The net effect is already known. We have jurisdictions with strict gun control in the US, and there's no causative decrease in armed crime. Gun control, at best, hopes to effect the supply, the supply is already massive so it can't do much there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce. Black markets just pop up and go around fhem when there is massive demand, and with the already massive supply prices stay relatively low. Example: the so called drug war. No impact on supply or demand. And with vigorous gun laws, you will create a black market.
So if you want to reduce supply, you have to get rid of guns: confiscation or buy back with significant incentives, and even then you can't eliminate supply. But thats what youd have to do. And to reduce demand you have to both reduce crime, and increase penalties on gun crimes to something so severe you both deter and slowly eliminate law breakers.
If you're serious about reducing gun violence, look at the root cause of most of it: drug control laws. Get rid of drug prohibition and a large percentage of all violent crime goes away. Anything else, including gun control laws, is only going to make a minor difference, at best, and is likely to just make things worse. You have to eliminate the root cause of violence, the gun is not the cause, it's just one means, and don't kid yourself if a lot of money is available to a criminal element, they will get all the guns they want no matter what laws you pass.
Suicide rates aren't effected by firearms control laws. For example, in Japan the suicide rate almost twice that in the US, and in both the UK and Australia the Suisse rate did not decline after gun bans were instituted. And if you really need proof, here's a quote from the NC Juvenile Justice Department:
"Of all children and adolescents, those incarcerated in the juvenile or criminal justice systems are at the highest risk of serious suicide attempts (Gray et al., 2002; Penn et al, 2003). Despite around- the-clock supervision and a lack of access to firearms, the methods for suicides and attempts used in this population tend to be more violent and more successful than those of young people in the general population (Penn et al, 2003)."
Dispondent people find a way, so don't pat yourself on the back that gun control laws will prevent suicides. They won't, suicide isn't a gun control issue, if you really care about suicide prevention drop the political rhetoric.
It's ever sillier than that, Adam Lanza mother was reported to have taken his son to the range to shoot her firearms. So it stands to reason, in the hypothetical, that she would have programmed the firearms to allow her son to shoot them, and if her son was like most young people today he probably would have had to do the programming for her. So it's a double fail, he likely would have already been allowed to shoot the, by his mother, and even if she tried to deny this to him he likely would have gotten around it.
Wow, you really don't get it. He's right, this is what holds women back: hypersensitivity. You don't have a right to not be offended in this world. In fact it's not even possible to promise that can happen. Offense is in th eye of the beholder. But with stupid temper tantrums like Ms. Richards, peopl can get fired for what is nothing more than silly jokes, and not even sexists one you dolt.
And because people can lose their jobs, they don't want to work with people who are known to make a big stink about the slightest thing. It's common sense, who would want to put their livelihood on the line with a person that twitter shames someone for a joke about a dongle, made in private? It's basic common sense, no one. There's billions of people in this world, why risk it, hire someone with a sense of humor, thicker skin and who isn't on some personal quest to destroy anyone that makes a joke she perceives as sexist.
Keep kidding yourself that this kind of behavior is something you're entitled to. You don't have a right to a job, you can't demand someone hire you. There are plenty of men and women in this world who can handle basic human interaction with aplomb, and this lady she ain't one of them.
This statement is just wishful thinking "we have more troops than we need in a world in which we will no longer focus on fighting large, boots-on-the-ground conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Yes, the same thing was said after every single war in the 20th century as well, and was the mantra of the 90s after the Soviet Union fell. No one thought we would be fighting the kinds of wars that happened in late 90s (Serbia, Bosnia, etc.), or the Watson the early 21st century and yet here we are. This is just wishful, hopeful thinking, sure a world without wars like Afghanistan seem possible but let's face facts we didnt suddenly inherit a world filled with peaceful stable nations. There are plenty of screwed situations in the world that will likely cause more wars.
