counter kit.
I understand the point, but surely you have some kind of standards organisation. If the police have to respond to these things, why not just lean on the standards organisation to create a standard and then say to everyone "If you are calling in with a complaint, is your device certified?" Why not ban non-certified devices? Why go after the people? Why not just go after the crap that people buy?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
They obviously have not heard of this initiative: http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08/01/25/0514215.shtml
What sort of person would come up with an idea like this and then try to enact it into law? This is the same city that outlawed ferrets as pets, well known for their vicious attacks on socks and rubber duckies.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If Geiger counters are outlawed, then only outlaws will have Geiger counters.
pitchblende is a murky dark colored rock that is a very high quality ore for many radioactive materials. dark. grey to black with some samples pitched to the purple or brown.
yellow radioactive rock is your usual uranium oxide, hydrated "yellowcake," a low concentration. but that's the production ore in north america and most of the world. in the 60s, you could buy a sample in a little plastic box at visitor centers like at the Oak Ridge Laboratories.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I might as well restate my feeling that this is less a reaction to fears of false alarms, than it is an attempt to head off independent investigations, like those that undermined the NYC/EPA "party line" concerning air quality after the 9/11 attacks.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Guns? Legal? NYC?
Air rifles/Pistols (aka BB or Pellet guns) - totally illegal
Rifles/Shotguns? If they are not an Assault Weapon (anything over 5 rounds) - Go get fingerprinted, and then pay $300 every 3 years - and have to subit paperwork for each one you own or transfer
Pistols? Unless you are connected, forget about a carry permit. For a home/business permit? Apply (but make NO mistakes in your paperwork - our you will be denied) wait 9 months (although the law says they can't take more than 6) go for your interview, and still probably get denied. If you do get a permit, it's more expensive than the rifle/shotgun permit...
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
"requiring permits for air monitoring devices
Customer in restaurant: This steak smells delicious.
Cop: You got a permit for that nose, mister?
Kevin Smith on Prince
I for one have been counting gigers for years!
It's true. The whole state of NY is one of the first to happily give all of its citizens a National ID card. NYC in particular led the way in banning trans fats, personal ownership of guns, and anything else that the Enlightened Representatives decide is "bad".
Crap like that is why people are fleeing New York for political asylum in the Free State of New Hampshire.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
There are many such groups across the country - Most of whom seem to be uninformed and alarmist folks that are frightened of the nuclear boogey-man and want to stop anything that may have been in contact with a stray neutron. There's a group largely centered in Santa Fe, NM that goes around Los Alamos taking counts on plants and such and then posting pictures of background radiation rates on their web-site to incite fear. Admittedly, some dirt piles are hotter than others - Just like everywhere else in the world - But not terribly frightening. One ironic point is that the background radiation is actually higher in Santa Fe due in large part to the difference in ground-matter. It's actually gone far enough that the legal maximum rad limit for re-processed water in Santa Fe is below Santa Fe's normal background level.
Los Alamos locals for the most part regard the group as a sad joke.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If Geiger Counters are outlawed, then only outlaws will have Geiger Counters!
... wait ... I won't go there, sorry everybody.
In Soviet Amerika
I can't really see the false alarm scenario as being a major problem, but suppose for a moment that it was. It seems to me that there are better ways to deal with it, although they may work better at a different level of government.
The state of NY could create a license for people who wish to sell their services as air quality monitors or equipment calibrators. This is in line with the licensing requirements for many other professions, where a person must demonstrate their competence. Perhaps the city could do this as well; I don't know if cities generally have professional licensing power. This won't stop people from buying devices, using them improperly for personal use, and raising a false alarm, but the people with certifications will probably be considered more credible.
Another option is to regulate the quality of the devices themselves. I'm not sure either the city or state have the authority to regulate that, but the feds could. In fact, I'd be concerned if there are not already some standards in effect, just like there are for smoke alarms. If I buy a geiger counter, I want to know that it will work properly.
In any case, regulating either of these things does not seem to me to be a special competence of the police. The police are sometimes expected to judge a person's character (e.g. with gun permits), but I've never heard of them being called upon to be arbiters of either technical standards or professional competence.
If they become illegal, build your own!
Fortunately, all it takes to make an ion-detector chamber is a tin can, some wire, and an NPN transistor!
http://www.techlib.com/science/ion.html
Happy ion counting!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
At least by my reading of the article, the 'first draft' of the law looks like it'd count smoke detectors as an air monitor - after all, it's looking for smoke in the air.
Come to think of it, I think it'd be funny if they passed this law and the new police approval section were promptly buried under registration requests for millions of smoke detectors.
Think about it - one per apartment, two or more in the hallways for each floor, equivalent numbers in commercial buildings. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if a 20 story building has over a thousand seperate smoke detectors in it.
I don't read AC A human right
So now I have "proof" that the government is hiding a terrorist attack or a nuclear plant meltdown. And if people stay in NYC they are all going to die. Soon. Do you think I could get some shady cable news folks to buy into this? Sure, they all want to believe the government would kill millions of people.
Why would the police get involved? Who would call the police if they thought the government was hiding this information? They would go right to the "responsible" people that would inform everyone and keep them safe, right? Surely in today's USA you trust MSNBC more than the government... or Fox News, or CNN or the Village Voice. Basically, I think you could say people trust anyone more than the government. So how exactly would this cause problems for the police? Except when the police finally noticed that people were running for somewhere else in a blind panic.
I suspect someone asked a lawyer about this and banning the devices is the only possible action. Think about it.
Face it, if you want to create a panic, this would be one really, really good way to go about it. It would shut down the city in an afternoon and it would be days before the government got ahold of the situation enough to say "hoax". And would everyone believe them? Not on your life. People would be making movies about the great cover-up for decades.
Wow, that's scary. I used to live in that neighborhood a few years ago, in fact just 2 blocks from there - and this is the first time I ever hear about it.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
The funny thing is, I would have expected this out of the Left Coast, not NY. Then again, they didn't try to cram in something about the "man-made global warming theory"... California would require that to get it passed.
> Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe.
;)
Oh you fuddyduddy libertarian.
Seriously though I think it is a perfectly logical progression. After all we have already been told by every right thinking person[1] that NYC has to operate under different rules, that certain otherwise fundamental liberties must be compromised to make such a metropolis fuction.
Seriously, count em:
1. The second Amendment is pretty much void in New York. The former mayor[2] carefully explained in a recent debate that 'laws that make sense in New York might not make sense in flyover country' so I list this one first to put the accepted precedent that the idea that core Consitituitional liberties vary by population density is now accepted policy. Or I totally missed the nationwide outrush of rage, the riots, etc.
2. The right to property is probably most circumscribed in NYC. See the history of several generations of Rent Control for details.
3. The Right to follow a profession of one's choice is pretty much null and void in NY, between the unions and the almost total control by the city government through licensing and regulation designed not to pretect the public but to control entry into the professions to protect the current workers from competition.
4-999 could be filled in by anyone depressed enough to type that long.
No, if one accepts the base logic that makes that level of State control acceptable, allowing them the monopoly power to control information about the safety (read the actual performance of regulators) makes perfect sense. So all I can say is, suck it up Citizen, turn in your detectors and listen to the Safety and Civil Reassurance Administration when they calmly inform you everything is 'perfectly safe.'
