I would imagine that a peanut allergy is very different from a nut allergy... In general, though, "nut" companies do make peanut based products, and, when they switch their assembly lines, the machines aren't washed/cleaned to the extent that would prevent allegy causing contamination. People with nut allegies buy the peanuts, and are poisoned by nut residues.
That's pure supposition. OK, peanuts are legumes, but all the same people with nut allergies often react badly to peanuts.
Why would that be? Have you never heard of convergent evolution? It seems fairly likely that the peanut plant has evolved similar biochemical mechanisms to control the maturation of its seed, since the end product winds up looking and tasting rather like a nut anyway.
And after all, it's the biochemical contents of the kernel that triggers the allergy anyway - not its genetic ancestry.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Get the Dakota Scout 4-port KVM. It's about US$120 or UKP120 though cables are extra.
I have one and it's brilliant; it requires no external power, you can control it easily from the keyboard and you can run your display at 1600x1200 at high refresh rates with no loss of clarity. I could almost swear that mouse response is cleaner and snappier too.
The case of the unit is a little flimsy, but apart from that I have not found any other weak points in this product. It seems just perfect really.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The 486 architecture doesn't support SMP so it's not worth doing. You'd have to design a new CPU bus architecture and then it wouldn't be a 486 any more, it'd be more like a pentium.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
But then again, you're no better off going to the original vendors either when it "really goes wrong". The EULA clearly states their limited liabilities in such circumstances. For software buyers it's always caveat emptor and there's no way out of that I'm afraid. On the other hand, when you buy support from a big player like IBM at least they are in a position to exert more pressure on the software vendor to fix problems than you would be by yourself. In theory anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
It truly amazes me: earlier in this thread there were one or two guys claiming that crime rates were higher in the UK than the US. But the sort of environment you are talking about just doesn't exist in the UK at all. It's hard enough for me to believe that it happens in Virginia.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The answer is that these days there is no problem. All the old "big iron" companies have re-invented themselves as service supplies. Consider, for example, Compaq who bought out DEC not for their hardware or software but for their large portfolio of nice juicy service customers.
IBM is no different. All you have to do is tell your IBM rep what 3rd party components you want to run and that you want IBM to support the whole shebang. They'll be glad to do it - revenue is revenue. The one thing you'll *never* hear them say is "Er...I don't know how to do that";o)
It shouldn't be more expensive than paying for three separate support contracts either, in fact you'll very likely be able to negotiate a discount.
Looking beyond the obvious, you could in principle get a comprehensive support contract from just about any major service supplier, eg Compaq or ICL. But IBM are one of the best these days. They had to get that way to survive (remember how they were bleeding money a few years ago).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
OTOH, would I even think about telling him to do that with a Linux box? Again, not for a minute. (Please don't bother to tell me how easy it really is to install a NIC. Sure, if everything goes right. But there are more potential points of failure and a lack of good feedback on the failure(s). I couldn't troubleshoot it over the phone, so I just wouldn't do it.)
I'm sorry, but that conclusion is completely without foundation. I have installed four different types of network card in computers running Linux and *all* of them were cleanly autodetected and worked "out of the box" without any need for manual configuration at all.
Contrast this with installation an Intel EtherExpress Pro/100 on Windows 98: It simply refused to find the correct driver whichever of the three standard methods of device driver installation was used. I eventually gave up and after trawling Intel's support site I discovered that this is a known bug; it was necessary to go in and edit the.INF files by hand before it would install properly.
Remember, almost from its earliest incarnation Linux has been deployed as a network services platform. Network hardware support is therefore one thing you can count on to work right.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
There are too many goddamn awful bands anyway; the world would not miss the majority of them. And I'd much rather listen to music made by people that do it because they enjoy it, than to people who are doing it just because they think it might make them rich.
Do you really think music would disappear if that lure of fabulous rock-star wealth disappeared? I don't. There has always been music. There haven't always been copyright laws, record companies and multit-million dollar recording contracts. But people made music anyway because they wanted to.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
With respect to that 225-year old 2nd Amendment argument: out of your list (Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Kent State, the Lamplughs, the Lehkins in Brunswick) - which of these actually *did* have firearms? And which of those actually used those firearms and won, protecting themselves forever against the entire resources of the US government? I'm genuinely interested.