The realy problem with the pentagon is the procurement system. Things costs too much because weapons platform developers can get modifications to their contracts, which means more money, if they don't deliver. They basically play games with the contract, unbidden with a partial solution that appears complete to dod, a well written contract, wich means they did what they said, yt need more money to deliver a complete product. It's all very legal, but its so prevalent that its a sick joke in dod.
That, and which homes are also the safest to rob. All in all, a bang up job for the journal! Really, this should call attention to the poor privacy laws in New York. This kind of information should not be public.
This lawsuit was about her allegedly making false statements about criminal acts, and Yelp and Angie's list telling the contractor that they would only take action with a court order. Willfully making false statements in a public forum that accuse someone of crminal acts is defamation. Defamation is not protected speech, it's never been protected speech.
The judge agreed with the plaintiff that she did willfully make false statements and alleged criminal acts. You don't have a right to do that. That's illegal, and that kind of speech has never been protected under the first amendment between private parties. This isn't a SLAPP lawsuit, it's a basic defamation lawsuit. There's no Internet privilege to defame someone.
I wonder if this another case of certifications being treated as evidence of competence and experience. With the hundreds of infosec certs out there, and law enforcement agencies essentially being too ignorant to know the difference, or even to know if a certification has any value, I wonder if this happened because of incompetence disguised by a certification? Who doesn't know to look at all the browsers installed on the system? Seriously, that's such a boneheaded mistakes its frightening to think it happened.
The follow up to this should be an investigation into the whole certification process for all digital forensics persons working on this case, and if the certification turn out to be a joke, banning them and everyone that has the cert.
So what about state terrorism ? Shouldn't the IDF also be banned then since they also use social media for their propaganda ? One's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
This appears to be about the supposition that twitter is violating US law by supporting a designated terrorist organization. Think of it like an embargo, US companies are not allowed to do business or exchange goods or services (even if for free) with embargoed companies, persons, groups and countries. Hamas is designated as a terorist group. So no, the IDF wouldn't be banned because its not designated a terrorist group or otherwise embargoed.
Now there may be an argument to be made that the law is too broad, or that Hamas is not an terrorist organization, to maybe even that the law is unconstitutional. But there's no legal argument that the IDF is a terrorist organization under US law.
No, there's actually several laws that define it. Terrorist activity, is defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)), and terrorism, is defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)).
Which is:
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(iii) “Terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following: (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle). (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116 (b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person. (IV) An assassination. (V) The use of any—
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain),
with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
The FBI does not designate groups as terrorists, the Secretary of State does. Then congress has seven days to reject the designation under the INA. Designated organizations may seek judicisl review of this designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.
Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 is that:
1. It must be a foreign organization. 2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism. 3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.
Several organizations have been delisted, and several have successfully appealed. Hamas did not request any appeal.
Thats because you're a good person. You didnt need it, so you didnt take it. I'd like to see some pressure put Apple, HP, CSC, Halliburton and the others that hold/8's down in the 1-50.0.0.0 ranges to give back those blocks they arent using.
Do the right thing, give it back so some one can use it.
LOL, good point. I smell another Internet bubble! This one in IPv4 addresses! Come one, come all, buy my tulip, one of a kind and rarest tulip on the planet only 1 billion dollars!
If you pay a billion, or even $10 million for a/8 block you are an idiot. There are so many ways you can solve addressing problems besides spending that kind of money, and on a protocol that is on its way out WOW! Who would want to pay that kind of money? And if they are publicly traded their shareholders should be up in arms. Are they in the market for a bridge? I've got one right over here...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes he would be. People have said just that. It's not at all illegal to say awful things in the US.
The net effect is already known. We have jurisdictions with strict gun control in the US, and there's no causative decrease in armed crime. Gun control, at best, hopes to effect the supply, the supply is already massive so it can't do much there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce. Black markets just pop up and go around fhem when there is massive demand, and with the already massive supply prices stay relatively low. Example: the so called drug war. No impact on supply or demand. And with vigorous gun laws, you will create a black market.
