at least where I live, there's no way to get a broadband ISP who promises to deliver one thing: a pipe.
That's pretty much what I have; an ISP that doesn't block ports, throttle, firewall, etc. No proxy caches, DNS redirects, email filtering (except on MY end of course). No restrictions on setting up Web servers, etc. The small newsgroup provider the ISP subscribes to even stopped censoring newsgroups recently. The only caveat is that a high bandwidth user gets put on a secondary server if their bandwidth usage exceeds 100 GB in a month. My ISP does not advertise these features (as far as I know), but it does explain them in the FAQ. I can only presume it doesn't want to attract abusers, but just maintain a system that is fair for the user and maintainable for itself. Unfortunately you have to look long and hard for good quality ISPs, and they certainly aren't brand names. Fortunately I live in a big city, so I have plenty of choice.
As an addendum, I finally found another informative post which helps to explain the listing. It appears to have been more a problem with a miss-listing of the product on CNET: #19610081
I could still presume that a hardware chain offered Ubuntu (on CNET), but may not have expected it to show up on windowsmarketplace.com.
I think this is the most informative post so far. Also from the FAQ:
Windows Marketplace does not sell any products directly. The products available on the site are offered, sold and shipped, or made available for download, by resellers independently of Windows Marketplace.
So I would think a reseller probably put up a link for Ubuntu. IIRC, Best Buy sells Vista, on windowsmarketplace.com, so they could have offered an alternative OS for their computer systems. However, Dell seems most likely to be the culprit, since they already appear to be Ubuntu friendly.
However, doing a whois it is clear that Microsoft owns the domain, so likely had that link removed ASAP.
Your assumptions are pretty much correct (assuming you are not being sarcastic). The only site that I allow cookies on is Slashdot, and that has been only recently since I signed up. I don't use address books, and almost never use email. Notepad is my text editor of choice.
When I do use applications, I always check for meta-data and any auto-populating meta-data features, but it's not always obvious where or if you can see meta-data in the files. Most of my applications I have you do not have to register, as they are open-source and generally don't even use an install method. If the apps do have an install method, then I try to unpack the installer and just get the programs running on there own. This seems to work most of the time. The very few times that I do need to register the program (like with the Visual Studio Express programs), I just setup a disposable email account and register under a pseudonym. Yeah it may sound extreme, but that's me, what can I say.
Since I don't use iTunes, I could only make an opinion based on other peoples posts, but it would appear that this meta-data would not be obvious to the average (naive) user. I don't won't to over-stress this point, it's just a problem (for me at least) of checking every application I install to make sure the default settings don't store personal information. This is a real nuisance, and there is always the possibility that I may miss something.
My main concern with meta-data would be if my computer where compromised, and I could be a victim of identity theft. I don't want to over stress this though, because I'm not too paranoid, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Well perhaps there are people who would consider me paranoid:)
go ahead and put that on Limewire which is what you really want to do
You raise an interesting point. I certainly don't know what people's motivations are, but I will tell you mine.
I personally don't like any personal or private information stored in any of my files as meta-data, whether it be hidden, semi-hidden, etc. This is not because I share my files, but because I am very privacy conscious. My thinking may not be rational, but it is what it is.
I would speculate that a lot of people just have a personal FUD of big companies in general, and that this FUD is not unexpected. We hear about corruption and sleaze all the time about big companies. I don't think it's a Limewire issue with a lot of people (most?), although it may be.
Encoding personally-identifiable information in the files is still DRM
This encoding can actually be a part of the DRM process. It may be reasonable to think of it as DRM, but this is incorrect (but understandable) thinking.
DRM is a system, not a single technology. It can consist of many technologies and even laws, including the hardware (Trusted Computing Platform), software applications, and the media itself (songs, movies, etc) including the attributes of that media (encryption schemes, watermarking, even tagging in meta-data etc). So yes personal information in a file can be thought of as DRM, but that would be an extreme simplification.