I have very severe difficulty imagining that a gun battle with Police SWAT teams, the FBI, the National Guard or the like is EVER going to result in those same Govt. agents surrendering or running away while the brave 2nd-Amendment-supporter waves his fist in triumph. The very idea would ludicrous to anyone but the dangerously insane.
In fact, if the 2nd-Amendmenter is very lucky indeed, he'll survive to be taken into custody, convicted of a dozen counts of homicide and resisting arrest, and jailed for 500 years. If it's found that he shot and killed officers of the law on that day then his innocence of prior allegations leading up to the siege will not acquit him of those murders.
But those same agents of tyranny don't tend to be that careful of taking prisoners alive once the shooting starts. Surviving that gun battle at all is far from certain.
Your whole stand-aganst-tyranny scenario is just living in a fantasy world I'm afraid. Life isn't like the movies where the good guys always win.
And that is exactly my point. It's often fruitless for people to try and defend themselves with guns against a gun-toting opponent. You're effectively forcing them to try to kill you before you can hurt them. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
You Americans do make me laugh! You never seem to understand about Ireland. The Irish are their own problem. North and South, they are the same; they must be one of the naturally disputatory people in the world (if you've ever been to the Arsenal in Highbury or any of several dozen pubs in Finsbury Park or Kilburn on a Friday night I'm sure you'll know what I mean).
The whole point of the partition has been to keep them from one another's throats, and quite rightly, since they have frequently demonstrated difficulties in keeping to a ceasefire and even now the only thing they like better than marching down each others streets banging drums and singing songs about bashing each others brains out, is to actually blow each other (and everyone else) to bits.
Of course this is a bit of a generalization and in reality the majority of Ulster's citizens on both sides want to live in peace. Just not enough to actually give up their weapons.
Fact is the situation in Ulster is more like perpetual civil war than peacetime. You can hardly compare it to the US or the UK. As you well know, I'm sure. It's a sure sign of ethical bankruptcy when one side of a debate is forced to make such in appropriate comparisons.
You are quite right to raise the matter of Dunblane however. If Thomas Hamilton had had only a knife instead of a gun then perhaps only one or two people would have been killed at most.
It was, however, only in the aftermath of that tragedy that legislation was introduced to limit the sale of handguns in the UK. Prior to that, it was relatively easy to obtain most firearms. And Thomas Hamilton was a properly licensed handgun owner under the old laws.
We all expect that the new law will make it much more difficult for lunatics like Thomas Hamilton to gain access to dangereous firearms in the future.
Do I have to spell it out for you? If only the current restrictions had been put in place earlier, then twenty innocent primary school infants would *not* have been brutally slaughtered.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Does this fact apply to law enforcement officers? The military? Should law enforcement and the military not be allowed to have guns either because they are more likely to 'wind up dead'? Do you think there may be other factors here? Like perhaps training?
This is rather disingenuous. US law enforcement officers are taking a risk when they go out on duty. That's what they are paid for. And as well as training they get Kevlar vests, top-quality weapons, armed backup just a radio call away etc. You *need* them to be armed because everyone else might be armed already.
In the UK our (quite effective) police force do not routinely carry guns. They are available at short notice if there should be an incident involving a firearm, but because (generally speaking) our criminals do not use them, there is no need for our police to wear guns in the normal course of their duties.
What you seem to have arrived at in the US is an arms race between criminals and the rest of society. If there were never any accidents or lost tempers or jumpy criminals this wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Unfortunately there are, and many people die who would not have if guns were banned.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
It might be that at some point in recent history overall crime rates per head of population in the UK exceeded those in the US. Our societies are more similar than different IMO.
But violent death and maiming are considerably more frequent in the US because it's just so much easier to squeeze a trigger than it is to stab someone or crack their skull open. And without gun control, all American criminals have that option open to them. It's so good to see that their constitutional rights are being protected:o\
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
If you're in a frontier-type environment like that then you probably do need a gun. The same argument doesn't apply to urban inhabitants of developed countries.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm not an American, or even a gun advocate. But this particular argument struck me as extremely flawed.
The argument may well seem flawed to people who are culturally predisposed to disagree with it. And a cultural predisposition is the *only* reason behind so many Americans desire to keep their guns since their position just does not make sense in the face of the statistics of firearm injury and death. I don't know what your personal reasons are as a non-American. Maybe you're a gun nut?
A very famous American whose name escapes me for the moment once said: "Those who trade freedom for security neither deserve, nor will have, either freedom or security".