So if you want to reduce supply, you have to get rid of guns: confiscation or buy back with significant incentives, and even then you can't eliminate supply. But thats what youd have to do. And to reduce demand you have to both reduce crime, and increase penalties on gun crimes to something so severe you both deter and slowly eliminate law breakers.
If you're serious about reducing gun violence, look at the root cause of most of it: drug control laws. Get rid of drug prohibition and a large percentage of all violent crime goes away. Anything else, including gun control laws, is only going to make a minor difference, at best, and is likely to just make things worse. You have to eliminate the root cause of violence, the gun is not the cause, it's just one means, and don't kid yourself if a lot of money is available to a criminal element, they will get all the guns they want no matter what laws you pass.
Suicide rates aren't effected by firearms control laws. For example, in Japan the suicide rate almost twice that in the US, and in both the UK and Australia the Suisse rate did not decline after gun bans were instituted. And if you really need proof, here's a quote from the NC Juvenile Justice Department:
"Of all children and adolescents, those incarcerated in the juvenile or criminal justice systems are at the highest risk of serious suicide attempts (Gray et al., 2002; Penn et al, 2003). Despite around- the-clock supervision and a lack of access to firearms, the methods for suicides and attempts used in this population tend to be more violent and more successful than those of young people in the general population (Penn et al, 2003)."
Dispondent people find a way, so don't pat yourself on the back that gun control laws will prevent suicides. They won't, suicide isn't a gun control issue, if you really care about suicide prevention drop the political rhetoric.
It's ever sillier than that, Adam Lanza mother was reported to have taken his son to the range to shoot her firearms. So it stands to reason, in the hypothetical, that she would have programmed the firearms to allow her son to shoot them, and if her son was like most young people today he probably would have had to do the programming for her. So it's a double fail, he likely would have already been allowed to shoot the, by his mother, and even if she tried to deny this to him he likely would have gotten around it.
You forgot the quotes around freedom.
Oh boy, I sure hope this game lets you blind fold and shoot people that didnt go along with the glorious Cuban revolution!
http://www.therealcuba.com/page5.htm
Wow, you really don't get it. He's right, this is what holds women back: hypersensitivity. You don't have a right to not be offended in this world. In fact it's not even possible to promise that can happen. Offense is in th eye of the beholder. But with stupid temper tantrums like Ms. Richards, peopl can get fired for what is nothing more than silly jokes, and not even sexists one you dolt.
And because people can lose their jobs, they don't want to work with people who are known to make a big stink about the slightest thing. It's common sense, who would want to put their livelihood on the line with a person that twitter shames someone for a joke about a dongle, made in private? It's basic common sense, no one. There's billions of people in this world, why risk it, hire someone with a sense of humor, thicker skin and who isn't on some personal quest to destroy anyone that makes a joke she perceives as sexist.
Keep kidding yourself that this kind of behavior is something you're entitled to. You don't have a right to a job, you can't demand someone hire you. There are plenty of men and women in this world who can handle basic human interaction with aplomb, and this lady she ain't one of them.
Your kidding right? So every piece of literature that's pornographic in nature is unhealthy?
This statement is just wishful thinking "we have more troops than we need in a world in which we will no longer focus on fighting large, boots-on-the-ground conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Yes, the same thing was said after every single war in the 20th century as well, and was the mantra of the 90s after the Soviet Union fell. No one thought we would be fighting the kinds of wars that happened in late 90s (Serbia, Bosnia, etc.), or the Watson the early 21st century and yet here we are. This is just wishful, hopeful thinking, sure a world without wars like Afghanistan seem possible but let's face facts we didnt suddenly inherit a world filled with peaceful stable nations. There are plenty of screwed situations in the world that will likely cause more wars.
The realy problem with the pentagon is the procurement system. Things costs too much because weapons platform developers can get modifications to their contracts, which means more money, if they don't deliver. They basically play games with the contract, unbidden with a partial solution that appears complete to dod, a well written contract, wich means they did what they said, yt need more money to deliver a complete product. It's all very legal, but its so prevalent that its a sick joke in dod.