Of course you COULD start demanding the whole fetid mess of dank rotting crap go to Hell. You don't even have to be a Ronulan to say that.
[1] Defined of course by the editorial board of the NYT and usually Socialist house organs such as the Village Voice. Nice to see one of their sacred oxes served up on the grill.
[2] With the partial agreement of all right thinking people[1] except they think he isn't enough of a gun banner.
Democrat delenda est
There are currently millions of unregistered chemical sensors deployed in the city. All unlicensed and uncalibrated, yet the city sees enormous benefits from them. The human nose has been used for probably over a century to detect gas leaks successfully with some false positives. We just kinda handle the false positives and are thankful for such a widely deployed and economical network. The legislator needs to be voted out of office and police commissioner fired, both for being control freaks.
server appears to be /.ed, so here it is:
----
Runnin' Scared
NYPD Seeks an Air Monitor Crackdown for New Yorkers
A city councilman and the cops don't want you to have that Geiger counter without their permission
by Chris Thompson
January 15th, 2008 5:13 PM
Damn you, Osama bin Laden! Here's another rotten thing you've done to us: After 9/11, untold thousands of New Yorkers bought machines that detect traces of biological, chemical, and radiological weapons. But a lot of these machines didn't work right, and when they registered false alarms, the police had to spend millions of dollars chasing bad leads and throwing the public into a state of raw panic.
OK, none of that has actually happened. But Richard Falkenrath, the NYPD's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, knows that it's just a matter of time. That's why he and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have asked the City Council to pass a law requiring anyone who wants to own such detectors to get a permit from the police first. And it's not just devices to detect weaponized anthrax that they want the power to control, but those that detect everything from industrial pollutants to asbestos in shoddy apartments. Want to test for pollution in low-income neighborhoods with high rates of childhood asthma? Gotta ask the cops for permission. Why? So you "will not lead to excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety," the first draft of the law states.
Last week, Falkenrath made his case for the new law before the City Council's Public Safety Committee, where Councilman Peter Vallone introduced the bill and chaired the hearing. Dozens of university researchers, public-health professionals, and environmental lawyers sat in the crowd, horrified by the prospect that if this law passes, their work detecting and warning the public about airborne pollutants will become next to impossible. But Falkenrath pressed on, saying that unless the police can determine who gets to look for nasty stuff floating in the air, the city would be paralyzed by fear.
"There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors," warned Falkenrath, adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security. "There are no consistent standards for the type of detectors used, no requirement that they be reported to the police department--or anyone else, for that matter--and no mechanism for coordinating these devices. . . . Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms . . . by making sure we know where these detectors are located, and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability."
Vallone nodded his head, duly moved by Falkenrath's presentation. Nevertheless, he had a few concerns. When the Environmental Protection Agency promised that the air surrounding Ground Zero was safe, Vallone said, independent testers proved that such assurances were utterly false. Would these groups really have to get a permit before they started working? "It's a good question, and it has come up prior to this hearing," Falkenrath replied. "What I can assure you is that we will look extremely carefully at this issue of the independent groups, and get the opinion of the other city agencies on how to handle that, and craft an appropriate response." And if people use these detectors without a permit, Vallone asked, do we really have to put them in jail? Afraid so, Falkenrath answered.
Councilman John Liu was considerably less impressed. Why, he asked, should a community group like Asthma-Free School Zones have to tell anyone, much less the police department, that they're testing for air pollution? "We have no interest in regulating air-quality sensors around schools," Falkenrath promised. "That's not what this is about."
"But then can't we just get that in the legislation from the outset, as opposed to putting it in the regulations afterwards?" asked Liu.
That, said Falkenrath, was asking too much. "It becomes a very slippery slope, and
Let's look at the justification again:
All of these problems, which have yet to evidence themselves in any real way, could be met head on for less money than a registration and enforcement program. Once upon a time, the US government published standards to follow and encouraged people to know how to protect themselves. Cheap equipment was made and distributed and people were trained to use it. The Government of the day called it Civil Defense. It was cheap compared to Homeland Defense.
Now we think it would be better to waste money keeping people from having equipment and knowing how to use it. We have a very different government today. The difference is as stark as freedom and slavery.
The program stinks of incompetence as well as contempt. There are some very simple ways of telling a credible radiation threat over the phone. One of the easiest is to ask the person what the background radiation rate is and if it changes with position. This tells you quickly if the person can read a meter. You still have to investigate if they can't but you know you have a real problem and help if you are talking to someone who knows what they are doing. Squandering resources like that is foolish.
I'd be just as interested to see how many people scream because they can't pull out their spectral analyzers to fix wifi issues.
doesn't hurt, right ?
Just draw up some calibration specs and pass a law requiring that any geiger counters sold in NY have to meet those specs. No need to ban the things.
First they came for the Geiger counters, but I did not speak out for I was not a tinfoil-hat-wearing loony...
They probably read this article http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/0514215 about cell phones with GPS to track radioactive terrorists. Let's make everybody where blindfolds while were at it.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Okay, TFA is skimpy on actual details of the proposed law, and the summary less so, but every single smoke detector in existence is an "air monitoring device". They're planning on requiring a permit for these, now?
(Insert some joke here about how they can have my smoke detector when they pry it away from my hot, charred fingers.)
-- Alastair
So you're saying it makes sense to drive truckloads of guns into the hands of people of the most densely populated cities of America?
You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
To me, it makes sense that we try to get all the guns out of that environment, by making it impossible to buy them. There is no reason people in NYC need guns, except for making up for shortcomings, and my safety shouldn't be in jeopardy because they've got penis envy.
But whatever, after the pro-gun rhetoric in your comment, I tuned out the rest under my "crackpot right-wing" filter.
Ha, very funny :P I do not follow any specific political party, I tend to lean between sides while staying towards moderate....although I'd say Kucinich is about the closest one that was running for presidency that follows the most of my views (but not all).
I really understand what you're saying and pretty much agree with it, so I really don't have a reply to that lol (mod parent up). I would like to see less fear mongering as a method to take away people's rights, though.
There is one part though, why essentially regulate something in a fashion that makes it tough for people of that actual profession? I can understand regulation to keep things maintained and adhering to standards, but why incriminate possession? Are people going to make a bomb with a geiger or something?
Or on a bigger picture, why do people use regulation as a method of funding via fines?
---PCJ
Freely flinging "you're a nazi!!111" as some kind of childish insult is pretty idiotic, but claiming that all reasonably intelligent comparisons to Nazi Germany are the "loss" of the argument is nothing short of ridiculous, especially when Nazi germany pretty much epitomizes a modern totalitarian government (propaganda, dictatorship, secret police, militarism, detention camps, etc).
Because I write short stories (klurgsheld.wordpress.com) suggested by the news, I know that thinking though a tinfoil hat is one way to extract the potentially covert narrative in an issue like this. So when I look at it, I see two viable story-lines, either or both of which might have played a part in this effort.
The first is familiar: yet another minor rule that people are expected to comply with. Nothing really interesting there, and there are easier ways to go about it. The second is more intriguing, and also brings with it a load of historical baggage: information control. Discouraging people from being able to know from first-hand testing what might be in their immediate environment plays into the meme of government as protective parent. We'll tell you everything you need to know; don't go looking for yourself, don't read those books we think are dangerous for you to have read. But that still begs the question of timing... is there a reason this is being done now? Perhaps. Someone might be nervous that the suggestion that mini-nukes were planted in the basement of the WTC to shatter the 27 steel spines of the towers has started to gain traction, and that people might go look for themselves. If we can't get a detector, we can't prove the rumor, but then we can't discount it either. As I said, tinfoil hats can instigate compelling stories. What they can't do is tell you if those stories are true.
Back in the Cold War, there used to be something called 'Civil Defense". We citizens were encouraged to learn how to operate a geiger counter. My wife was certified as a Radiological Monitor while in the Civil Air Patrol, at the age of 15. So the idea of restricting detector ownership in an age where suitcase nukes do exist doesn't fly too high in our personal skies.
We make air monitors that detect alpha emitting particulate. This concerns me that the next time we take a demo unit to NYC we will be arrested or fined for doing our job. Now any logical court would throw it out...but it still concerns me.
One thing to consider would be that those who have a properly calibrated instrument (radiological detection type) also have access to a radioactive source. This law may also be an attempt to try and route out those people with unlicensed sources (a valid pursuit in my opinion) more than anything else. I know you can possibly simulate a source...but the only way to really calibrate it would using a real(ie NIST traceable) source. Instruments also usually need to be calibrated yearly or more(depending on the type of instrument) to give accurate readings.
Just my 2 cents
As an example of where this sort of thing leads....A few months ago the fire alarm system malfunctioned at 2am in a 2-story Philadelphia hotel I was staying in. The fire marshall, backed up by numerous police, believed it was unsafe for people to enter a building which lacked a working alarm system. So the patrons, many half-dressed, remained locked out for the remainder of the night. Eventually, at dawn, people were allowed to retrieve their belongings, with individual escort. This wasn't due to a concern about looting - the keycard system was still working. And there was no danger that anyone would stay in the 'unsafe' building for more than a few minutes, due to the ear-splitting alarm that was still blaring. Now, of course alarm systems are a good idea. But I think this degree of public passivity and dependency is very dangerous. And it won't protect us from 9/11 type disasters - if anything it will make them more likely.
There's a proposed law that will make it illegal to try to figure out what you're breathing without getting police permission first. And we're discussing it like there's two sides? The terrorists have already won. No really I mean it this time.
We already imprison more than the Soviets ever did and more than the current Chinese regime does. In terms of regimented control under threat of loss of liberty, property and life at the barrel of a gun owing to a complacent population all too ready to watch their neighbors hauled off in shackles because, well, they must have had it coming, not playing by the rules and all. Well, it's a good thing we're only doing it to "criminals." They all had their three chances, then off for life. Who cares if the third offense was stealing a loaf of bread? They were criminals. Off with the lot of 'em.
Disturbing Hillary Clinton was interviewed about rolling back some of the more egregious sentencing guidelines and was asked why she wouldn't make it retroactive. Well, of course, then we'd have all these criminals back in our neighborhoods...
The first question you should always ask yourself in such situations is ... who stands to benefit from this legislation?
To me this seems obvious, businesses, government entities and individuals releasing toxic materials into the environmentg that don't want to be monitored! Does anyone believe that NYC will implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring program throughout the city that will catch any or even a significant proportion of the violations? Seems like a plan to shelter law breakers by making it illegal to detect that they are breaking the law and endangering the health of the public to me. I would hope that anyone involved in such a plan would be removed from office by the voters ASAP and investigated for corruption.
If the intent was truely to ensure that devices of this type were, to a reasonable probablity, accurate why not establish a certification program for them that could include calibration services, ideally at little to no cost for the user? Given sufficient publicity and a means for using the service without undue hardship and I would bet that the vast majority of the users of such devices would gladly participate.
Finally the fact that it is designed to be a Criminal Offense as opposed to a minor civil offense such as a parking ticket adds further weight to the idea that it is intended to shelter violators by intimidating the people who might catch them in their violations!
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You do realize that banning guns raises the crime rate in a city, right? How about DC for a nice example of that. Or is that not big city enough for you?
To you, you have your own opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, that doesn't counter factual evidence. This is along the same lines of "I don't want XYZ regardless of studies/logic".Non-factual opinion has no basis in the court of law, nor in politics.
That is exactly what you've got when Liberals are in charge. New York is a strognhold of Democratic Party.
Why I'm not surprised.
JAM
The primary use of legal guns in NYC is the threat of innocents able to protect themselves from predators. They aren't called "equalizers" for nothing. A thug doesn't need a legal gun, or even a gun.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
On a beautiful 1986 summer day in Poland the secret police confiscated all Geiger detectors from all the schools and universities. A week later the world learned about the Techernobyl catastrophe. (This is a true story, my uncle was a chemist at one of the universities)
You do realize that correlation does not mean causation, right? Or is that too big of words for you?
By your logic, Japan has less guns per person than Iraq, and less deaths per person than Iraq, therefore less guns in an entire country means less deaths. Obviously, thats not the only factor at play here. Care you look into the other factors in DC that helped raise the crime rate? Like, you know, the fact that they kicked lots of people off welfare right before the crime rate went up?
The owner is a friend of mine and offers nuclear emergency gear and some information. Related to this topic, good stuff, I own some in the "be prepared" mode I have adopted many years ago. ki4u.com
> So you're saying it makes sense to drive truckloads of guns into the hands of people of the most densely populated cities of America?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most. I live in flyover country. Random violent crime is so rare it makes the front page on the occasion we have one. My weapon stays in a case on a top shelf of a closet on the reasoning that an accidental discharge is the greater risk. I wouldn't live in a place like NYC unless I could keep the damned thing loaded and under my pillow or srapped to my ass when I was walking the crime ridden streets of our major cities... even after the admirable efforts of NYC's former mayor to REDUCE[1] violent crime.
> You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting. The primary purpose was the belief that armed men are Citizens while unarmed ones were only Subjects. That the carrying of arms was itself a virtue, helping to keep a Free People in the right frame of mind to be worthy of receiving the Blessings of Liberty.
But while a gun control debate would be fun, I'm instead going to stay ontopic and use your post to illustrate my original point.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
He mentions "There is no reason people in NYC need guns" and "people of the most densely populated cities" which couldn't make my argument better that there has crept into the thinking, of city dwellers at least, that individual liberty is fundamentally incompatible with cities. Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million over tossing liberty but I refuse to believe it; Free Men can live in Cities, Suburbs, the country or on the Moon. Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
And note that he ins't calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment, just substituting his greater wisdom for that of the Founding Fathers without all that tedious mucking about with having a public debate about repealing the Bill of Rights. This trend is most disturbing because it isn't just limited to gun control. McCain/Feingold shredded the 1st Amendment while those who should have been objecting were cheering. 1, 2, 9 and 10 are pretty much extinct and 5 is threatened and not once have we actually repealed any of them.
Once upon a time the fundies wanted to regulate booze. Realizing the federal government had no such authority, and believing in our Republican Form of Government[2], they did it the right way and pushed through an Amendment though it took them a hell of a lot longer than just getting 50%+1 vote in Congress. So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Remember that you can't just object to ONE of these violations, because if one accepts the logic that allows ANY of these violations to occur the rest logically follow. Choose. Choose wisely.
[1] Reduce from truly insane to levels that make Dodge City at it's worst look like a safe place to raise children.
[2] As distict from the Republican Party... for the benefit of the Government educated.
Democrat delenda est
So, if the problem is people getting wrong readings from shoddy counters - why not set some standards for accuracy and reliability for Geiger counters and enforce them? Don't you have any organization in America that would be responsible for the correct calibration and accuracy of instruments like those? Like the ones that make sure that, for instance, scales in grocery stores are weighing the correct amount? Just pass a law that makes it illegal to produce and / or sell an instrument that doesn't work reliably enough, demand that everyone can turn in old, unreliable counters for the selling price to their vendors and fix the problem this way.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Leave it to me to get the anti-gun-control whackjobs out on Slashdot again. Its about as easy as getting a swarm of bees with a hive and a baseball bat.
Listen, maybe you live in the wild west where you need to pack heat everwhere you go and make sure no "thugs" beat you up and steal your lunch money. I don't. In my nearly 30 years on this planet (in many cities around the world, outside of America) I've never been in a situation where I've had to shoot my way out. In fact, the safest I've ever felt was in downtown Tokyo, a place known to have some of the strictest gun control regulations on the face of this Earth. Coincidence, maybe.
So, like I said, if you're afraid of getting into a duel down at the saloon, then by all means, pack that gun and make sure the bulge is showing so everyone knows. If you're like me, and just drive back and forth to work, take the occasional trip to somewhere exotic / remote, and buy your food pre-killed, there's really no need to own/have a gun.
I know that would kill off this new source of funds for the guv'ment - permits aren't free, folks - but it would prevent the situation precog'ed by Falkenrath from happening. Want to test for pollution in low-income neighborhoods with high rates of childhood asthma? Gotta ask the cops for permission. Why? So you "will not lead to excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety," the first draft of the law states. Yeah, see, if you went with my idea: you'd know your detector was working and - should it detect something - you'd have damn good reason to be anxious.
Of course, this really isn't about "excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety". This is about the guv'ment exploiting public fear for a new revenue stream.
Oh, yeah, it's also another attack on the Informed Individual. There's nothing the guv'ment hates worse than a little peon who knows too much.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
By your post, we'd be pulling numbers out our asses that have no studies or basis. So nice for the extreme attempt. How about a real, solid example of banning guns in a urban environment lowering violent crime in the United States? Any day now, but I can't even google such a thing. Oh, and I mean factual. Not "opinionated".
In the meantime, you're comparing welfare to violence. Those two things are not necessarily in the same group, nor in the same group as guns.
Criminals would prefer that firearms be illegal. Unarmed people are easier prey, especially women and the elderly. If you want to be a sheep that's fine. A sane person usually wants to be able to defend themselves.
Come on. Civil servants get paid for a service, just like the rest of us. I have worked for many a phb in the private sector who came up with crazy stuff to justify their jobs.
If you are living paycheck to paycheck, that is nobody's fault but your own. My wife and I do just fine in pretty low-paid private sector jobs that rarely last more than a year before layoffs. Wanna know how? We live within our means. We lived in a small, rented apartment and saved money to buy a small apartment (which we have now done) without going into debt. In a few years, we should be able to afford a small house without unmanageable debt. Instead of buying two cars, we bought one small, fuel efficient car used vehicle and whoever doesn't need it on a given day takes public transit. I salvage old computers and refurbish them and run FOSS instead of buying the newest super duper quad-core duo 4GB ram with Photoshop superpro.. We prepare most of our meals at home.
So yeah, we're poor, but we have liquid assets that we can live off of for at least two years in the event of another layoff, a roof over our heads and food on the table. We could have more stuff if we made that choice, but then we would be in debt up to our ears like you.
Don't blame public servants if you can't figure this out.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
I want my tricorder!
If any moderators still have points left after giving "+5, Informative" to the statist boot-lickers advocating the registration of test equipment, that is.
Brooklyn as a nuclear waste storage site... sounds like a borderline criminal or terrorists idea.
It certainly looks like it. There are the other possibilities of generating new tax revenue channels by taxing those who do have them and requiring yearly, or even quarterly review (at fixed rates of course).
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, never has. It's about the rights of the people to be armed to not just protect themselves from criminals and external threats, but also to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over, e.g. the current NYC government. Guns are banned in NYC because the government fears an armed populous, not because it will prevent crime.
...but free speech is void if you falsely incite a panic.
In your extreme scenario, what would happen is the incident would be handled as though it were a legit danger. If it was later discovered that one or more of the people shouting "anthrax" did so just to cause a panic, then it would be punishable under law.
That whole "fire in a crowded room" saying is an actual quote from the Supreme Court ruling regarding this type of situation. They didn't find in favor of it.
You've been watching too many movies. Back in "wild west" days, Civilized Boston had a higher violent crime rate than the wild west. Gun fight at the OK corral was an anomaly. Most towns in the wild west were peaceful as they were populated by farmers and ranchers who wanted a safe environment to raise their families.
The right to own a firearm defines if you are a citizen or a subject. What do you want to be?
-- Will program for bandwidth
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/22798.php
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Bottom line is that people in NYC want to feel safe from invisible threats like chemical, biological, and radiological contaminants - totally reasonable. So they buy threat-detection devices. So what? This law would be unnecessary if you managed to explain to the bulk of your population a few simple things, in conjunction with a different law:
1) The threat-detector you choose to buy does no good unless it actually works properly.
2) Here's a few off-the-shelf brands that we tested that work.
3) If you have another kind, bring it to us and we'll test and calibrate it to make sure it works properly.
4) But if you choose to falsely report a threat, or you choose to buy a possibly improperly-functioning detector and it causes a panic that results in harm to others, or causes the cops to expend resources unnecessarily, then we'll punish/fine you.
Different law, provides the same results, but it provides people with more choice.
It makes perfect sense to me that something that could cause a public scare and cost hundreds of lives for no good reason should be regulated a little bit.
First off, you like several other posters missed my point entirely. Read my replies above, I'm not reposting it here. Second, what you just said here is a slippery slope. Should computers be regulated because the possibility exists that people using computers could hack in to xyz government/news/military/whatever website and cause a panic? That's a real possibility. Should we have to apply for a permit from the police department to own a computer? I don't see much difference between this and the "issue" the article is talking about.
Honestly, people who think like you should just admit up front you're scared of the inherent risks that living in a free society entails and that you prefer to not be free anymore. Just admit it to the rest of us plainly so at least we'll be having honest public discourse about these issues.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
"There is a warehouse there called Radiac Research Corporation that has about enough nuclear material for one atom bomb, although I'm sure it's not refined to that."
Holy Shit? Do you know what else? Australia and Canada have enough nuclear material for hundreds, or even thousands, of bombs! Just lying there in the ground! We need to surround those countries with Geiger counters, and watch them closely.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
While I am not anti-gun, I have-to agree that cutting welfair can cause the crime rate to go up. If more people need money, then those who are willing to steal will to get the money they need. Instead of attacking the person, refute, answer what they say, or give better example, please.
Good luck changing the government with guns. How'd that work out for those in Waco, or the Branch Dividian? If I ran the country I'd be much more concerned about someone changing the world with the internet and a video camera than a gun. The government can make you look like a nut with a gun, but if you show your argument (with video proof) it's hard to dispute.
Think about that for a bit, before you reply. A video camera keeps the government in check much better than a gun.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
Okay, this is going too far.
I definitely agree with the 2nd amendment. I agree with everything you have stated about it. In fact, in places with mandatory gun ownership (like Switzerland) there is very little violent crime at all. So you haven't even gone far enough in defending the 2nd amendment.
However, calling someone a "hive minder" is merely a way of avoiding their (possibly valid) opinion. It does nothing to support your claim, and makes your other arguments suspect.
And then you say:
Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
Ah. "Quivering masses." Beautiful. More senseless rhetoric, with nothing to back it up-- exactly what you (rightly) accused the other poster of doing with gun control.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Okay, that's it. I'm gettin' pretty tired of the term, "groupthink," especially in a post that is bawling somebody out for calling people "sheep." (Well, and Godwin.)
As a constitutional libertarian socialist, I agree with the original post. This is merely one strange incident in a whole bizarre pattern of information suppression (via legislation and other means) and misinformation, all in the name of, "We're protecting you from the terrorists. But they might just attack tomorrow." I am *not* anti-social. As I said, I'm quite socialist.
Calling it all "groupthink" just because you don't agree with a whole bunch of people doesn't make them wrong. It just means you disagree with a whole bunch of intelligent people who have different opinions from you. Oh, and a whole bunch of idiots with different opinions, too.
They could be right, you know.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
... Boston didn't do this first.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You don't have the right to run into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!" You do have the right to know the theater you are in is on fire.
What are you talking about? Non-factual opinion has been the basis of politics since the dawn of time.
According to the article, the author of this piece of regulatory rorschach is none other than Rich Falkenrath. I met Mr. Falkenrath just after his tenure on the staff at the White House, where he was a primary author of the original "Patriot Act". Seems he has found another seat from which to foment fear.
If you feel perfectly safe without carrying a gun, then by all means, continue to not carry a gun. However, I'm not willing to buy the sensational argument that allowing legal gun ownership somehow increases violent crime or increases the number of guns in the hands of thugs. Thugs aren't going to go through the process of filling out paperwork, getting fingerprinted, waiting for a background check/waiting period, etc that is necessary to legally get a license to carry or buy a gun. They are going to continue to get illegal guns from illegal sources. If they used a legally-obtained, registered, etc gun in a crime, they would get caught so easily. The fact that the next guy they try to mug might be carrying, though, probably acts as a deterrent for at least some of these thugs. This is why it is fine if you don't want to carry a gun, but you should be able to.
See Point Blank, by John Lott. He did a fairly extensive analysis of the impact of various levels of firearms regulation in the US, and found that "shall issue" permitting jurisdictions enjoyed lower crime rates, and that crime rates fell when these laws were enacted. "shall issue" refers to a legal requirement for issues concealed carry permits in the absence of any reason to deny the permit. In "shall issue" states, such as Washington, you can get a permit to carry a gun by walking into your police station and asking for one. They fingerprint you, and in two or three weeks, after they do a background check on you, you get the right to carry a handgun just about anywhere. Not surprisingly, holdup rates in these areas are lower than in districts such as NYC and Washington DC, which prohibit law abiding cictizens from owning or carrying a sidearm.
:-)
And yes, I have one, and yes, I sometimes carry a gun. Why? Because it makes me feel more manly.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Look at the example given, of school groups who might want to monitor air quality around their schools for the benefit of kids with asthma, where Falkenrath replied that, yes this would be illegal without a permit, and that although they had no interest in regulating people's use of air-quality sensors around schools, this sort of activity had to be included in the legislation, because if you allowed parental group to test air quality without a licence it'd be the thin end of a dangerous wedge.
That's for a group or organisation. If you are an individual parent and your kid has breathing problems, will you only get a permit for an air tester if you can provide documentary evidence that your kid has asthma?
What they are going to do now is try to drive it through again, but this time they'll try to put in clauses to placate the larger and more persuasive pressure groups. If you're an individual, forget it.
On the plus side, it'll mean that if a business is illegally faking their emissions data and polluting the air that you or your kids are breathing, it'll be against the law for you to test the air without a permit and catch them out. Local company illegally burning toxic waste or trucking exposed asbestos through the city? You verified it with an unauthorised air check? Off to prison you go, and your data is inadmissable because it's illegally obtained. It'll be good for certain NY businesses that have historical connections to the waste disposal business and who like contributing to NY politicians election funds (hello Mr. Anthony Soprano).
Send those annoying environmentalists and whistleblowers, with their pesky science and evidence and measuring equipment, off to jail. NYC air quality below official levels? If you're in possession of the equipment to prove it, they'll be able to lock you up for breaching antiterrorist legislation.
Eric Baird
The article did mention some concerns from DOH officials about the potential for false alarms. Requiring regulation for geiger counters or air quality monitoring equipment is a bone-headed, inappropriate, and totally disproportionate response to potential problems.
It seems as if the DOH has too much time on its hands. That's what you get when you create a whacking big government organisation: the whackiest ideas sudenly get support within it and are then solemnly passed off to external organisations as: "This is what we advise you to do because there *might* conceivably be drawbacks if you don't"
Global Warming on the other hand, is permitted, and even encouraged. Tbppp.
How about they start by mandating the police department have a policy for addressing reports of hazards. For example, either a certain number of reports of an issue or checking the reported detector model against a list of known-capable detectors before sending out someone to investigate on the tax-payer dime. That way you aren't restricting the citizen's access to a myriad of useful tools or reducing the capability to detect real problems. Honestly, if several hundred nerds are calling in reporting really high hazard levels at some location, are you going to assume they're all using innaccurate gear and arrest them, or send someone to figure out what's going on?
Or better yet, New York could just elect councilmen who don't try to sneak through laws based on hypothetical scenarios.
If you read the article, you will see this extends not only to radiological detectors like Geiger counters, but even air quality testing equipment. That'd put a crimp on a lot of DIY testing for a broad variety of household or community problems.
Ma'am, step away from the litmus paper. We're here to help you.
Hmm, that would explain why the recent school shootings the shooters were all using guns they'd purchased illegally.
Oh, wait, thats right. If you're crazy enough to shoot up a school, you probably don't care about getting away with it. I find it hard to believe Engineering students would be able to track down guns on the black-market.
But arguing with a pro-gun nut is like arguing with a brick wall, despite all the cracks in the argument they refuse to collapse.
Thank you for the reply. I was actually looking for data contradicting though, if there's some basis for this guy who I replied to having some facts for it. Doesn't really look that way at all, unfortunately. I am all for allowing people to get gun permits etc, not the other way around.
Ok, so that brings up a good point, and an important distinction. I think there is a big difference between someone that shoots up a school, and a mugger/burglar/career criminal. Note how quickly the Virginia Tech shooter was identified. I don't think that school shooters have any intention of "getting away with it"; in fact many times, I think they want to be caught (or kill themselves first) so they will be remembered for something big. Of course, I am not a psychologist, and I don't claim to have any real insight into why people do things like that, so I could be way off.
However, people that make a habit of mugging people on the streets, or breaking into homes to steal valuables aren't trying to make a statement by committing their crimes. They are trying to generate income. If they get caught, then they don't make any money.
As for your last comment about brick walls, I think we both know that we aren't going to change each others' minds. That's fine, but I don't think that resorting to name-calling is really constructive to the exchange of ideas that we have going on here.
You do realize that crime is a complex issue, right? It's absurd to suggest that armed citizens is the solution.
Want a fully automatic M16 in your Manhattan apartment? Keep it in the closet along with 5-6 (probably also illegal) 30 round magazines and shut up about it. Lots cheaper than permitting, unless you have to use it, of course.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Well admittedly that was a well thought out and reasoned reply. Something I don't usually get from the gun freaks out there. So I will commend you for that.
That being said there is no way to convince me that arming every American to the teeth is going to decrease murders. There is no society in the history of man that has increased the arming of the populace and had a result like that. Most societies that have increased arming end up in civil war, and I think we can both agree that the amount of deaths due to civil war would be higher than any mugger could even dream about.
The fact of the matter is that there are examples which "prove" both sides of the argument, and it comes down to a moral call. Do you think people morally need to be given the right to kill eachother? And I think the answer to that is a resounding NO. A government is there to protect people, not encourage them to kill eachother.
I wouldn't be quoting John Lott as an authority on anything. Have a look through Tim Lambert's weblog for a very extensive collection of stories on Lott's utter lack of credibility.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
So women and the elderly are currently armed?
I'm curious: Has this view of citizenship ever been espoused by anyone outside of the US?
Here in Australia we considerably reduced the number of guns in the hands of the population, to great effect in reducing gun crime. The only conclusion I come to reading the sadly insane support for guns in the hands of US citizens is that it is due to simple overcompensation. What fool would believe having a gun around would make you safer. If criminals know people are likely to have guns they are more likely to have one, any fool should be able to see that. I have never seen a gun carried in public here in Australia apart from Police officers and no-one I know carries one, or needs one, doesnt that tell you something? A society where people carry guns as a matter of course inevitably has more gun crime, even Americans should realize this, but you constantly seem to deny a fundamental truth. How can you be so blind to the huge gun death rate in your country? The gun makes safer delusion would be funny if it wasnt so tragic!
yeah, that's why I am afraid to walk the streets of London - they don't have enough guns there! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F21%2Fnmurd21.xml see huge homicide rate - 61 deaths in a city of 7.5M vs 600 in NYC a city of 8M ... oh wait I mean Dallas TX with a homicide rate of 240 in a city of 1.5M oh wait... they must have dracoinian gun control laws in Dallas how about San Antonio uhh.... well there must be city somewhere in the united states without draconian gun control laws and a homicide rate lower than London - I mean the Cato institute can't possibly be wrong.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Creating laws to combat hypothetical future situations is a waste of time. Let there be some evidence that the situation is actually feasible or enevitable before we pass a law preventing it.
Unfortunately many politicians don't use common sense.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Let me guess. These "facts" are statistical correlations of one city, located in the US. The US is, rather sadly, addicted to guns. Guns, in the city, are mostly just needed to protect against other guns. If you have guns already saturated throughout the nation, if a huge supply of guns are just suddenly relegated to the black market, gun control won't help a thing for a long, long time. Big cities in the US like NYC are living in a state of fear, and what they fear is really what they claim is also their saviour. Everybody loses except the big gun manufacturers.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
...no one had a problem with me building a radiation meter and using it to check levels of radiation around Gomel, Belarus after Chernobyl disaster. And that was in 1986.
Good job, NYC!
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
No, I am saying it makes sense to interpret the Second Amendment as it clearly was written, and not to try to pretend that hunting has anything to do with it, or that some how population density determines when and where Constitutional rights apply. Look, if you think that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't make sense in our times or in urban cities, fine. You have a perfect right to believe that, it might even be a rational position to have. What isn't OK is to decided that we will just ignore constitutional rights because we don't like them. If you don't like it, change it. We did that with the 18th and we can do it with the 2nd. Are you going to be happy when we use the same reasoning to tell people that the inner cities are so crime ridden that we really can't afford freedom from unreasonable searches or arrests? How about when we decide that we can't afford to have freedom of religion because the friction it creates is just unworkable?
I call authorities.
False alarm, neighbor farted.
Will possession of 'nose' be unlawful?
They should be (and some are - my girlfriend for example (see standard /. joke about girlfriends, har har)).
We can trust adults to use simple measurement tools safely.
I don't know, I've met people I wouldn't trust to measure something with my tape measure. I've seen people asked to measure and cut a 2X4 to measure it wrong.
Get a smoke alarm in your house, and repel the NYC police if they try to 'certify' it.
Smoke alarms are required where I live. And they have to work, I took out the batteries in the alarms I have and I was told they had to be in the smoke alarms by city inspectors.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I was talking what it takes to get a LEGAL firearm in NYC. It MUCH harder to buy legal than Illegal - heck, almost noplace (including Long Island) registers rifles/shotguns - you go there, buy, and stay out of trouble
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
The point though, is that using a bad Geiger counter does not cause any direct harm
Well, yes it *does*, if you then go and phone the police screaming about some massive radiation reading that your $4.99-from-eBay Geiger counter is going berzerk over.
It's not the alarm that's causing any harm, it's the person using it that causes the harm.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There was a story on www.whatreallyhappended.com a while back on NYC doing a map of radiological levels to create a base map from which to compare in a catastrophy. Oddly, there were high levels coming from the Israeli Embassy. WRH has often accused Israel, Mossad, and MI6 as being involved in false flag operations. I don't know if its true or not, but this development sure gives them a lot to talk about, doesn't it.
Mark Anthony Collins
Firstly, IANAL, but...When you read through the actual bill (here), and take into account things like ISO's, it really does seem that the clause regarding *character of the applicant* could be used as a jupiter-sized loophole to deny applications to private citizens en masse. You'd probably be right, but...When you take into account the government's handling of contracts with Raytheon, one of the primary defense contractors for the US, you might think that lack of standards is how the gov't has always worked for lack of understanding the concept. For those more cynical of us on slashdot, the two combine to look like an effective cop-out of responsibility to free information and standards activists in the "we've always done it this way" motif. Long story short, the reasons illustrated in the bill make a minute amount of sense, then they sucker-punch you by claiming the right to deny you if the commissioner or any other involved partner agency don't like you. Yeah, great way to protect people's rights.
Is not as bad as Boston being scared of Lite-Brites.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
The argument has made repeatedly on Slashdot that computer users should be licensed - that users should demonstrate a mastery of basic skills and show some sense of responsibility for the potential consequences of his actions.
But tell the Geek that he needs a license before toying with class 4 biologic and radiological alarms and the world becomes a nanny state.
No. But here we can say that our president is running the country into the ground if we want. (See I just said it.) We define our citizenship by our freedoms. How about you? Any grievances with your dictator/king/despot. Silence? Hmm...Now, STFU! (Oh wait, your government is already making you do that.)
Just callin' it like I see it.
This is probably going to be seen as trollish, but it honestly isn't...
When this kind of subject comes up on /., reading through the comments of quite a lot of people really makes me grateful I do not have to go live in the US. There mere thought of living somewhere it is considered that women, the elderly (and men!) should carry arms makes me scared, really.
Of course, I know /. is not exactly representative of the general populace, but anyways...
Have you ever been to pretty much anywhere outside of the US? Have you ever read the news of any other country but the US? Your response leaves me little option but to think that your knowledge of the outside world is quite distorted...
Like, ever? Is there a single instance since the birth of Slashdot?
Historically, sort of. In theory, the nobility in many European countries were responsible for "maintaining the order" and so were the only ones that could own weapons. The right to bear arms is philosophically a response to this, that the US has no nobility and every person is responsible for maintaining order. Remember this was before police departments had been organized and before the US had a professional standing army.
I am all for allowing people to get gun permits etc, not the other way around.
I am all for people not needing any permits for firearms. Requiring permits defeat the purpose of the 2nd amendment, that being that people can fight an oppressive government. The USA's Founding Fathers knew how important having an armed citizenry was to prevent government from becoming oppressive, and in the modern era I have to add genocidal.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't think so. IMO Guns are a symbol from the oversimplified US national creation myth where a bunch of poorly armed civilians freezing in the woods won a country without professional military help from defectors from the colonial army and the French. In a lot of other places a gun is usually a tool and not some symbol that can replace a flag. Reason will not work here since it is at the core of nationalism, just as the French are intensely hated beyond reason instead of receiving gratitude.
Oddly enough even the Chinese complain bitterly about their government and currently get away with it, and it's pretty sobering that the north of China is seen as the land of unlimited freedom by the North Koreans. You don't suddenly have Burma or North Korea the second you leave the USA.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the state of your country, but your freedoms are routinely being trodden on and removed. In fact, half the articles here on Slashdot are about what is happening and who is doing it. You've got:
1) Civil liberties being gradually eroded in the name of the "war on terror"
2) A government committing torture
3) A government taking people off to some jail out of the country with no trial for many years
4) Your phone companies spying on you without warrants
5) Billions upon billions of dollars getting thrown away in an unpopular war with no sign of an end
6) Record/movie industry writing laws
I wonder what most people would say if you asked what they'd rather have - a gun, or the above?
I don't know who's been making an argument for requiring licensing for all computer use, but that's even more stupid than TFA. In both cases, the best remedy to the perceived and actual problems is education.
That sounds perfectly sane to me and I learnt how to shoot at the age of 7. Why can't civilian citizens just wear a flag as a symbol instead of a dangerous military sidearm? These things are tools for law enforcement and the military and not something to use to frighten people in business negotiations or road rage incidents. If it really is to scare off potential attackers in lawless zones wear something obvious instead of a concealed military sidearm.
I wouldn't be quoting John Lott as an authority on anything. Have a look through Tim Lambert's weblog [scienceblogs.com] for a very extensive collection of stories on Lott's utter lack of credibility.
I have trouble saying Tim Lambert is any more credible than is John Lott. Take his article "Another fabrication from John Lott". In it he critics Lott as saying that laws "that require guns be locked up and unloaded face a five-percent increase in murder and a 12 percent increase in rape" and provides a paragraph from a study in the AMA's "JAMA" that supposedly supports his position. Yet not once in the paragraph is either murder or rape mentioned once. All it talks about is how laws that held firearm owner responsible saw a 23% drop in children under 15 being unintentionally shot and die. And there are more way of holding owners responsible than by requiring firearms to be inaccessible to children.
There are many people who grow up with firearms yet only a small number of them ever commit a crime with a firearm. For instance in the neighborhood I grew up in I knew a bunch of kids who grew up with and shot firearms if they didn't own one themselves. I was given my first firearm, a .22 long rifle, before I was 13. My dad and my best friend's dad used to take the two of us out for target practice, as were other kids in the neighborhood. Yet the only person from the 'hood I knew who was ever accused of a violent crime was someone who stabbed a person, no firearms involved. On the other hand a friend of mine was shot and killed, we were in the army and stationed in Germany then and he was shot while in the unit's armory cleaning weapons. The armorer was playing around with a .45 and not realizing it was loaded, how he became an armorer I don't know as it's easy to tell if a .45 is loaded, he pointed it at my friend and saying "bang" he pulled the trigger killing my friend.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You don't suddenly have Burma or North Korea the second you leave the USA.
But would tyrants control Burma and North Korea if the people were armed?
FalconShould there be a Law?
And I was so looking forward to bringing my own antique Flintlock pistol to the revolutionary war reenactment at Battery Park.
speaking of underground and radiation:
If you put on a plastic construction hard-hat and spend 20minutes in the basement, you're very likely to get a 100mrems reading off your plastic hat after.
The effect is due to interplay of static electricity (plastic hard-hat)
and gaseous radon, which is heavier than air, plentiful in soil and thus often accumulates in basements. By the way, underground radon is the strongest source of natural radiation, unless you're determined to irradiate yourself by "unnatural" means.
Go on, make an experiment, before they ban the counters... or hardhats...
And btw, in some industries, such readings would be a sufficient reason to dispose of the hard-hat as radioactive waste.. Luckily the high reading dissipates naturally in half-hour or so..
Wrong -- the right to property is ABSOLUTELY most circumscribed in the state of Connecticut, where they went to the supreme court (and won) on the issue of eminent domain. It was therein decided that taking private real estate and turning it over to a private developer constituted a taking "for the public good". The "public good" involved was a cynically-accepted raise in the taxes derived from the property. Therefore I can throw your sorry ass out of the rundown shack passed down in your family for generations in favor of some motherfucking yuppie who will build his accursed McMansion on the property, thereby "enhancing the local tax base".
If you think it means anything less than that, you probably voted for the current liar-in-thief.
What exactly are you talking about? First of all, there's no constitutional right to follow a profession of one's choice, at any level of government in this country. Second of all, NYC doesn't license for "professions" unless you count being a tow truck operator, taxi driver, debt collector, or an eletronics store owner, or junkyard owner a "profession." Any of the typical "professions" like physicians, lawyers, teachers, social workers, accountants, estate agents, etc. are all licensed by the state -- just like anywhere else in the US, Canada, UK, Spain, France, Japan, or any other normal country.
Good luck changing the government with guns. How'd that work out for those in Waco, or the Branch Dividian?
Waco's a bad example, in part precisely because the Branch Davidians looked like kooks but mostly because they were are located in one easy to target place. Even then though Janet Reno had to burn down a building with children inside to end it. A better example was the DC sniper. Two people in a vehicle were able to terrorize a large area in 2 states and the District of Columbia. Now imagine if one 2 man team like them were in just 5 states. Or 2 in 10. They could conceivably bring the US to it's knees with fear. Further imagine if some teams targeted railroads and major interstate highways, blowing them up. Minneapolis still hasn't fully recovered from the collapse of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm actually not convinced that gun ownership is the best idea, but I feel the need to call you out on this: grandparent is not suggesting every American should be armed. It is likely that at least some society, even if coincidentally, has experienced an increase in gun ownership and a decrease in murders. And you seem to equate gun ownership with the "right to kill each other." Wow.
What should be done is regulate them these devices like smoke detectors. You are encouraged to have them, but you pay a fine if the authorities are summoned on a false alarm.
Then when people don't raise alarms politicians will wonder why no one raised an alarm. "Hey I may be fined for raising a false alarm so I'd better keep my mouth shut."
FalconShould there be a Law?
We are getting way off topic here and frankly into tinfoil hat territory.
After all, a bad detector could get tripped by someone cooking and cause a panic.
While I was cooking once a smoke alarm went off so I removed the batteries. Later a city inspector checked the alarms and said the batteries had to be in the alarms, that the alarms had to be working at all tymes. Later my landlord called and said the city had threatened to fine them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What the French did was greatly appreciated, but that was over 200 hundred years ago. Unlike Europe, we don't dwell on deeds from long ago, both good and bad. We operate on how people act today. That means we aren't getting into wars with our neighbors over some perceived slight from 500 years ago as happens in Europe on a regular basis. We are best of friends with Canada and Mexico even though we fought wars against both those countries. Same with the UK. We fought two wars against them, but now we consider them our closest ally.
Yes, we have a few problems with Mexico, but they aren't something we will get into a shooting war over.
-- Will program for bandwidth
It's not "you should carry a gun because you're gonna get raped/mugged/etc if you don't", it's "you should carry a gun just in case" just like you should have a first aid kit and spare oil in your car.
If anything, the fact that people fail to see a difference between carrying a first aid kit and spare oil in your car, and carrying a gun, makes me more grateful of not having to live there.
Godwin's law doesn't pass judgement on the use of Nazis in an argument, it merely states that the longer an argument goes on, the greater the probability that somebody will compare something to the Nazis.
The fact that some people think that mentioning Nazis means that Godwin's law in "invoked" and you "lose" the argument is not Godwin's fault. That belief is largely due to misinformation from Hitler-loving Nazi fascist pigdogs.
At least that's what I've heard.
I'm sure it isn't random useless crap. Just the reasons claimed are not the true reasons.
I wonder what are the true reasons...
Some possible ones:
1. a friend of the responsible politician is in the detector business, but didn't enter the market yet. They gotta get rid of the competiting wares before flooding the market with theirs.
2. the government is scared and convinced about an imminent dirty bomb action (or something similar where personal GM counters are useful) and don't want people to know about it.
3. well, i couldn't think up more, i'm not a politician. But there could be some other sensible reason.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Yes, I'm aware of these things. No need to rub them in. But I like to enjoy my freedom while I have it.
Just callin' it like I see it.
If a government tells people not to have Geiger counters, then I believe it is reasonable to expect the government to use the populace as lab mice by throwing them radiation without them knowing, or put nuclear waste on their backyard, or transport nuclear warheads through public roads. I'm not saying that any current government wants to do this stuff, but I feel highly suspicious.
The public has the right to know what they are breathing. This law would deny them this right. If I want to move into a new neighbourhood, I have the right to know about the quality of the air there and other environmental measures. Merely taking a meter and reading the screen does nothing bad.
2) isn't in the same category as 1) and 3).
Buildings these days voluntarily opt to make some apartments rent controlled in exchange for tax breaks.
Building owners know exactly what they're getting into when they sign that agreement. They're making a free choice with their property, just as it should be.
"But tell the Geek that he needs a license before toying with class 4 biologic and radiological alarms and the world becomes a nanny state."
... the more sensors the better, because the more bad things are found and fixed. Sensors can and are also used for legitimate good science (not just toying around with it!).
... its close-minded ideologies that are the problem!. You cannot fix a world of pain caused by close-minded with yet more close-mindedness. Education is the answer.
Using sensors is not wrong
Controlling what people want to learn (via limiting what sensors they can use or limiting them in any other way) is the real bad in this world and its ironically why we have to deal with a world filled with bullying ideologies who want to control and limit what people think & do, plus also they want to wipe out anyone where refuses to follow their ways.
But try telling that to some who looks down on geeks for standing up for freedom from the ideological bullying terrorists!
Education is the answer and solution to close-mindedness!
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
Has nobody else commented on the fact that the basis of this legislation is obviously false?
The idea is that, in light of fear of terrorism, people are generating oodles of false alarms with their detectors, generating mass panic and sending police on endless wild goose chases. It's been 6 years since 9/11/2001, and if any panics were going to happen they would have been happening 6 years ago. Nothing has happened since then that means people are only now suddenly rushing out and buying crappy air monitors and flooding the police switchboards.
I mean, complexities of the issue aside, they're trying to pass a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Not that this would be the first time, I suppose.
There is no way to make guns impossible to buy. The government has been trying to make drugs impossible to buy for a long time now, with lovely results:
"Need" has nothing to do with it. There is no reason people need cheese. Unlike cheese, a gun might save your life, or the life of someone else--by taking away (or threatening to) the life of a violent criminal. Law abiding citizens should not be disarmed against criminals and their government.
Be prepared for a long line when you want a smoke detector permit. Wouldn't it just be easier to outlaw false alarms? At least the reason for the law would be obvious.
unfuckingbelievable
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
No one gets into war over perceived slights from 500 years ago. They may say they do, but it is absurd to take their word. Much as experience has told us to demand more than words when justifying an invasion of a country and asking our participation, even, with the argument of `spreading freedom', `finding weapons of mass destuction', and so on.
Only a fool trusts in what someone arguing for war says.
texastoxic on Thu Jan 17, 2008, 02:15, says: ... how about that, could be presidents. Just keep the public unaware of the toxic, hazardous and poisonous elements and compounds that industrial point sources pump into the air and your future is assured.
... we see they did a great job of analyzing and warning residents and workers of the toxics that were in the air around the WTC. Honest data of the air on the ground would have resulted in personal protection of thousands that are now afflicted, or healthy now will realize the consequences later. That's right, homeland security, the EPA, and the mayor's office neglected to tell the responders and remediators about those unmeasured toxics--so, the police and the fire departments should have monitors to get honest information they can use themselves.
... but, predictable.
This is truly incredible, but perhaps predictable. The administration and the appointed EPA administrator Johnson have shown no interest in protecting the public health. The EPA has ignored the public health, and proposed keeping particulate standards at current levels rather than reducing to improve the health of Americans. Better to keep the money flowing out of the pockets of the public for over the counter medications, physicians, hospitals, health plans, insurance, and taxes for those that don't have insurance but require treatment, and into corporations that can fund campaigns of coucilmembers, mayors, and
Unfortunately, those pesky researchers and public health groups like the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, American Pediatiatrics Association, World Health Organization, etc. continue to identify the true toxic terrorists that cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths in the US, and millions around the world. Spitzer in testimony to congress testified that particulates, pollutants from industrial point sources allowed by EPA ignoring new source review would cause the premature deaths of more New Yorkers every year than did 9/11 in that one event.
Monitors in the control of the police or homeland security, great idea
Monitors located by the EPA are not sited to reflect the contribution of any industrial point source, or the toxics of any particular residential area; they are sited to give regional data. Virtually all studies have shown that the real exposure of residents is far above those regional values. Very inconvenient, better to take those monitors out of circulation and only let the police control them. Good, honest information is considered a weapon by Homeland Security and their stooges, truly incredible
The best monitors are humans. The nose, thorax, lungs are very sensitive instruments, monitors of toxic, hazardous and poisonous materials in the air. The body's defense mechanisms do as good a job as possible while the particulates and gases assault human systems to do their damage on adults, children, elders, and those to be born. There is no safe level of particulates less than 2.5 microns, there is no safe level of lead, mercury, magnesium, cadmium, arsenic, etc., there is no safe level of ozone. These elements and compounds, waste products from coal and crude oil combustion ejected into the public airshed will damage downwind human lungs, hearts, and brains.
Human systems try to stop the particulates entering. You can see the effects of these particulates and gases on your family and neighbors on occassion. Some sneeze or cought to rid their systems, some suffer more heavily when toxic plumes and clouds enter their space. The nose is a monitor in itself, larger particles get stuck causing congestion, then are very often removed manually, and smaller material caught deeper is moved up the mucilatory elevator and ejected (to tissue, not out car windows onto
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What're you going to do, take down a tank with a 1911?