This is beside the point. Benjamin Franklin, who you misquoted, was talking about resisting a regime that was effectively a foreign power (the British). Not guarding the homestead against bandits.
What you are advocating is basically this: surrender your freedoms to the government so that government may better protect you. History has shown that that particular line of reasoning has disastrous consequences in the long term.
Pardon me? Just how far back in history do you have to go to find a citizen of a modern Western country successfully fending off their own government's forces with firearms? This just doesn't happen in the civilised world any more. Get over it.
What's more - let's say you *were* American: if you and your whole town decided to go up against the government, and the government were against the idea, how long do you think you and your little guns would last against the US army and a virtually unlimited supply of artillery, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter bombers etc. etc. ?
That whole line of reasoning which I've heard from Americans over and over again about arms to protect one's self from the government is spurious, two hundred years out of date and irrelevant to the issue of self-defence against the much more immediate threat of armed outlaws.
And anyway, how do you explain the lack of crime in Switzerland, where almost everyone has a gun?
No need to explain, it is a very poor analogy. Take a moment to ask yourself: how is Switzerland different from America, or South Africa or any of the countries with high murder rates? It is different because Switzerland has no numerous disaffected underclass to envy the rich. Most "poor" Swiss people are much better off than the average Western poor person. This is partly because - and forgive me if this offends anyone's PC sensibilities - the country has a very strict immmigration policy. If you're not Swiss and you don't have money, you don't get in.
Instead, explain the lack of crime in the UK (relative to the US) which does have gun controls but which is otherwise more similar to the US in social structure, demographics and liberal attitudes than any other country possibly excepting Canada and Australia.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The fact remains, in the UK with gun controls we have a lower proportion of unlawful killings and maimings annually per capita than you do in the US without gun controls. Explain that.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
One interesting statistic is that very few home burglaries in the US happen while the family is home while most in Britain happen while the family is home.
Well actually that just isn't true at all. You made it up just now, I think. Burglaries in the UK tend to happen while the residents are out, because British burgalrs don't like being caught any more than any other burglars. And because they don't have guns, being caught is more of a problem.
The most commonly quoted statistic about home-owners defending themselves with a gun being more likely to be shot with their own gun is a complete and utter fabrication.
The statistic I saw was in a document published but a US Government department. I think I trust their competence at collecting statistics better than I trust yours. I don't remember it stipulating that they were shot with their own gun though. If a criminal holds you up with a gun they are *much* more likely to shoot at you if you appear to be about to shoot them. After all, if you have a gun too then its not just the criminal's livelihood and freedom that's at stake, but their life. Making them much more prone to do something stupid like killing you in the heat of the moment.
The fact remains, in the UK with gun controls we have a lower proportion of unlawful killings and maimings annually per capita than you do in the US, where there are in the US without gun controls. Explain that.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh sure, very determined criminals, members of organized crime rackets and so on will always be able to get guns because (1) they have the resources to do so and (2) the amount of "business" at stake makes it worth it to do so. But petty criminals won't find it so easy.
Consequently with firearm ownership and supply heavily restricted by law, most of what little firearm offences occur will be perpetrated by criminals against other criminals or during armed robbery of high-value installations such as banks.
But under such a regime (such as we have in the UK for example) perpetrators of petty crime like burglary, mugging, assault and rape don't have easy access to firearms. Even being found in possession of an unlicenced gun is a serious crime. And conviction of assault with a firearm automatically means a life sentence. Consequently almost all petty criminals eschew guns altogether.
So where firearms are restricted, as in the UK, very few law-abiding people are ever threatened by a gun. Very few people ever even get to see one. People with guns are not a problem in the UK, and unlawful killing and maiming is pro-rata less common than it is in countries like the US where firearms are unlicenced and easy to obtain.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Well, except that the "If x is outlawed then only outlaws will have x" is just as stupid and meaningless when applied to data as it is when applied to guns. If guns were outlawed then less outlaws would have guns.
BTW, Americans who try to repel an attack or a robbery using a gun are more likely to wind up dead than those who don't. This is a fact. Check your own government's statistics if you don't believe it.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I really want an 802.11 wireless ethernet as an option
Rob, according to the "Wireless" section on their site the DECT DMAP protocol supports connection to Ethernet LAN so it seems to me that you should be able to surf via your home gateway/firewall. No idea about the bandwidth though. What does DECT support?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
And it probably didn't help that Edsger Dijkstra was the Goto Considered Harmful man, since everybody knew those Europeans didn't really know how to program real programs! Just look at Algol, compared to real languages like COBOL or FORTRAN for crissakes!