That, and which homes are also the safest to rob. All in all, a bang up job for the journal! Really, this should call attention to the poor privacy laws in New York. This kind of information should not be public.
Indeed. I don't understand why this is public information to begin with. It's no ones business what products I buy or own.
So basically its a map of people without guns, and therefore excellent homes to invade and rob. Thanks Journal News! Douch bags.
This lawsuit was about her allegedly making false statements about criminal acts, and Yelp and Angie's list telling the contractor that they would only take action with a court order. Willfully making false statements in a public forum that accuse someone of crminal acts is defamation. Defamation is not protected speech, it's never been protected speech.
The judge agreed with the plaintiff that she did willfully make false statements and alleged criminal acts. You don't have a right to do that. That's illegal, and that kind of speech has never been protected under the first amendment between private parties. This isn't a SLAPP lawsuit, it's a basic defamation lawsuit. There's no Internet privilege to defame someone.
It's that most people don't care. They think "I'm not a criminal I have nothing to hide".
Yes, the average person cares about the latest Linux build. /me rolls eyes
Don't forget. In his book he claims he's a cypherpunk founder. Yes. He's just that awesome. Why I heard he invented cryptography too.
Jesus, wtf? Geeks are rssponsible? Genius dude, just genius. MBAs are responsible for these decisions.
And rape chicks from Sweden! What a hero! Weeeeeeeee!
I wonder if this another case of certifications being treated as evidence of competence and experience. With the hundreds of infosec certs out there, and law enforcement agencies essentially being too ignorant to know the difference, or even to know if a certification has any value, I wonder if this happened because of incompetence disguised by a certification? Who doesn't know to look at all the browsers installed on the system? Seriously, that's such a boneheaded mistakes its frightening to think it happened.
The follow up to this should be an investigation into the whole certification process for all digital forensics persons working on this case, and if the certification turn out to be a joke, banning them and everyone that has the cert.
So what about state terrorism ? Shouldn't the IDF also be banned then since they also use social media for their propaganda ? One's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
This appears to be about the supposition that twitter is violating US law by supporting a designated terrorist organization. Think of it like an embargo, US companies are not allowed to do business or exchange goods or services (even if for free) with embargoed companies, persons, groups and countries. Hamas is designated as a terorist group. So no, the IDF wouldn't be banned because its not designated a terrorist group or otherwise embargoed.
Now there may be an argument to be made that the law is too broad, or that Hamas is not an terrorist organization, to maybe even that the law is unconstitutional. But there's no legal argument that the IDF is a terrorist organization under US law.
No, there's actually several laws that define it. Terrorist activity, is defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)), and terrorism, is defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)).
Which is:
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(iii) “Terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116 (b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any—
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain),
with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
The FBI does not designate groups as terrorists, the Secretary of State does. Then congress has seven days to reject the designation under the INA. Designated organizations may seek judicisl review of this designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.
Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 is that:
1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.
Several organizations have been delisted, and several have successfully appealed. Hamas did not request any appeal.
The full list of designated groups is here:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
Thats because you're a good person. You didnt need it, so you didnt take it. I'd like to see some pressure put Apple, HP, CSC, Halliburton and the others that hold /8's down in the 1-50.0.0.0 ranges to give back those blocks they arent using.
Do the right thing, give it back so some one can use it.
LOL, good point. I smell another Internet bubble! This one in IPv4 addresses! Come one, come all, buy my tulip, one of a kind and rarest tulip on the planet only 1 billion dollars!
If you pay a billion, or even $10 million for a /8 block you are an idiot. There are so many ways you can solve addressing problems besides spending that kind of money, and on a protocol that is on its way out WOW! Who would want to pay that kind of money? And if they are publicly traded their shareholders should be up in arms. Are they in the market for a bridge? I've got one right over here...