DRM would be more correctly described as a system and process with many entities. Emphasis should be place on "Management" in Digital Rights Management. If we could make an analogy with the non-virtual world, then "business management" would not be a CEO in a company, or merely a supervisor, but it would be an entire process with many entities and players involved.
When in doubt, check it out:
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term referring to technologies used by publishers or copyright holders to control access to or usage of digital data or hardware, as well as to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures, which refer to specific technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices. Such technologies act as components of a full-blown DRM design.
BTW: I think tags can be used LIKE watermarks, but they are NOT watermarks. They may have a similar effect, and are therefore somewhat analogous. Watermarks are strictly defined as images though, not tags.
Perhaps I could have worded that better, with more detail of what I meant. I meant sharing information with the public in general. Issues like (copyrighted) songs being played in the background of a YouTube video for example, or the use of thumbnails to copyrighted images have come up in legal controversies. I meant information sharing in the sense of information generally being free (and shared), as opposed to overly controlled.
No I did not mean information sharing like with 3rd party cookie. Sorry, I should have worded that better.
It's a good counterpoint to the RIAA lobbyists. At least Google will be more likely to lobby against excessive controls on things like information sharing. They would certainly be a strong voice for net neutrality. Google at least has the incentive to fight for positive things like this.
If you start asking for permission to use publicly available images for artwork then people will want to start negotiating, or just outright denying for whatever self-righteous (or selfish) reason they may have.
It is the problem with the concept of property that arises when it deals with the metaphysical. Just like with Intellectual Property laws, it is unnatural and unintuitive outside of a legal paradigm. And just like IP and patent laws, it will stifle innovation and creativity.
Ask them for permission, and you are asking for trouble. It sets up the wrong mindset.
I'll just add to this as a point of interest. When I play games I often end up feeling aggressive, not because of the violence, but because I end up losing and getting frustrated. This frustration and aggression is temporal, and has nothing to do with the game. It is my own irrational emotional reactions, something that cannot be controlled by a law. BTW: please don't spread it around that I have "irrational emotional reactions", it could very well effect my Karma. Thanks.
Just because it is fantasy does not make it harmless, for example [bbc.co.uk]
You must have been on slashdot long enough to realize that logical fallicies (usually) don't work here. Correlation does not equal causation
there are some seriously sick people out there who inhabit the darker parts of the internet and who are not always capable of separating fantasy from reality.
Severely mentally ill people can't be helped by a lack of video games. They need medication and psychiatric help. Laws are ineffectual against people who don't understand right from wrong, much less fantasy from reality.
Do you think their behavior should go unchecked in order to protect your freedom?
Not me. If they are that dangerous they should be in a mental institution.
Reality check: you are the one living in a fantasy world if you think banning video games are in any way related to curing the problem of mass murderers, etc. Lets get real and stop the FUD.
I think it's somewhat of a mute point, especially if you are making the comparison with video games. Once something becomes ubiquitous, it becomes hard (near impossible) to control. On an island like Britain or Japan then yes it is easier to remain insulated, but internet firewalls are rather porous.
If the US banned the sale and manufacture of guns for example, I'm sure there would be plenty of guns to go around. Like I've stated in previous posts on many different topics, laws do next to nothing to prevent crime, but laws do offer some relief for punishing crime. As with all social problems, we need to focus on the social issues, and not so much the instruments of the symptoms.
It appears to be human nature to find an easily definable cause for a problem. Games are easy. Games based on violence are easier. There seems to be a compelling need in the mind to find a cause, or scape goat, to satisfy our emotional needs. Politics makes good bed fellows for these emotional compulsions. I believe there will still be violence and murder even if all video games were banned; then we would just seek out another scape goat.
It's interesting that I never even heard of this game until the controversy. I think I may download it.