I do hope that was intended to be ironic...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
If you never learned to program in a structured, modular *and* strongly typed language then you should never have been allowed near C let alone C++. As it is you are a danger to yourself and others.
You have to have discipline as well as understanding to use languages with low-level features properly. One needs to understand the rules, and to learn to follow them *by default* almost without thinking before one can break those rules.
Programmers who don't follow this dictum *always* write crap code, because they simply don't know any better (cf. self-taught VB programmers).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
"Kill the Poor" by the Dead Kennedies, I believe. A classic.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That's pure supposition. OK, peanuts are legumes, but all the same people with nut allergies often react badly to peanuts.
Why would that be? Have you never heard of convergent evolution? It seems fairly likely that the peanut plant has evolved similar biochemical mechanisms to control the maturation of its seed, since the end product winds up looking and tasting rather like a nut anyway.
And after all, it's the biochemical contents of the kernel that triggers the allergy anyway - not its genetic ancestry.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Get the Dakota Scout 4-port KVM. It's about US$120 or UKP120 though cables are extra.
I have one and it's brilliant; it requires no external power, you can control it easily from the keyboard and you can run your display at 1600x1200 at high refresh rates with no loss of clarity. I could almost swear that mouse response is cleaner and snappier too.
The case of the unit is a little flimsy, but apart from that I have not found any other weak points in this product. It seems just perfect really.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The 486 architecture doesn't support SMP so it's not worth doing. You'd have to design a new CPU bus architecture and then it wouldn't be a 486 any more, it'd be more like a pentium.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
But then again, you're no better off going to the original vendors either when it "really goes wrong". The EULA clearly states their limited liabilities in such circumstances. For software buyers it's always caveat emptor and there's no way out of that I'm afraid. On the other hand, when you buy support from a big player like IBM at least they are in a position to exert more pressure on the software vendor to fix problems than you would be by yourself. In theory anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Huh?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It truly amazes me: earlier in this thread there were one or two guys claiming that crime rates were higher in the UK than the US. But the sort of environment you are talking about just doesn't exist in the UK at all. It's hard enough for me to believe that it happens in Virginia.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The answer is that these days there is no problem. All the old "big iron" companies have re-invented themselves as service supplies. Consider, for example, Compaq who bought out DEC not for their hardware or software but for their large portfolio of nice juicy service customers.
;o)
IBM is no different. All you have to do is tell your IBM rep what 3rd party components you want to run and that you want IBM to support the whole shebang. They'll be glad to do it - revenue is revenue. The one thing you'll *never* hear them say is "Er...I don't know how to do that"
It shouldn't be more expensive than paying for three separate support contracts either, in fact you'll very likely be able to negotiate a discount.
Looking beyond the obvious, you could in principle get a comprehensive support contract from just about any major service supplier, eg Compaq or ICL. But IBM are one of the best these days. They had to get that way to survive (remember how they were bleeding money a few years ago).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm sorry, but that conclusion is completely without foundation. I have installed four different types of network card in computers running Linux and *all* of them were cleanly autodetected and worked "out of the box" without any need for manual configuration at all.
Contrast this with installation an Intel EtherExpress Pro/100 on Windows 98: It simply refused to find the correct driver whichever of the three standard methods of device driver installation was used. I eventually gave up and after trawling Intel's support site I discovered that this is a known bug; it was necessary to go in and edit the .INF files by hand before it would install properly.
Remember, almost from its earliest incarnation Linux has been deployed as a network services platform. Network hardware support is therefore one thing you can count on to work right.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There are too many goddamn awful bands anyway; the world would not miss the majority of them. And I'd much rather listen to music made by people that do it because they enjoy it, than to people who are doing it just because they think it might make them rich.
Do you really think music would disappear if that lure of fabulous rock-star wealth disappeared? I don't. There has always been music. There haven't always been copyright laws, record companies and multit-million dollar recording contracts. But people made music anyway because they wanted to.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
With respect to that 225-year old 2nd Amendment argument: out of your list (Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Kent State, the Lamplughs, the Lehkins in Brunswick) - which of these actually *did* have firearms? And which of those actually used those firearms and won, protecting themselves forever against the entire resources of the US government? I'm genuinely interested.
