Re:Some copyright is good (heresy, heresy!)
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 3
Here's the problem. Copyrights are fine if the artist is the one that benifits. When publishing companies rape the public and the artist by overcharging for a work and only allowing one form of distabution, that's when the balance changes. Do you feel that you should have the rights to that book for twenty years after your death? Copyrights are fine if they are for a limited time and if they are not transferable by the author. If the author of a book always owned the copyright then he could license the book to publishers for the best deal.
At the moment the publishers have all the power. They decide when a book will be published. What information will be published and what price they will charge the public.
Copyright is not a natural right while freespeech is we need to recognize that fact and move on.
I agree. Anytime you have politicians spending millions of dollars to get a job that pays a few hundred thousand dollars something is wrong. Money is what drives american politics and corporations supply that money. When a politician knows that with enough money he/she can get votes, why should that politician then feel a responciblity to the voters rather than the people who supplied the money.
We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back. Before somebody comes up and says this is a democracy you can vote. I want to say sure I can vote but the choices of who I can vote for have already been decided. How many times in the last hundred years have write in canidates been elected for a major office?
I know that this is off the main page so you probably will never read this but I would just like to know where you get your numbers.
Did you make them up? Guess? I know of many mp3's that are traded on napster that are public domain. You can get the same files off of mp3.com but it's more of a hassle.
1. Consumer OS(Dos and current flavor of windows) 2. Buisiness OS(NT, 2000) 1 & 2 both have rights to IE 3. Applications/internet To me this seems right since IE is used by the os. The applications buisiness would be the strongest of the three.
I don't have a problem with Napster having to ban users that trade illegal mp3s. I have a problem with people suing because others are misusing their service. They should ban users when they've been notified of copyright infringment and they've confirmed that infringment. As a matter of fact that's what they have done in the metallica case. Not all mp3s are illegal many are free and public domain.
What color is the sky on your planet? As much as Napster tries to blush and flutter its eyelids and say, "Golly! We never intended our service to be used for illegal MP3-trading! We thought there were enough people out there who wanted to trade only legitimate MP3s that it would be worth writing software and forming a corporation!" the idea is just so ridiculous that a judge would have trouble controlling his laughter enough to render a decision.
Their are legitimate uses for napster and people who use the service for legal files. That their are legitimate uses for the service is enough to warrent its continued existance. Maybe you would like to make IRC illegal since it can be used to trade files. Or maybe we should make FTPs illegal because many people use that transfer protocal to trade warez?
By your definition we also need to make it illegal to own a vcr because it is mainly used to make copies of copyrighted content. We also need to throw all the people who sell ciggarette papers in jail because we know that most people use those to smoke pot, not tobacco.
Think about it would you want to own an ISP that had to fear constant lawsuits because of what its users might be doing? Napster is a service, yes it can be used for doing things that are illegal but so can a hammer. Like a hammer napster is just a tool. Blame the people who are misusing it not Napster.
You're only partly correct. You make the assumption that everyone else is making that Napster should be responcible for what happens with people using its service.
A better analogy then the one you used with the house would be a public park where people sold drugs. The people selling drugs are the ones in the wrong and not the park directors. People have to be responcible for their actions.
The same argument that you given would work for ISPs why shouldn't they be responcible for what's on their servers. Because then they would spend all of their time looking for people breaking the law. Also you would see more people getting banned for true free speech issues ie the recent cases in the UK.
The problem that I have with the lawsuite and the way people are taking it is that Napster is not to blame. Napster is just a service it's some of the people using it that are breaking the law. We do not want a situation were service providers must monitor what their users are doing so that they can be sure they won't be sued. That not only brings up privacy issues it will cost any type of service provider money policing its users. The next step is to sue ISP's for allowing people to post mp3s.
I would have thought that Linus would agree that Napster is not to blame it is the users that are misussing a service.
We all agree that it is wrong to go out and rent a movie tape it off then give copies away. But would we blame blockbuster for it if people were caught doing just that?
Metallica would not bring this lawsuite against it's listeners. The band said as much on its website. Metallica is suing the wrong people. Now that the users that were trading metallica mp3s have been baned I don't see how they still think they have a case. The only people left for metallica to sue are the users and they won't do that because 300,000 people == bad press.
Viruses were one of the first memory resident programs on the pc. Many of the memory resident programs used by people that ran dos got their roots from viruses. Also anyone that has ever had AIM(Aol instant messenger) know that only a virus could have inspired it's creation.;)
Viruses do not have to have a destructive payload. One could create a virus that was self-replicating and benificial. Also their is the challange of creating one. Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why write virus code? Because one can.
The challange of writing self replicating code in any language from scrap is just to large for any self respecting hacker to ignore. That is not to say that one should create a destructive virus and release it, but creating a nondisrtuctive self-replicating program for proof of concept purposes is ok.
I've examined the source code to many viruses and most are crap. Only a few are true works of art. Most of these came from Bulgaria and they incorporate features that are truly interesting like stealth and the ability to hide changes in file size and memory used.
Who says it's going to waste. People who used to break into computers are now working for security companies. I bet people who at one time wrote viruses are working for antivirus companies.
Viruses are challenging and interesting. Some of the ideas used in them have been incorporated into modern software. Just like anything else if you don't use viruses to harm people or data their is nothing wrong with them at all. Why do linux hackers write code that they will give away. They like the challange.
I always thought that it would be cool to write a virus killer virus. It would search out a few known viruses and destroy them.
With out the breakup of bell linux might never have come about. Part of the popularity of Unix was it's cheap price and the fact that one could get the source code for only a small fee. "Unix was cheap. AT&T had been forced to practically give it away for free by government order.", a quote from a recent Salon story. AT&T was not allowed to make money off of technology that did not relate directly to communications. Without that breakup BSD would not have been developed and neither would linux at least not as easily or in this short of time.
Long distance prices are cheaper now. That's easy to see even with only a little research.
While I do believe that Ma Bell was a more benevolent monopoly then Microsoft I think their breakup has benifitted society.
Part of the trouble with getting work done on phone systems today is the shear number of phone and data systems in use. Would Bell have done any better? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not a linux/unix/bsd zealot but I do think Microsoft has given pcs a bad name. Far from making it easier for new users they baby new users and then when that pretty new windows box crashes, as they all do. The user is left with no knowledge and support people that know less about computers then many highschool students. These new users are completely lost. Microsoft gives them a false sence of security by making some simple tasks very easy then not encouraging users to learn about that expensive and complex machine they are using.
He faults the Linux community for jumping to the conclusion that Unreal Engine games will not be a reality for the Mac and Linux. Maybe he should read beyond the headlines. "
But maybe the headlines should be a little more specific. Many slashdot readers never make it past the headline and more never bother to read links in posts. I'm quite sure that many slashdot readers just glanced at the summery and started emailing about how outraged they were.
"A major side effect of this is that any future ports of Unreal-engine titles that use the new technology will need to have a completely rewritten rendering system, making Mac and Linux ports significantly more difficult."
Looks pretty inflamatory to me. Many of the readers here have strong feelings about linux and companies that say they are going to support software development for the OS. It doesn't take much to get them up in arms.
Oh well it was an honest mistake on everyones part, at least I hope it was, and we have good news to show for it.
Anyway, whether or not what Microsoft did is compatible with open-source ideals has nothing to do with reproducing it illegally. If I believe in open source and get my hands on the MS Office source code, I can't distribute the source code openly. Or, conversely, if I believe in closed source, I can't sell binary-only copies of modified GPL software.
Don't forget that they also wanted slashdot to remove some comments that just contained links or instructions. Those comments should be protected as free speech. As for the ones that actually posted the whole document, slashdot should not remove those unless ordered to do so by the courts.
I don't trust studies unless I've had a chance to reveiw the samples used the data collected and the hypothesis's formed.
The point of my post wasn't to dispute the validity of the study but to point out that these types of studies are inherently less valid because looking at a sample of data one way will give different conclusions then if one were to aproach the problem from a different way.
The other point that I was trying to make is that their is evidence against as well as for.
Suppose for an instant that the study was about access to information. Lets say the study said that access to information about computer networks was dangerous because when that type of information is known more people will try to circumvent it. You might question that type of study as well.
I question this type of study because of my personel experiance. I'm sure that many people have had different experiances then I have. It just worries me when otherwise rational people argue for restricting peoples rights.
Yeah, there's social issues to work out. But they are NEVER going to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. Saying you can work out these problems with guns on the streets is like saying you can stop prostitution without police. It doesn't compute.
They don't have to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. As a matter of fact I've never pointed a gun at a person. However I'm not afraid of people or peoples guns. Because I'm able and willing to defend myself if necessary. Of course you can work out the social problems with guns on the street. WTF if people are content with their life why would they want to go out and commit crimes with guns or otherwise. As for criminals having guns, we already have laws against that. As for prostitution we should worry less about prostitution and more about serious crimes. Drugs that are addictive need to be stopped. Violent crimes of any type need to be stopped.
And I'm supposed to believe that every stranger on the street with a gun is to be trusted with it? In fact, why the heck should I even trust you with a gun? You give me no reason to (other than that you state you have [in your opinion] proper training.). Maybe if you had a big "The Gov't of xyz has Licensed me a Trained Marksman" sign on you...
You shouldn't trust me. You should hide yourself away in a dark place until the government has rounded up all the bullies and criminals. Melted all the guns, knives and hard metal object. You should stay there until all those hard concrete sidewalks have been cushioned and until someone figures out how you can be 100% sure that you won't be struck by lightning. Btw I have had military and state training on the use of firearms.
That I understand. And at the time, enough guns and you could ruin the government. But now, what kind of gun is going to destroy the government? You can't do it with a gun. Maybe with a nuclear weapon you could overthrow the government. It worked a little more than 50 years ago... Should people have these to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How a little about sarin gas and anthrax to sweeten the deal?
When the situation in this country becomes so bad that terroism is common I will definatly feel much safer knowing that I can defend myself if need be.
I bet you won't find any supporters of giving people the right to bear nuclear arms and biological/chemical weapons for "defense against the government". If the country became that divided the military would also be divided. Remember the cival war people didn't carry cannons around either. In the event of a cival war I would need my guns to protect myself and my family from one side or the other.
But do ask the government to take away the rights of those with guns that you don't trust. And, to me, that is ANYONE I haven't met personally. Seems to me like this includes you (sorry...:-)
Good because I don't trust you either so I think it would be in my best interest for the government to take away your right to privacy so that I can monitor what you are doing at all times and your right to free speech so that I won't have to worry about your influencing people with your dangerous thoughts.
Fact is guns do just one thing: KILL.
Give me a use of a gun that isn't designed to KILL or THREATEN TO KILL. Get over the idea of stopping the Queen of England from busting into your living room. If she wanted to do it, she'd be in a popemobile, and your gun will look like a pea shooter in comparison.
Well lets see guns are used for entertainment. Marksmanship is even included in some olympic contests. Some guns are made exclusivly for collectors and are never meant to be fired. And yes guns are used to kill but to quote a song life feeds on life. I've never killed anyone with a gun or otherwise. I have used guns for hunting which is one valid use besides protection.
Other than that, I have never been able to figure out why a first world country needs arms in the hands of its citizens to happily survive nowadays. And the idea of killing things for sport sickens me. It reminds me of the time when humans were nothing more than animals. Why would anyone want to debase themselves like that?
Are you then a vegetarian or are you content to kill as the government does from afar, because believe me whenever you eat a hamburger or steak you are causing the death of an animal. I hunt and fish and I enjoy it but I do eat what I kill. To kill just for the sake of killing IS wrong. Humans are a part of nature no matter how much we try and build an artificial world around ourselves we feed on living things. Animals or plants almost everything we eat was at one time a living organism.
..another litarary tecique called sarcasm. I thought that was clear in the post if it wasn't to some people then let me clarify. Although doing so is a little like rephrasing a jokes punch line for people who don't get it. I don't look up to Hitler. I was comparing people willing to try and take away my rights to Hitler and was showing that if you take the gun control arguments far enough it becomes the same as what Hitler did to control the population.
As for crime that is defined by a countries laws. Under Hitler few people were willing to commit a crime. I wouldn't want to live in such a society would you?
Guns are tools they are not even the most dangerous tools in our society. Knowledge is power and computers are probably more dangerous to todays societies then any number of guns. Would you like to outlaw computers as well. More people are killed in car accidents then shootings how about outlawing cars. No? Your just willing to outlaw the things that you don't find important. Guns are not just used to kill. They are used for protection, entertainment, and many people collect guns as a hobby or investment. The only people who shouldn't have guns are criminals and if you outlaw guns they will be the only ones who have them.
Microsoft can't use their FUD machine at the moment so they intentionally set this up as a distraction for the OSS community. This not only makes the community look like thiefs to the general public it gives microsoft legal power to disrupt peoples lives.
Not only that but since microsoft is not able to spread fud they are using DDos attacks to bring down a site that is frequently critical of them and their products.
Well maybe not but I think it's only a matter of time before contries and companies are using cracking and Dos attacks to disrupt enemies and competitors.
Sorry no, I disagree. Guns are not the problem crime is the problem. If more and more criminals started usinging computers would you want to outlaw them? No because they are important to you. The right to bear arms is important to me.
Like any para-Scientific study it is slanted to give the results the researcher wants. Compare crime rates in Texas and Washington DC. DC has much sticter gun control laws then Texas. The crime rate in Texas is as you would guess much lower even in large cities then DC.
Nothing personal. But if you outlaw guns you will increase crime, because I will become a criminal.
If you don't want a gun don't buy one, but don't tell me that I can't have one or that I shouldn't have the right to own a gun. If your going to tell me that, I will expect you to personally protect me from the criminals that have guns.
Crime is NOT caused by gun ownership. Crime is caused by social problems. In a society where people are content crime happens less frequently. Take away guns and you just create another class of criminals.
Treat the problems not the symptom. Try rebuilding schools and giving people some hope. Try addressing economic issues which force people to crime. Don't point your finger and say guns are the problem. If you want a society with virtually no crime then give up your rights. Under Hitler their was very little crime in Germany. Guns were outlawed, books were burned, and citizens were monitored and spied upon continuously. Is that what you would like to see?
The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government. I don't see how you can do this if the government knows how well you are armed.
That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems. Rather then face the social issues which cause crime governments try to cure the problem by treating the symptoms and don't even do a very good job of that.
I grew up in a rural area and knew how to shoot a gun or a bow, better then many people before I was twelve. No one ever had to worry about me accidentally shooting someone or myself because I was taught firearm safety from the moment I was old enough to recognize what a gun was. I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
Fear the government that fears your guns. It's a true enough statement, what would a just government have to fear from content citizens. Fear the government that fears your computer. Information and weaponry are two of the things that the government doesn't want you to have.
Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel strongly that if people don't want guns then they should refrain from buying them. Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
According to what I know of phylosophy the existence of god can not be disproven. Occam's Razor is just a usefull tool for simple principles try and apply it to quantum mechanics or just about anything more complex then simple system and it doesn't work. One thing that pisses me off is when people say they believe in this or they don't believe in that. A real scientist should never form a concrete opinion. One should say I see no proof of the existence of god but I since their is no proof to the contrary I reserve judgment. Even long held ideals may eventually be disproven. Nothing can ever be proven absolutly except ones own existence according to the theory of knowledge. I don't know what article you were looking at but the one that's linked doesn't mention Radiometric dating. You may notice that I didn't say I if I believe in god or not. I just don't like people hiding behind science and then saying something that goes against scientific method.
I don't think that they could date the metals directly. I wonder if they are looking at the metal grains and saying this is what one would expect to find created at the beginning of the solar system this rock must be from that period. Such logic is common among scientists, and completely flawed.
I know that heavy metals are formed at the heart of stars but I think that many different types of atoms were created in the big bang, although most of the matter formed was hydrogen.
IANAP(I am not a physicist) but I sometimes play one at school. I just wish the article had been more clear on how they dated this rock.
... hotmail didn't accept the viruses either. But wait aren't those servers running bsd? The only reason that I even got a chance to look at the virus is that I have an account at school and it was full of I love you messages. I downloaded one of the attachments just to see what the code looked like.
I hope that no one that knows what they are doing ever writes something like this, the code for this thing was trivial. Someone with a little more experiance could write one that doesn't damage any users computer but instead trys to use the virus for a dos effect.
Microsoft should worry a little more about the security of their applications. How many more of these can be expected before microsoft fixes the bugs exuse me changes the features in outlook express.
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment the publishers have all the power. They decide when a book will be published. What information will be published and what price they will charge the public.
Copyright is not a natural right while freespeech is we need to recognize that fact and move on.
We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back. Before somebody comes up and says this is a democracy you can vote. I want to say sure I can vote but the choices of who I can vote for have already been decided. How many times in the last hundred years have write in canidates been elected for a major office?
Did you make them up? Guess? I know of many mp3's that are traded on napster that are public domain. You can get the same files off of mp3.com but it's more of a hassle.
Have you ever used the service?
1. Consumer OS(Dos and current flavor of windows) 2. Buisiness OS(NT, 2000) 1 & 2 both have rights to IE 3. Applications/internet To me this seems right since IE is used by the os. The applications buisiness would be the strongest of the three.
What color is the sky on your planet? As much as Napster tries to blush and flutter its eyelids and say, "Golly! We never intended our service to be used for illegal MP3-trading! We thought there were enough people out there who wanted to trade only legitimate MP3s that it would be worth writing software and forming a corporation!" the idea is just so ridiculous that a judge would have trouble controlling his laughter enough to render a decision.
Their are legitimate uses for napster and people who use the service for legal files. That their are legitimate uses for the service is enough to warrent its continued existance. Maybe you would like to make IRC illegal since it can be used to trade files. Or maybe we should make FTPs illegal because many people use that transfer protocal to trade warez?
By your definition we also need to make it illegal to own a vcr because it is mainly used to make copies of copyrighted content. We also need to throw all the people who sell ciggarette papers in jail because we know that most people use those to smoke pot, not tobacco.
Think about it would you want to own an ISP that had to fear constant lawsuits because of what its users might be doing? Napster is a service, yes it can be used for doing things that are illegal but so can a hammer. Like a hammer napster is just a tool. Blame the people who are misusing it not Napster.
A better analogy then the one you used with the house would be a public park where people sold drugs. The people selling drugs are the ones in the wrong and not the park directors. People have to be responcible for their actions.
The same argument that you given would work for ISPs why shouldn't they be responcible for what's on their servers. Because then they would spend all of their time looking for people breaking the law. Also you would see more people getting banned for true free speech issues ie the recent cases in the UK.
I would have thought that Linus would agree that Napster is not to blame it is the users that are misussing a service.
We all agree that it is wrong to go out and rent a movie tape it off then give copies away. But would we blame blockbuster for it if people were caught doing just that?
Metallica would not bring this lawsuite against it's listeners. The band said as much on its website. Metallica is suing the wrong people. Now that the users that were trading metallica mp3s have been baned I don't see how they still think they have a case. The only people left for metallica to sue are the users and they won't do that because 300,000 people == bad press.
Viruses do not have to have a destructive payload. One could create a virus that was self-replicating and benificial. Also their is the challange of creating one. Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why write virus code? Because one can.
The challange of writing self replicating code in any language from scrap is just to large for any self respecting hacker to ignore. That is not to say that one should create a destructive virus and release it, but creating a nondisrtuctive self-replicating program for proof of concept purposes is ok.
I've examined the source code to many viruses and most are crap. Only a few are true works of art. Most of these came from Bulgaria and they incorporate features that are truly interesting like stealth and the ability to hide changes in file size and memory used.
Viruses are challenging and interesting. Some of the ideas used in them have been incorporated into modern software. Just like anything else if you don't use viruses to harm people or data their is nothing wrong with them at all. Why do linux hackers write code that they will give away. They like the challange.
I always thought that it would be cool to write a virus killer virus. It would search out a few known viruses and destroy them.
Long distance prices are cheaper now. That's easy to see even with only a little research.
While I do believe that Ma Bell was a more benevolent monopoly then Microsoft I think their breakup has benifitted society.
Part of the trouble with getting work done on phone systems today is the shear number of phone and data systems in use. Would Bell have done any better? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not a linux/unix/bsd zealot but I do think Microsoft has given pcs a bad name. Far from making it easier for new users they baby new users and then when that pretty new windows box crashes, as they all do. The user is left with no knowledge and support people that know less about computers then many highschool students. These new users are completely lost. Microsoft gives them a false sence of security by making some simple tasks very easy then not encouraging users to learn about that expensive and complex machine they are using.
Just my opinion I could be wrong.
But maybe the headlines should be a little more specific. Many slashdot readers never make it past the headline and more never bother to read links in posts. I'm quite sure that many slashdot readers just glanced at the summery and started emailing about how outraged they were.
"A major side effect of this is that any future ports of Unreal-engine titles that use the new technology will need to have a completely rewritten rendering system, making Mac and Linux ports significantly more difficult."
Looks pretty inflamatory to me. Many of the readers here have strong feelings about linux and companies that say they are going to support software development for the OS. It doesn't take much to get them up in arms.
Oh well it was an honest mistake on everyones part, at least I hope it was, and we have good news to show for it.
Don't forget that they also wanted slashdot to remove some comments that just contained links or instructions. Those comments should be protected as free speech. As for the ones that actually posted the whole document, slashdot should not remove those unless ordered to do so by the courts.
The point of my post wasn't to dispute the validity of the study but to point out that these types of studies are inherently less valid because looking at a sample of data one way will give different conclusions then if one were to aproach the problem from a different way.
The other point that I was trying to make is that their is evidence against as well as for.
Suppose for an instant that the study was about access to information. Lets say the study said that access to information about computer networks was dangerous because when that type of information is known more people will try to circumvent it. You might question that type of study as well.
I question this type of study because of my personel experiance. I'm sure that many people have had different experiances then I have. It just worries me when otherwise rational people argue for restricting peoples rights.
They don't have to be worked out at the barrel of a gun. As a matter of fact I've never pointed a gun at a person. However I'm not afraid of people or peoples guns. Because I'm able and willing to defend myself if necessary. Of course you can work out the social problems with guns on the street. WTF if people are content with their life why would they want to go out and commit crimes with guns or otherwise. As for criminals having guns, we already have laws against that. As for prostitution we should worry less about prostitution and more about serious crimes. Drugs that are addictive need to be stopped. Violent crimes of any type need to be stopped.
And I'm supposed to believe that every stranger on the street with a gun is to be trusted with it? In fact, why the heck should I even trust you with a gun? You give me no reason to (other than that you state you have [in your opinion] proper training.). Maybe if you had a big "The Gov't of xyz has Licensed me a Trained Marksman" sign on you...
You shouldn't trust me. You should hide yourself away in a dark place until the government has rounded up all the bullies and criminals. Melted all the guns, knives and hard metal object. You should stay there until all those hard concrete sidewalks have been cushioned and until someone figures out how you can be 100% sure that you won't be struck by lightning. Btw I have had military and state training on the use of firearms.
That I understand. And at the time, enough guns and you could ruin the government. But now, what kind of gun is going to destroy the government? You can't do it with a gun. Maybe with a nuclear weapon you could overthrow the government. It worked a little more than 50 years ago... Should people have these to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How a little about sarin gas and anthrax to sweeten the deal?
When the situation in this country becomes so bad that terroism is common I will definatly feel much safer knowing that I can defend myself if need be.
I bet you won't find any supporters of giving people the right to bear nuclear arms and biological/chemical weapons for "defense against the government". If the country became that divided the military would also be divided. Remember the cival war people didn't carry cannons around either. In the event of a cival war I would need my guns to protect myself and my family from one side or the other.
But do ask the government to take away the rights of those with guns that you don't trust. And, to me, that is ANYONE I haven't met personally. Seems to me like this includes you (sorry... :-)
Good because I don't trust you either so I think it would be in my best interest for the government to take away your right to privacy so that I can monitor what you are doing at all times and your right to free speech so that I won't have to worry about your influencing people with your dangerous thoughts.
Fact is guns do just one thing: KILL.
Give me a use of a gun that isn't designed to KILL or THREATEN TO KILL. Get over the idea of stopping the Queen of England from busting into your living room. If she wanted to do it, she'd be in a popemobile, and your gun will look like a pea shooter in comparison.
Well lets see guns are used for entertainment. Marksmanship is even included in some olympic contests. Some guns are made exclusivly for collectors and are never meant to be fired. And yes guns are used to kill but to quote a song life feeds on life. I've never killed anyone with a gun or otherwise. I have used guns for hunting which is one valid use besides protection.
Other than that, I have never been able to figure out why a first world country needs arms in the hands of its citizens to happily survive nowadays. And the idea of killing things for sport sickens me. It reminds me of the time when humans were nothing more than animals. Why would anyone want to debase themselves like that?
Are you then a vegetarian or are you content to kill as the government does from afar, because believe me whenever you eat a hamburger or steak you are causing the death of an animal. I hunt and fish and I enjoy it but I do eat what I kill. To kill just for the sake of killing IS wrong. Humans are a part of nature no matter how much we try and build an artificial world around ourselves we feed on living things. Animals or plants almost everything we eat was at one time a living organism.
As for crime that is defined by a countries laws. Under Hitler few people were willing to commit a crime. I wouldn't want to live in such a society would you?
Guns are tools they are not even the most dangerous tools in our society. Knowledge is power and computers are probably more dangerous to todays societies then any number of guns. Would you like to outlaw computers as well. More people are killed in car accidents then shootings how about outlawing cars. No? Your just willing to outlaw the things that you don't find important. Guns are not just used to kill. They are used for protection, entertainment, and many people collect guns as a hobby or investment. The only people who shouldn't have guns are criminals and if you outlaw guns they will be the only ones who have them.
Not only that but since microsoft is not able to spread fud they are using DDos attacks to bring down a site that is frequently critical of them and their products.
Well maybe not but I think it's only a matter of time before contries and companies are using cracking and Dos attacks to disrupt enemies and competitors.
Sorry no, I disagree.
Guns are not the problem crime is the problem. If more and more criminals started usinging computers would you want to outlaw them? No because they are important to you. The right to bear arms is important to me.
Nothing personal. But if you outlaw guns you will increase crime, because I will become a criminal.
Crime is NOT caused by gun ownership. Crime is caused by social problems. In a society where people are content crime happens less frequently. Take away guns and you just create another class of criminals.
Treat the problems not the symptom. Try rebuilding schools and giving people some hope. Try addressing economic issues which force people to crime. Don't point your finger and say guns are the problem. If you want a society with virtually no crime then give up your rights. Under Hitler their was very little crime in Germany. Guns were outlawed, books were burned, and citizens were monitored and spied upon continuously. Is that what you would like to see?
That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems. Rather then face the social issues which cause crime governments try to cure the problem by treating the symptoms and don't even do a very good job of that.
I grew up in a rural area and knew how to shoot a gun or a bow, better then many people before I was twelve. No one ever had to worry about me accidentally shooting someone or myself because I was taught firearm safety from the moment I was old enough to recognize what a gun was. I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
Fear the government that fears your guns. It's a true enough statement, what would a just government have to fear from content citizens. Fear the government that fears your computer. Information and weaponry are two of the things that the government doesn't want you to have.
Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel strongly that if people don't want guns then they should refrain from buying them. Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
OTOH does mean On The Other Hand.
Next time just check the jargon file.
Rock on man.
According to what I know of phylosophy the existence of god can not be disproven. Occam's Razor is just a usefull tool for simple principles try and apply it to quantum mechanics or just about anything more complex then simple system and it doesn't work. One thing that pisses me off is when people say they believe in this or they don't believe in that. A real scientist should never form a concrete opinion. One should say I see no proof of the existence of god but I since their is no proof to the contrary I reserve judgment. Even long held ideals may eventually be disproven. Nothing can ever be proven absolutly except ones own existence according to the theory of knowledge. I don't know what article you were looking at but the one that's linked doesn't mention Radiometric dating. You may notice that I didn't say I if I believe in god or not. I just don't like people hiding behind science and then saying something that goes against scientific method.
I don't think that they could date the metals directly. I wonder if they are looking at the metal grains and saying this is what one would expect to find created at the beginning of the solar system this rock must be from that period. Such logic is common among scientists, and completely flawed.
I know that heavy metals are formed at the heart of stars but I think that many different types of atoms were created in the big bang, although most of the matter formed was hydrogen.
IANAP(I am not a physicist) but I sometimes play one at school. I just wish the article had been more clear on how they dated this rock.
... hotmail didn't accept the viruses either. But wait aren't those servers running bsd? The only reason that I even got a chance to look at the virus is that I have an account at school and it was full of I love you messages. I downloaded one of the attachments just to see what the code looked like.
I hope that no one that knows what they are doing ever writes something like this, the code for this thing was trivial. Someone with a little more experiance could write one that doesn't damage any users computer but instead trys to use the virus for a dos effect.
Microsoft should worry a little more about the security of their applications. How many more of these can be expected before microsoft fixes the bugs exuse me changes the features in outlook express.