I think you've got a better understanding:)... at this point I'm too tired and will just let it rest. I may very well have made mistakes in my logic (I don't think so), but that is something I would have to mull over. Overall I think my arguments were fair and reasonable. Quite frankly I haven't just been relying on my memory, but trying to actually reference my many previous posts, trying to make sure I didn't say something that I didn't mean. It's not easy, especially considering that I've spent hours trying to defend my arguments, and cross-referencing many posts.
I should point out that I am very disappointed that somebody got modded up for basically calling me a liar, and making other (implicit) accusations against me that are just not true. This certainly helped fuel my suspicion that people here (on this topic at least) are not fair or objective (post #19548077) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238779&cid=195 48077.
Thanks for your post, I now have the impression that you weren't just trying to slam my arguments, for argument sake.
I suppose you could attempt to pick apart my arguments one by one. But I'm not buying it.
I, in fact, read every post you made until that point, and then responded to your assertion in the original thread. My analysis concluded that your information wasn't honest by your own criterion.
First of all, I never actually stated what my criterion for honesty is. My point about Moore not being honest had nothing to do with his non-use of statistics, or his use of anecdotal evidence. I was refuting another person's argument, and not Moore per se; and I certainly didn't bring up stats when I was talking about honesty. If you remember, I originally brought up the use of statistics as a point when I stated that stats would have helped Moore with his own argument, instead of merely using anecdotal evidence.
I NEVER said Moore was dishonest because he did not use statistics. But for a film maker to take one (or possibly two) people from the population to back up his claim that "Even here, in Toronto, a city of millions, people just didn't lock their doors." is a bit of a stretch, especially if one considers that he is making an implicit comparison to American cities. This should be obvious to the average person.
OK, I will give you a point for pointing out that you did not call me, personally, a hypocrite. I will subtract a point (I'm being figurative here if you want to nit-pick my arguments) for the fact that you didn't prove that my arguments are hypocritical.
The main difference is that I am making a point on slashdot, and Moore is making a documentary to the world. To expect me to spend days gathering statistics etc to prove a point on slashdot is unrealistic. This is not unrealistic for Moore. No hypocrisy here.
If Moore could have at least demonstrated that most people in American cities lock there doors while Torontonians leave them unlocked, then that would have at least been a point for the door locking argument but not necessarily for the gun control argument.
So far:
1) I have been called a hypocrite
what's with the hypocrisy?
2) A liar
Well maybe you should watch it again, or at all
3) A propagandist using logical fallacies:
I believe it's called "strawman".
4) Accused of spewing crap:
Stop watching the movies and spewing that crap as truth
- I'll give Elemenope kudos for saying: "Before accusing someone of "spewing crap" pay attention to their actual argument and respond to that, instead of some strawman."
Thanks Elemenope:)
I do have the impression that people here are just trying to defend Moore with some rather poor arguments instead of using some critical thinking skills. OK I may be wrong on that, but it certainly feels that way, especially when people so casually call me a hypocrite.
Note: This was supposed to be a reply to ThePromenader post #19549095
??? Where or whenever did he say that? That "satellites are weapons of mass distruction"? And the "confrontation"? Google turns up nothing obvious. Sources please.
Moore wasn't actually talking about satellites when he brought up weapons of mass destruction. I can presume the poster's memory was incorrect. Moore did make this statement however:
Well, gee, Dad goes off
to the factory every day and, you know,
he built missiles." These are weapons of mass destruction.
I will add to this just for emphasis. Moore is not being honest in the literal sense OR the figurative sense. Read my arguments if you haven't already. I live in Toronto, I know what it is like here. Moore is not being honest PERIOD.
To point out your criticisms and others here; this has nothing to do with assumptions, and has everything to do with honesty. Honesty is something that I value more than winning an argument, getting a job, or getting laid. I may never be popular, but I won't use dishonesty in a film to prove my point, and I don't respect people who do.
Every door that M. Moore knocked on and opened during the Toronto segment was during the day. Kind of obviating the whole "but what about the thieves" aspect of the argument
My understanding is that there is more crime during the day (I couldn't find any stats on Google to refute or backup my claim, but I do remember hearing this more than once). And yes, I also know people whose houses were broken into during the day. A friend of mine had a pot going on the stove when the thief broke in (with an unlocked door none-the-less). He was to afraid to use the house phone to call the police, so he went to the house of the head of the local Neighborhood Watch committee, who refused to answer his knock on the door! I can't remember how he actually phoned the police, but he did eventually. It's sad that I can think of so many people that I personally know had this happen to them. It is not uncommon.
Interestingly, he did interview a woman a little later in the film who had been burgled, (by a roving band of bored kids looking for booze) and she seems a little more blase about the whole experience.
Based on people who I know, they said they indicated that they were scared. Let's face it, he would not have put that scene in if she seemed disturbed by the incident like most people I know here (in Toronto) would be. And lets face it, people who do documentaries often interview dozens of people. I don't remember him talking to anybody who said they felt the need to lock their doors.
And anecdotal evidence is just propaganda if it can't be backed up by scientific data. Yes I know documentaries are meant to be entertaining; but nobody here has proven me wrong in any of my arguments. And to recap, my argument was that Moore would be more relevant (and believable) without the propaganda. I really didn't think I would have to defend my arguments on this point, because Moore's biases and spin are so obvious (to me at least). I just don't see him convincing anybody that he is right, except for those who already agree with his opinions.
I would have loved to see Moore give a better documentary, because I am sympathetic to (reasoned and practical) gun control.
The issue of locking doors would only be relevant if it was known that people lock their doors primarily because they fear gun violence. This is an issue that was not brought up in the movie.
I lock my door because I don't want some jack-ass trying to open it. I'm not paranoid, but I'm not stupid. In a city of millions like Toronto you will always get thieves, and Neighborhood Watch is quite useless here and is taken for granted.
The thing the average person has to worry about most here is teeny-bopper street gangs with guns (but not the biker gangs so much), not your average thief (and trust me there are a LOT of thieves in Toronto).
I assure you Toronto is not as safe as M. Moore tries to portray it. I will repeat, it is not as bad as US cities, but clearly M. Moore is making a statement hyping up Toronto into something it is not, and just to make a political point. I have lived and worked here for most of my life. I think my point has more relevance the Moore's does.
It's interesting that you mentioned that, because just before your post I was just thinking:
I have family members and relatives who live in what could be considered "good" neighborhoods, and they have had people break into their houses while they where at home and sleeping (of course they woke up and phoned the police). And yes their doors were locked. One family member had his door pried open numerous times while he was away.
I don't think it's as bad as in the US, but it happens. And it seems to happen more so in "good" neighborhoods, presumably because thieves think they can get more for their efforts. On the other hand, none of these thieves used guns (as far as I know).
Getting back to the point about M. Moore; based at least on these experiences, the point about locking doors doesn't even seem to be relevant to his issue of gun control.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much what I have; an ISP that doesn't block ports, throttle, firewall, etc. No proxy caches, DNS redirects, email filtering (except on MY end of course). No restrictions on setting up Web servers, etc. The small newsgroup provider the ISP subscribes to even stopped censoring newsgroups recently. The only caveat is that a high bandwidth user gets put on a secondary server if their bandwidth usage exceeds 100 GB in a month. My ISP does not advertise these features (as far as I know), but it does explain them in the FAQ. I can only presume it doesn't want to attract abusers, but just maintain a system that is fair for the user and maintainable for itself. Unfortunately you have to look long and hard for good quality ISPs, and they certainly aren't brand names. Fortunately I live in a big city, so I have plenty of choice.
As an addendum, I finally found another informative post which helps to explain the listing. It appears to have been more a problem with a miss-listing of the product on CNET:
#19610081
I could still presume that a hardware chain offered Ubuntu (on CNET), but may not have expected it to show up on windowsmarketplace.com.
So I would think a reseller probably put up a link for Ubuntu. IIRC, Best Buy sells Vista, on windowsmarketplace.com, so they could have offered an alternative OS for their computer systems. However, Dell seems most likely to be the culprit, since they already appear to be Ubuntu friendly.
However, doing a whois it is clear that Microsoft owns the domain, so likely had that link removed ASAP.
Your assumptions are pretty much correct (assuming you are not being sarcastic). The only site that I allow cookies on is Slashdot, and that has been only recently since I signed up. I don't use address books, and almost never use email. Notepad is my text editor of choice.
:)
When I do use applications, I always check for meta-data and any auto-populating meta-data features, but it's not always obvious where or if you can see meta-data in the files. Most of my applications I have you do not have to register, as they are open-source and generally don't even use an install method. If the apps do have an install method, then I try to unpack the installer and just get the programs running on there own. This seems to work most of the time. The very few times that I do need to register the program (like with the Visual Studio Express programs), I just setup a disposable email account and register under a pseudonym. Yeah it may sound extreme, but that's me, what can I say.
Since I don't use iTunes, I could only make an opinion based on other peoples posts, but it would appear that this meta-data would not be obvious to the average (naive) user. I don't won't to over-stress this point, it's just a problem (for me at least) of checking every application I install to make sure the default settings don't store personal information. This is a real nuisance, and there is always the possibility that I may miss something.
My main concern with meta-data would be if my computer where compromised, and I could be a victim of identity theft. I don't want to over stress this though, because I'm not too paranoid, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Well perhaps there are people who would consider me paranoid
I personally don't like any personal or private information stored in any of my files as meta-data, whether it be hidden, semi-hidden, etc. This is not because I share my files, but because I am very privacy conscious. My thinking may not be rational, but it is what it is.
I would speculate that a lot of people just have a personal FUD of big companies in general, and that this FUD is not unexpected. We hear about corruption and sleaze all the time about big companies. I don't think it's a Limewire issue with a lot of people (most?), although it may be.
This encoding can actually be a part of the DRM process. It may be reasonable to think of it as DRM, but this is incorrect (but understandable) thinking.
DRM is a system, not a single technology. It can consist of many technologies and even laws, including the hardware (Trusted Computing Platform), software applications, and the media itself (songs, movies, etc) including the attributes of that media (encryption schemes, watermarking, even tagging in meta-data etc). So yes personal information in a file can be thought of as DRM, but that would be an extreme simplification.
DRM would be more correctly described as a system and process with many entities. Emphasis should be place on "Management" in Digital Rights Management. If we could make an analogy with the non-virtual world, then "business management" would not be a CEO in a company, or merely a supervisor, but it would be an entire process with many entities and players involved.
When in doubt, check it out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rig
BTW: I think tags can be used LIKE watermarks, but they are NOT watermarks. They may have a similar effect, and are therefore somewhat analogous. Watermarks are strictly defined as images though, not tags.
Perhaps I could have worded that better, with more detail of what I meant. I meant sharing information with the public in general. Issues like (copyrighted) songs being played in the background of a YouTube video for example, or the use of thumbnails to copyrighted images have come up in legal controversies. I meant information sharing in the sense of information generally being free (and shared), as opposed to overly controlled.
No I did not mean information sharing like with 3rd party cookie. Sorry, I should have worded that better.
It's a good counterpoint to the RIAA lobbyists. At least Google will be more likely to lobby against excessive controls on things like information sharing. They would certainly be a strong voice for net neutrality. Google at least has the incentive to fight for positive things like this.
Just an addendum:
If you start asking for permission to use publicly available images for artwork then people will want to start negotiating, or just outright denying for whatever self-righteous (or selfish) reason they may have.
It is the problem with the concept of property that arises when it deals with the metaphysical.
Just like with Intellectual Property laws, it is unnatural and unintuitive outside of a legal paradigm. And just like IP and patent laws, it will stifle innovation and creativity.
Ask them for permission, and you are asking for trouble. It sets up the wrong mindset.
I'll just add to this as a point of interest. When I play games I often end up feeling aggressive, not because of the violence, but because I end up losing and getting frustrated. This frustration and aggression is temporal, and has nothing to do with the game. It is my own irrational emotional reactions, something that cannot be controlled by a law. BTW: please don't spread it around that I have "irrational emotional reactions", it could very well effect my Karma. Thanks.
Severely mentally ill people can't be helped by a lack of video games. They need medication and psychiatric help. Laws are ineffectual against people who don't understand right from wrong, much less fantasy from reality.
Not me. If they are that dangerous they should be in a mental institution.
Reality check: you are the one living in a fantasy world if you think banning video games are in any way related to curing the problem of mass murderers, etc. Lets get real and stop the FUD.
I think it's somewhat of a mute point, especially if you are making the comparison with video games. Once something becomes ubiquitous, it becomes hard (near impossible) to control. On an island like Britain or Japan then yes it is easier to remain insulated, but internet firewalls are rather porous.
If the US banned the sale and manufacture of guns for example, I'm sure there would be plenty of guns to go around. Like I've stated in previous posts on many different topics, laws do next to nothing to prevent crime, but laws do offer some relief for punishing crime. As with all social problems, we need to focus on the social issues, and not so much the instruments of the symptoms.
electro pedestrian bastard rays don't kill people, only outlaws kill people.
It appears to be human nature to find an easily definable cause for a problem. Games are easy. Games based on violence are easier. There seems to be a compelling need in the mind to find a cause, or scape goat, to satisfy our emotional needs. Politics makes good bed fellows for these emotional compulsions. I believe there will still be violence and murder even if all video games were banned; then we would just seek out another scape goat.
It's interesting that I never even heard of this game until the controversy. I think I may download it.
I think you've got a better understanding :) ... at this point I'm too tired and will just let it rest. I may very well have made mistakes in my logic (I don't think so), but that is something I would have to mull over. Overall I think my arguments were fair and reasonable. Quite frankly I haven't just been relying on my memory, but trying to actually reference my many previous posts, trying to make sure I didn't say something that I didn't mean. It's not easy, especially considering that I've spent hours trying to defend my arguments, and cross-referencing many posts.
5 48077.
I should point out that I am very disappointed that somebody got modded up for basically calling me a liar, and making other (implicit) accusations against me that are just not true. This certainly helped fuel my suspicion that people here (on this topic at least) are not fair or objective (post #19548077) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238779&cid=19
Thanks for your post, I now have the impression that you weren't just trying to slam my arguments, for argument sake.
First of all, I never actually stated what my criterion for honesty is. My point about Moore not being honest had nothing to do with his non-use of statistics, or his use of anecdotal evidence. I was refuting another person's argument, and not Moore per se; and I certainly didn't bring up stats when I was talking about honesty. If you remember, I originally brought up the use of statistics as a point when I stated that stats would have helped Moore with his own argument, instead of merely using anecdotal evidence.
I NEVER said Moore was dishonest because he did not use statistics. But for a film maker to take one (or possibly two) people from the population to back up his claim that "Even here, in Toronto, a city of millions, people just didn't lock their doors." is a bit of a stretch, especially if one considers that he is making an implicit comparison to American cities. This should be obvious to the average person.
OK, I will give you a point for pointing out that you did not call me, personally, a hypocrite. I will subtract a point (I'm being figurative here if you want to nit-pick my arguments) for the fact that you didn't prove that my arguments are hypocritical.
I haven't seen ANY arguments or evidence that US citizens lock their doors during the day when they are at home.
Your point is appropriately ignored.
If Moore could have at least demonstrated that most people in American cities lock there doors while Torontonians leave them unlocked, then that would have at least been a point for the door locking argument but not necessarily for the gun control argument.
So far:
1) I have been called a hypocrite
2) A liar
3) A propagandist using logical fallacies:
4) Accused of spewing crap:
- I'll give Elemenope kudos for saying:
"Before accusing someone of "spewing crap" pay attention to their actual argument and respond to that, instead of some strawman."
Thanks Elemenope
I do have the impression that people here are just trying to defend Moore with some rather poor arguments instead of using some critical thinking skills. OK I may be wrong on that, but it certainly feels that way, especially when people so casually call me a hypocrite.
Note: This was supposed to be a reply to ThePromenader post #19549095
??? Where or whenever did he say that? That "satellites are weapons of mass distruction"? And the "confrontation"? Google turns up nothing obvious. Sources please.
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bowl
I will add to this just for emphasis. Moore is not being honest in the literal sense OR the figurative sense. Read my arguments if you haven't already. I live in Toronto, I know what it is like here. Moore is not being honest PERIOD.
To point out your criticisms and others here; this has nothing to do with assumptions, and has everything to do with honesty. Honesty is something that I value more than winning an argument, getting a job, or getting laid. I may never be popular, but I won't use dishonesty in a film to prove my point, and I don't respect people who do.
My understanding is that there is more crime during the day (I couldn't find any stats on Google to refute or backup my claim, but I do remember hearing this more than once). And yes, I also know people whose houses were broken into during the day. A friend of mine had a pot going on the stove when the thief broke in (with an unlocked door none-the-less). He was to afraid to use the house phone to call the police, so he went to the house of the head of the local Neighborhood Watch committee, who refused to answer his knock on the door! I can't remember how he actually phoned the police, but he did eventually. It's sad that I can think of so many people that I personally know had this happen to them. It is not uncommon.
Based on people who I know, they said they indicated that they were scared. Let's face it, he would not have put that scene in if she seemed disturbed by the incident like most people I know here (in Toronto) would be. And lets face it, people who do documentaries often interview dozens of people. I don't remember him talking to anybody who said they felt the need to lock their doors.
And anecdotal evidence is just propaganda if it can't be backed up by scientific data. Yes I know documentaries are meant to be entertaining; but nobody here has proven me wrong in any of my arguments. And to recap, my argument was that Moore would be more relevant (and believable) without the propaganda. I really didn't think I would have to defend my arguments on this point, because Moore's biases and spin are so obvious (to me at least). I just don't see him convincing anybody that he is right, except for those who already agree with his opinions.
I would have loved to see Moore give a better documentary, because I am sympathetic to (reasoned and practical) gun control.
The issue of locking doors would only be relevant if it was known that people lock their doors primarily because they fear gun violence. This is an issue that was not brought up in the movie.
I lock my door because I don't want some jack-ass trying to open it. I'm not paranoid, but I'm not stupid. In a city of millions like Toronto you will always get thieves, and Neighborhood Watch is quite useless here and is taken for granted.
The thing the average person has to worry about most here is teeny-bopper street gangs with guns (but not the biker gangs so much), not your average thief (and trust me there are a LOT of thieves in Toronto).
I assure you Toronto is not as safe as M. Moore tries to portray it. I will repeat, it is not as bad as US cities, but clearly M. Moore is making a statement hyping up Toronto into something it is not, and just to make a political point. I have lived and worked here for most of my life. I think my point has more relevance the Moore's does.
It's interesting that you mentioned that, because just before your post I was just thinking:
I have family members and relatives who live in what could be considered "good" neighborhoods, and they have had people break into their houses while they where at home and sleeping (of course they woke up and phoned the police). And yes their doors were locked. One family member had his door pried open numerous times while he was away.
I don't think it's as bad as in the US, but it happens. And it seems to happen more so in "good" neighborhoods, presumably because thieves think they can get more for their efforts. On the other hand, none of these thieves used guns (as far as I know).
Getting back to the point about M. Moore; based at least on these experiences, the point about locking doors doesn't even seem to be relevant to his issue of gun control.