I have very severe difficulty imagining that a gun battle with Police SWAT teams, the FBI, the National Guard or the like is EVER going to result in those same Govt. agents surrendering or running away while the brave 2nd-Amendment-supporter waves his fist in triumph. The very idea would ludicrous to anyone but the dangerously insane.
In fact, if the 2nd-Amendmenter is very lucky indeed, he'll survive to be taken into custody, convicted of a dozen counts of homicide and resisting arrest, and jailed for 500 years. If it's found that he shot and killed officers of the law on that day then his innocence of prior allegations leading up to the siege will not acquit him of those murders.
But those same agents of tyranny don't tend to be that careful of taking prisoners alive once the shooting starts. Surviving that gun battle at all is far from certain.
Your whole stand-aganst-tyranny scenario is just living in a fantasy world I'm afraid. Life isn't like the movies where the good guys always win.
And that is exactly my point. It's often fruitless for people to try and defend themselves with guns against a gun-toting opponent. You're effectively forcing them to try to kill you before you can hurt them. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The whole point of the partition has been to keep them from one another's throats, and quite rightly, since they have frequently demonstrated difficulties in keeping to a ceasefire and even now the only thing they like better than marching down each others streets banging drums and singing songs about bashing each others brains out, is to actually blow each other (and everyone else) to bits.
Of course this is a bit of a generalization and in reality the majority of Ulster's citizens on both sides want to live in peace. Just not enough to actually give up their weapons.
Fact is the situation in Ulster is more like perpetual civil war than peacetime. You can hardly compare it to the US or the UK. As you well know, I'm sure. It's a sure sign of ethical bankruptcy when one side of a debate is forced to make such in appropriate comparisons.
You are quite right to raise the matter of Dunblane however. If Thomas Hamilton had had only a knife instead of a gun then perhaps only one or two people would have been killed at most.
It was, however, only in the aftermath of that tragedy that legislation was introduced to limit the sale of handguns in the UK. Prior to that, it was relatively easy to obtain most firearms. And Thomas Hamilton was a properly licensed handgun owner under the old laws.
We all expect that the new law will make it much more difficult for lunatics like Thomas Hamilton to gain access to dangereous firearms in the future.
Do I have to spell it out for you? If only the current restrictions had been put in place earlier, then twenty innocent primary school infants would *not* have been brutally slaughtered.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is rather disingenuous. US law enforcement officers are taking a risk when they go out on duty. That's what they are paid for. And as well as training they get Kevlar vests, top-quality weapons, armed backup just a radio call away etc. You *need* them to be armed because everyone else might be armed already.
In the UK our (quite effective) police force do not routinely carry guns. They are available at short notice if there should be an incident involving a firearm, but because (generally speaking) our criminals do not use them, there is no need for our police to wear guns in the normal course of their duties.
What you seem to have arrived at in the US is an arms race between criminals and the rest of society. If there were never any accidents or lost tempers or jumpy criminals this wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Unfortunately there are, and many people die who would not have if guns were banned.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It might be that at some point in recent history overall crime rates per head of population in the UK exceeded those in the US. Our societies are more similar than different IMO.
:o\
But violent death and maiming are considerably more frequent in the US because it's just so much easier to squeeze a trigger than it is to stab someone or crack their skull open. And without gun control, all American criminals have that option open to them. It's so good to see that their constitutional rights are being protected
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If you're in a frontier-type environment like that then you probably do need a gun. The same argument doesn't apply to urban inhabitants of developed countries.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The argument may well seem flawed to people who are culturally predisposed to disagree with it. And a cultural predisposition is the *only* reason behind so many Americans desire to keep their guns since their position just does not make sense in the face of the statistics of firearm injury and death. I don't know what your personal reasons are as a non-American. Maybe you're a gun nut?
A very famous American whose name escapes me for the moment once said: "Those who trade freedom for security neither deserve, nor will have, either freedom or security".
This is beside the point. Benjamin Franklin, who you misquoted, was talking about resisting a regime that was effectively a foreign power (the British). Not guarding the homestead against bandits.
What you are advocating is basically this: surrender your freedoms to the government so that government may better protect you. History has shown that that particular line of reasoning has disastrous consequences in the long term.
Pardon me? Just how far back in history do you have to go to find a citizen of a modern Western country successfully fending off their own government's forces with firearms? This just doesn't happen in the civilised world any more. Get over it.
What's more - let's say you *were* American: if you and your whole town decided to go up against the government, and the government were against the idea, how long do you think you and your little guns would last against the US army and a virtually unlimited supply of artillery, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter bombers etc. etc. ?
That whole line of reasoning which I've heard from Americans over and over again about arms to protect one's self from the government is spurious, two hundred years out of date and irrelevant to the issue of self-defence against the much more immediate threat of armed outlaws.
And anyway, how do you explain the lack of crime in Switzerland, where almost everyone has a gun?
No need to explain, it is a very poor analogy. Take a moment to ask yourself: how is Switzerland different from America, or South Africa or any of the countries with high murder rates? It is different because Switzerland has no numerous disaffected underclass to envy the rich. Most "poor" Swiss people are much better off than the average Western poor person. This is partly because - and forgive me if this offends anyone's PC sensibilities - the country has a very strict immmigration policy. If you're not Swiss and you don't have money, you don't get in.
Instead, explain the lack of crime in the UK (relative to the US) which does have gun controls but which is otherwise more similar to the US in social structure, demographics and liberal attitudes than any other country possibly excepting Canada and Australia.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oops, typo - should be:
The fact remains, in the UK with gun controls we have a lower proportion of unlawful killings and maimings annually per capita than you do in the US without gun controls. Explain that.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Well actually that just isn't true at all. You made it up just now, I think. Burglaries in the UK tend to happen while the residents are out, because British burgalrs don't like being caught any more than any other burglars. And because they don't have guns, being caught is more of a problem.
The most commonly quoted statistic about home-owners defending themselves with a gun being more likely to be shot with their own gun is a complete and utter fabrication.
The statistic I saw was in a document published but a US Government department. I think I trust their competence at collecting statistics better than I trust yours. I don't remember it stipulating that they were shot with their own gun though. If a criminal holds you up with a gun they are *much* more likely to shoot at you if you appear to be about to shoot them. After all, if you have a gun too then its not just the criminal's livelihood and freedom that's at stake, but their life. Making them much more prone to do something stupid like killing you in the heat of the moment.
The fact remains, in the UK with gun controls we have a lower proportion of unlawful killings and maimings annually per capita than you do in the US, where there are in the US without gun controls. Explain that.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh sure, very determined criminals, members of organized crime rackets and so on will always be able to get guns because (1) they have the resources to do so and (2) the amount of "business" at stake makes it worth it to do so. But petty criminals won't find it so easy.
Consequently with firearm ownership and supply heavily restricted by law, most of what little firearm offences occur will be perpetrated by criminals against other criminals or during armed robbery of high-value installations such as banks.
But under such a regime (such as we have in the UK for example) perpetrators of petty crime like burglary, mugging, assault and rape don't have easy access to firearms. Even being found in possession of an unlicenced gun is a serious crime. And conviction of assault with a firearm automatically means a life sentence. Consequently almost all petty criminals eschew guns altogether.
So where firearms are restricted, as in the UK, very few law-abiding people are ever threatened by a gun. Very few people ever even get to see one. People with guns are not a problem in the UK, and unlawful killing and maiming is pro-rata less common than it is in countries like the US where firearms are unlicenced and easy to obtain.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Well, except that the "If x is outlawed then only outlaws will have x" is just as stupid and meaningless when applied to data as it is when applied to guns. If guns were outlawed then less outlaws would have guns.
BTW, Americans who try to repel an attack or a robbery using a gun are more likely to wind up dead than those who don't. This is a fact. Check your own government's statistics if you don't believe it.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Rob, according to the "Wireless" section on their site the DECT DMAP protocol supports connection to Ethernet LAN so it seems to me that you should be able to surf via your home gateway/firewall. No idea about the bandwidth though. What does DECT support?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You'll get haemorrhoids doing that.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If you want a core file then just try running netscape for a few minutes.
(got to enable core files first of course)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I do hope that was intended to be ironic...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If you never learned to program in a structured, modular *and* strongly typed language then you should never have been allowed near C let alone C++. As it is you are a danger to yourself and others.
You have to have discipline as well as understanding to use languages with low-level features properly. One needs to understand the rules, and to learn to follow them *by default* almost without thinking before one can break those rules.
Programmers who don't follow this dictum *always* write crap code, because they simply don't know any better (cf. self-taught VB programmers).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction