I never understood why people are WILLING to pay exorbitant amounts of money on stuff because they believe it is "premium".
massysett, it's this ideal called "fair price". If Honda turned around and decided that they wanted to charge $100,000 for a Honda Civic, that is not a fair price. The same way that I pay $30 a month for "unlimited data". Now I don't use anywhere NEAR 5 gigabytes per month of data usage.
You honestly think it would be fair for Verizon to change their data plans so that me, who maybe only uses.5-1GB per month to get charged per MB so I have to now pay $50 for that usage?
There is a point where charging more for a service does not originate with the intent to "cover costs" but for pure greed. They don't have to change it to a tiered service. Verizon makes a ridiculous amount of money already. This move is rooted in pure greed. And the fact that people like you get fooled into believing that they are somehow entitled to satisfy that greed is really really sad.
The thing is, that if you look at dogs and cats and the way they behave, there is always a hierarchy. It's necessary for survival in the wild. Which means that there are different personalities. Some dogs or cats have really dominate, aggressive personalities. Others are more docile.
If your cousins Lab never showed any defensive gestures towards anyone who acted aggressively, that's just because of the dogs personality. He's more docile. Now, if it only allowed its household masters to do this, but anyone else would be attacked, then he would have a more dominate personality, but loyal to who he's familiar with. It's not rational thought.
You are correct in everything you say, but only in the basic form of comparison that you are using. Yes, every violent act is done for some reason or another, but because of our highly developed level of intelligence, we have a sense of right and wrong reasons.
Few would say it's wrong to violently defend yourself if you are being assaulted in an alley or in your home. On the opposite side of the coin, few would say that it is right to violently "defend" yourself if someone accidentally stepped on your foot.
Animals perceive things in a very basic way. Take this example:
A few nights ago a couple of friends came over to my apartment for dinner and to hang out. One of them had a 14 month old baby. I have two cats, Suzy is very outgoing and sure of herself, and Molly on the other hand is a very much more nervous and easily scared. Both cats hid initially but as expected, Suzy came out to investigate who these new people were very quickly.
As soon as the baby saw Suzy, he started to move over towards her. Now, being the first time that Suzy saw an infant, she didn't understand his behavior. So when the baby got close and was raising his hand towards her, Suzy started to back up while still facing him. Her ears went back, she was squinting, keeping her tail close to her body, and was backing up less and less.
Now, knowing her, she would have only backed up to a certain point where she would then feel cornered. Even though she wasn't physically cornered, by her body language I could tell she was starting to feel that way. I immediately got between them, and Suzy ran straight into my bedroom, and I closed the door. Now lets look at the potential for that situation had I not gotten between the two.
Suzy could have reacted in a defensive nature towards the baby and swiped at him. Would it have been her fault if she did swipe at him and scratch his face? No. Would it have been the baby's fault? No. Because neither one of them are at a level of rationalization or understanding to realize what the other is doing.
The baby is just trying to pet her and isn't able to understand that she is behaving in a defensive manner, and Suzy doesn't understand that he is only trying to pet her. For all she knows, he could be attacking her. She also had never seen a baby before that, so she didn't really know even what he was.
The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.
Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.
Sorry for the thesis (lol) but I hope it clarifies more what I am talking about.
While the literal definition of "rape" is not unique to humans, the REASON behind the act is still different only for humans. The animal "raping" another is not doing it for his own personal gain. He is acting INSTINCTIVELY. He can't control it. Humans can.
I take it you've never watched a cat play with a mouse before killing it?
Cats play with a mouse not for "fun" but to improve their hunting skills. It's a learning technique.
The difference again goes to the nature of the different species. We have reasonable thought. Which means that people CHOOSE to either be violent or not. Animals do not, and generally do not act violently for no reason. It is always for survival purposes for hunting, or acting defensively.
We are the only species that acts violently for no reason. What reason does a man have to randomly abuse or kill a woman? Look at bull fighting, or dog fighting. These are things that are human incarnations of violence for the purpose of entertainment. Animals act violently out of defense, for survival, or because of disease (rabies).
Again, the reason for this is because animals do not have reasonable though processes. They only ever act instinctively except in cases of sickness. This is where humans are different from animals.
We have no idea how we would be treated by more advanced beings, and you cannot compare us to cattle. Cattle ARE a resource and have no reason to their thought process. They behave instinctively whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.
Some.Net is correct. It would be the worst thing for any life form because of human arrogance and selfishness.
If you go to their website and look at the "patent" behind the technology of the mount, you will see that it is duct tape. Their whole website drips with sarcasm. There is no such mount available to the public to do this with an iPad.
I wonder if that varies from state to state, but either way, that's lame. The rules of warrants is they have to specify what they are searching for.
For example, if they have probably cause that someone has child pornography, the warrant they use has to specify that. Which is meant to protect that if they search someones house and don't find any child pornography, but find a pound of weed, they can't file a case against you about the weed because that wasn't what they were looking for. At least that is my understanding of the rules of warrants.
That being said, if they can retroactively get warrants, they could search property for child pornography, not find any, but instead find a pound of weed then get a warrant saying they were looking for both child pornography and weed, then use the weed as admissible evidence against you in a trial for the possession of that.
This is why the 4th amendment requires the warrant to search. To protect against unlawful search and seizures.
I have personally exercised my right to not be searched without a warrant when I got pulled over once. Cop asked if he could search my vehicle and I told him, "I do not consent to any searches". When he said that I just gave him probably cause to handcuff me and search my vehicle anyway, I said, "All I have given you probably cause for is to get a warrant to search my vehicle because the Constitution requires you have one to search my car." He didn't contest it any further and continued with the stop.
So I am confused now on the rules of warrants, and I will have to do further research into them. Thanks for the response.
I never said it was acceptable for them not to get a warrant. I agree, they need a warrant. That first sentence was answering the OP question.
Also, they need a warrant BEFORE they search someone's property. That's the point of having a warrant. If they can search before getting the warrant, then what's the point of the 4th amendment?
If they don't have a warrant, I don't care what they try to justify with, I will not let them into my home.
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get. They have to hand information over to a Judge to look at so they can determine if there is enough probable cause for a search warrant, and if they Judge denies it, no warrant, aka no searching.
If the Judge DOES issue the warrant, they have to notify you at some point about the search, whether it be before they search, while they search, or after they have searched.
If they can "legally" make it so that they don't need a warrant to acquire certain information, it allows them to gather information much more quickly on someone and without that person ever knowing that their property was searched (until the evidence is brought up in trial of course, then it would be obvious to that person that their property was searched at some point).
This is about the government wanting the ability to gather information or evidence covertly and without cause on anyone they deem it to be necessary.
This is why I am seriously considering just running my own e-mail server from my house. Then the only way to get the information would be to either subpoena me for it, or issue a warrant to come into my home to search my computer.
Go Yahoo and Google for fighting this blatant violation of 4th Amendment rights.
This is what I mean. Calling it fiction is offensive. Comments like that is only going to cause people on that side into a knee jerk reaction to turn around and insult something on your side. Then people on your side turn around in the same way and insult back. It becomes an endless loop and nothing gets accomplished.
Also, it is just your opinion that it is a work of fiction.
They can't prove it to be true, but you can't prove that it is false. Just like the other side can't prove that Evolution is true, nor can it be proven to be false.
First off, I never discussed the validity of the arguments.
What I am talking about is the manner in which people with different viewpoints discuss the issue.
Whether you like it or not, how you say things greatly effects how people think of you. If you want them to take you seriously and as an intelligent person, you have to maintain a certain level of respect and reservation about your opinion. This applies to people on BOTH sides of the issue.
You see it too many times where person A will come up with a very well thought out and executed argument about a certain subject and because person B doesn't agree with person A, instead of coming up with a well thought out and executed counter argument, person B throws an insult at person A or twists what person A said to mean something else which simultaneously discredits person A and suddenly supports person B's argument.
That is not how you productively try to "educate" a person. If you are concerned about the "lack of education" or "lack of faith" of an individual, you're not going to positively reinforce what you are saying by insulting them personally, or insulting their religion, or insulting scientists or science in general. All reason will leave that person because they will feel personally attacked and will respond the same way. All this does is cause a circle of insults, troll wars, and nothing is productive about it. It breeds MORE ignorance on both sides of the argument.
It does apply to both sides, and I can say that because whether you want to admit it or not, it IS ignorance to generalize and assume that just because someone doesn't believe in Evolution, or agree with it, or has questions about it that by default they have no respect for science, don't believe in it or that they are delusional and don't believe in gravity. The same way that it is ignorance to generalize and assume that just because someone doesn't believe in Creation that they are evil, don't believe in God and are going to hell.
And it's ok if you can't answer a question. Use questions that you can't answer to dig deeper to educate yourself more on the topic to bring back in a future discussion to STRENGTHEN your arguments.
Finally, REFERENCES. Your arguments are not going to hold any water if you cannot show where those arguments come from.
The sooner that BOTH sides start doing this, the sooner we can all start actually learning from each other.
There are aggressors on BOTH sides, and that is what he is saying. Both sides have the people who are moderate and in the middle and both have the biased extremists that throw insults and around.
Someone who is pro-Evolution who says "if you don't agree with Evolution then you don't agree with any science and are delusional" is just as bad as someone who is pro-Creation who says that people who don't believe in Creation are "evil" and "going to hell".
This is what he is talking about. There are people who can have intelligent and thought provoking discussions on the matter from both sides and then both sides have their extremists.
You are focusing on one part of my comment, and completely ignoring the rest. I am not talking about the actual amount or speed of data that can be flowing across a network at any given time. Of course that is capped.
I was referring to the fact that people should not be charged depending on how much they download/upload.
The ISP that work for has approximately 400,000 internet subscribers in the division that I work out of. At an average of around $50 a month, that is $20,000,000 per MONTH that my company pulls in from my division alone. That is more than enough for my company to afford employees, maintenance, and expansion efforts for this area while still making a ridiculous amount of profit.
Finally, unlimited bandwidth is not a faulty ideal. What is a faulty ideal is making industry changes for the purpose of satisfying GREED.
ISPs already make a ton of money. Verizon, as a prime example, is not hurting financially because people actually USE the unlimited bandwidth. This is simply greedy men realizing there is potentially a revenue stream to tap into.
The thing is that people need to stop thinking of "the poor companies that are losing money" and think about how these types of limitations will severely and negatively effect access to the Internet.
The Internet would not have grown as quickly or to the size that it is if bandwidth had been tiered from the get go.
If you limit bandwidth, or limit incentives to use bandwidth, and you will limit innovation on the Web. This needs to be protected, to continue to drive change and innovation.
I work for a major national ISP, and I do NOT support tiered bandwidth.
How the data is switched is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the content and different types of technology to deliver that content. Youtube, Netflix, VPN services, etc. etc. You start limiting how much a person can download, or give them less incentives to use bandwidth because you decide to charge on a per data unit rate, you will be negatively effecting those types of services.
The problem with tiered web browsing is that unlike electricity, gas and water, the internet and technologies surrounding it have ALWAYS been developed with the ideals of unlimited bandwidth capabilities.
Look at Netflix for Christ sake. If you are charged on a per gigabyte usage (which in reality it will be a rate based off of a per megabyte usage, or worse, per kilobyte usage) how much money do you think it will cost you to stream movies from Netflix?
Now sure, you could always just wait for the DVD in the mail, but that's not the point. The point is that moves like this only HINDER not just customers, but also competition for home rentals. Netflix will be negatively affected by this because people will be less inclined to stream movies.
And that's just the video part of it. Think of people who do all their work online and upload and download files to remote servers for work. Or people that use their Internet for VPN into their work networks. All of that uses bandwidth.
Besides all of that... living in this country is already expensive enough. The government takes 30% of your gross income, healthcare is expensive as hell, gas is expensive, food is expensive. Enough is enough.
This needs to be fought by every one who can. I am so sick of people just rolling over and taking this shit from companies and from our own government. This is pushing the idea of the Internet into a bad direction that will ultimately LIMIT your freedoms online.
I appreciate your responses, but again, you failed to address certain points. How do you explain the drop in crime rate in D.C. when the gun ban was lifted in 2005? Or Kennesaw, Georgia where they mandate home owners have at least one firearm having their violent crime rates drop by 75% in the FIRST YEAR the law was put into effect?
This statistical PROVEN data says otherwise about "the easy access to guns doesn't seem to be helping." How do you respond to that?
And then there are legions of idiots who ignore all of the data available from around the world that prove that strict gun control rates are associated with very low homicide rates, and engage in worthless speculation to claim that guns don't make it much easier to kill people.
If guns weren't so effective at ending human life, the Army would still be using bayonets. Give one idiot a gun, and he can kill half dozen people with virtually no prior training. Give everyone a gun, and they kill each other and themselves on a more regular basis.
You can prove me wrong by pointing to a nationwide enforced gun control policy that has resulted in higher homicide rates.
First off, I would really like for you to provide statistical evidence to support "Give everyone a gun, and they kill each other and themselves on a more regular basis". Be sure to pull these statistics from AMERICAN crime rates. Again, what happens in other countries doesn't mean anything when compared to the U.S. Different cultures and different states of mind.
Second, why did you only respond to the last sentence of his argument? You also never even acknowledged anything that I said in direct response to YOU in my post #31725576.
Please, as you are obviously very anti-gun, respond in an intelligent and respectful manner to arguments we bring up. If not, then all you are doing is proving that you have a biased opinion on a topic, and cannot or will not back up your claims with any statistical data.
I am not trying to start a flame war or be labeled as a troll, but for once I would like to get some kind of thought out arguments from anti-gun people about the issue. They seem to always ignore what they can't argue.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Read my other post on the very real, and very strict guns laws in Switzerland.
Denmark's homicide rate is per 100,000 per year is.88 The US homicide rate is 5.4
Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.
You're quite simply full of shit.
Unfortunately for you, crime statistics here in the U.S. disagree with you. Just because something works in your country does NOT mean that it will work by default in our country.
Here in America, the right to own and bear arms is very much a deeply rooted ideal that stems from the founding of this country. It is statistically proven over and over that here in America, states and cities that allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have much lower crime rates than in states or cities that restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
As I have said in previous comments, before 2005 Washington D.C. had a general gun ban. No one in the city limits was allowed any firearms at all. D.C. had some of the highest crime rates in the country.
When the Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional in 2005 and lifted the ban, violent crime rates plummeted, dropping 25% within the first year and continued to decline after.
Prior to 2005, D.C. had extremely high crime rates. After 2005, D.C. is no longer in the top 10 list of highest crime rated cities in the U.S. In reality, it's not even one of the top 25 of most violent places to live. The only thing that change... the gun ban was lifted.
In the U.S. more legally owned guns means less crime. Our statistics prove that over and over again.
I also reference a town called Kennesaw in Georgia. This town actually REQUIRES that all home owners maintain atleast one firearm WITH ammunition. This was passed in 1982 and to this day, the town sees some of the lowest crime rates in the country. In the first year the law being passed, crime fell 75%.
That's because you live in a nanny state where NO one has guns. Typically in European countries, not even the police have firearms. The problem is that your lives are decided for you by your governments, you also live in a very different culture than we do. So what "works" in your country doesn't necessarily work in ours. One of them being gun bans.
When Washington D.C. had the general gun ban in effect, D.C. had some of the worst violent crime rate in the country. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional and lifted it in 2005, crime rate in D.C. plummeted almost overnight.
In OUR country, cities and states that make it easier for citizens to carry firearms have lower crime rates than those that try to restrict them more. This is America, not Europe and we hold true to certain values, one of them being gun rights.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
PATA/IDE... whatever, its the same difference. And no, most optical drives out there are now SATA. Got a new computer a couples months ago, and it has a SATA optical. Goto newegg... the SATA drives outnumber PATA almost 3-1. And the majority of motherboards still carry a PATA port of some kind. Maybe they include it because almost all modern CMOS's still only look towards a floppy disk when there is a full system crash... so maybe its for last resort emergency situations with computers???
He means on desktops, laptops, servers, and shit like that. Other than cisco routers and switches, you can't really fine hardware that has a serial port on it. But all routers and switches are still manufactured with serial...
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood why people are WILLING to pay exorbitant amounts of money on stuff because they believe it is "premium".
massysett, it's this ideal called "fair price". If Honda turned around and decided that they wanted to charge $100,000 for a Honda Civic, that is not a fair price. The same way that I pay $30 a month for "unlimited data". Now I don't use anywhere NEAR 5 gigabytes per month of data usage.
You honestly think it would be fair for Verizon to change their data plans so that me, who maybe only uses .5-1GB per month to get charged per MB so I have to now pay $50 for that usage?
There is a point where charging more for a service does not originate with the intent to "cover costs" but for pure greed. They don't have to change it to a tiered service. Verizon makes a ridiculous amount of money already. This move is rooted in pure greed. And the fact that people like you get fooled into believing that they are somehow entitled to satisfy that greed is really really sad.
The thing is, that if you look at dogs and cats and the way they behave, there is always a hierarchy. It's necessary for survival in the wild. Which means that there are different personalities. Some dogs or cats have really dominate, aggressive personalities. Others are more docile.
If your cousins Lab never showed any defensive gestures towards anyone who acted aggressively, that's just because of the dogs personality. He's more docile. Now, if it only allowed its household masters to do this, but anyone else would be attacked, then he would have a more dominate personality, but loyal to who he's familiar with. It's not rational thought.
I said that they are able to. I never said they actually did.
You are correct in everything you say, but only in the basic form of comparison that you are using. Yes, every violent act is done for some reason or another, but because of our highly developed level of intelligence, we have a sense of right and wrong reasons.
Few would say it's wrong to violently defend yourself if you are being assaulted in an alley or in your home. On the opposite side of the coin, few would say that it is right to violently "defend" yourself if someone accidentally stepped on your foot.
Animals perceive things in a very basic way. Take this example:
A few nights ago a couple of friends came over to my apartment for dinner and to hang out. One of them had a 14 month old baby. I have two cats, Suzy is very outgoing and sure of herself, and Molly on the other hand is a very much more nervous and easily scared. Both cats hid initially but as expected, Suzy came out to investigate who these new people were very quickly.
As soon as the baby saw Suzy, he started to move over towards her. Now, being the first time that Suzy saw an infant, she didn't understand his behavior. So when the baby got close and was raising his hand towards her, Suzy started to back up while still facing him. Her ears went back, she was squinting, keeping her tail close to her body, and was backing up less and less.
Now, knowing her, she would have only backed up to a certain point where she would then feel cornered. Even though she wasn't physically cornered, by her body language I could tell she was starting to feel that way. I immediately got between them, and Suzy ran straight into my bedroom, and I closed the door. Now lets look at the potential for that situation had I not gotten between the two.
Suzy could have reacted in a defensive nature towards the baby and swiped at him. Would it have been her fault if she did swipe at him and scratch his face? No. Would it have been the baby's fault? No. Because neither one of them are at a level of rationalization or understanding to realize what the other is doing.
The baby is just trying to pet her and isn't able to understand that she is behaving in a defensive manner, and Suzy doesn't understand that he is only trying to pet her. For all she knows, he could be attacking her. She also had never seen a baby before that, so she didn't really know even what he was.
The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.
Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.
Sorry for the thesis (lol) but I hope it clarifies more what I am talking about.
Rape is not unique to homo sapiens.
While the literal definition of "rape" is not unique to humans, the REASON behind the act is still different only for humans. The animal "raping" another is not doing it for his own personal gain. He is acting INSTINCTIVELY. He can't control it. Humans can.
I take it you've never watched a cat play with a mouse before killing it?
Cats play with a mouse not for "fun" but to improve their hunting skills. It's a learning technique.
The difference again goes to the nature of the different species. We have reasonable thought. Which means that people CHOOSE to either be violent or not. Animals do not, and generally do not act violently for no reason. It is always for survival purposes for hunting, or acting defensively.
We are the only species that acts violently for no reason. What reason does a man have to randomly abuse or kill a woman? Look at bull fighting, or dog fighting. These are things that are human incarnations of violence for the purpose of entertainment. Animals act violently out of defense, for survival, or because of disease (rabies).
Again, the reason for this is because animals do not have reasonable though processes. They only ever act instinctively except in cases of sickness. This is where humans are different from animals.
We have no idea how we would be treated by more advanced beings, and you cannot compare us to cattle. Cattle ARE a resource and have no reason to their thought process. They behave instinctively whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.
Some.Net is correct. It would be the worst thing for any life form because of human arrogance and selfishness.
If you go to their website and look at the "patent" behind the technology of the mount, you will see that it is duct tape. Their whole website drips with sarcasm. There is no such mount available to the public to do this with an iPad.
I wonder if that varies from state to state, but either way, that's lame. The rules of warrants is they have to specify what they are searching for.
For example, if they have probably cause that someone has child pornography, the warrant they use has to specify that. Which is meant to protect that if they search someones house and don't find any child pornography, but find a pound of weed, they can't file a case against you about the weed because that wasn't what they were looking for. At least that is my understanding of the rules of warrants.
That being said, if they can retroactively get warrants, they could search property for child pornography, not find any, but instead find a pound of weed then get a warrant saying they were looking for both child pornography and weed, then use the weed as admissible evidence against you in a trial for the possession of that.
This is why the 4th amendment requires the warrant to search. To protect against unlawful search and seizures.
I have personally exercised my right to not be searched without a warrant when I got pulled over once. Cop asked if he could search my vehicle and I told him, "I do not consent to any searches". When he said that I just gave him probably cause to handcuff me and search my vehicle anyway, I said, "All I have given you probably cause for is to get a warrant to search my vehicle because the Constitution requires you have one to search my car." He didn't contest it any further and continued with the stop.
So I am confused now on the rules of warrants, and I will have to do further research into them. Thanks for the response.
I never said it was acceptable for them not to get a warrant. I agree, they need a warrant. That first sentence was answering the OP question.
Also, they need a warrant BEFORE they search someone's property. That's the point of having a warrant. If they can search before getting the warrant, then what's the point of the 4th amendment?
If they don't have a warrant, I don't care what they try to justify with, I will not let them into my home.
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get. They have to hand information over to a Judge to look at so they can determine if there is enough probable cause for a search warrant, and if they Judge denies it, no warrant, aka no searching.
If the Judge DOES issue the warrant, they have to notify you at some point about the search, whether it be before they search, while they search, or after they have searched.
If they can "legally" make it so that they don't need a warrant to acquire certain information, it allows them to gather information much more quickly on someone and without that person ever knowing that their property was searched (until the evidence is brought up in trial of course, then it would be obvious to that person that their property was searched at some point).
This is about the government wanting the ability to gather information or evidence covertly and without cause on anyone they deem it to be necessary.
This is why I am seriously considering just running my own e-mail server from my house. Then the only way to get the information would be to either subpoena me for it, or issue a warrant to come into my home to search my computer.
Go Yahoo and Google for fighting this blatant violation of 4th Amendment rights.
This is what I mean. Calling it fiction is offensive. Comments like that is only going to cause people on that side into a knee jerk reaction to turn around and insult something on your side. Then people on your side turn around in the same way and insult back. It becomes an endless loop and nothing gets accomplished.
Also, it is just your opinion that it is a work of fiction.
They can't prove it to be true, but you can't prove that it is false. Just like the other side can't prove that Evolution is true, nor can it be proven to be false.
First off, I never discussed the validity of the arguments.
What I am talking about is the manner in which people with different viewpoints discuss the issue.
Whether you like it or not, how you say things greatly effects how people think of you. If you want them to take you seriously and as an intelligent person, you have to maintain a certain level of respect and reservation about your opinion. This applies to people on BOTH sides of the issue.
You see it too many times where person A will come up with a very well thought out and executed argument about a certain subject and because person B doesn't agree with person A, instead of coming up with a well thought out and executed counter argument, person B throws an insult at person A or twists what person A said to mean something else which simultaneously discredits person A and suddenly supports person B's argument.
That is not how you productively try to "educate" a person. If you are concerned about the "lack of education" or "lack of faith" of an individual, you're not going to positively reinforce what you are saying by insulting them personally, or insulting their religion, or insulting scientists or science in general. All reason will leave that person because they will feel personally attacked and will respond the same way. All this does is cause a circle of insults, troll wars, and nothing is productive about it. It breeds MORE ignorance on both sides of the argument.
It does apply to both sides, and I can say that because whether you want to admit it or not, it IS ignorance to generalize and assume that just because someone doesn't believe in Evolution, or agree with it, or has questions about it that by default they have no respect for science, don't believe in it or that they are delusional and don't believe in gravity. The same way that it is ignorance to generalize and assume that just because someone doesn't believe in Creation that they are evil, don't believe in God and are going to hell.
And it's ok if you can't answer a question. Use questions that you can't answer to dig deeper to educate yourself more on the topic to bring back in a future discussion to STRENGTHEN your arguments.
Finally, REFERENCES. Your arguments are not going to hold any water if you cannot show where those arguments come from.
The sooner that BOTH sides start doing this, the sooner we can all start actually learning from each other.
That's it. /rant
There are aggressors on BOTH sides, and that is what he is saying. Both sides have the people who are moderate and in the middle and both have the biased extremists that throw insults and around.
Someone who is pro-Evolution who says "if you don't agree with Evolution then you don't agree with any science and are delusional" is just as bad as someone who is pro-Creation who says that people who don't believe in Creation are "evil" and "going to hell".
This is what he is talking about. There are people who can have intelligent and thought provoking discussions on the matter from both sides and then both sides have their extremists.
He is 100% correct.
You are focusing on one part of my comment, and completely ignoring the rest. I am not talking about the actual amount or speed of data that can be flowing across a network at any given time. Of course that is capped.
I was referring to the fact that people should not be charged depending on how much they download/upload.
The ISP that work for has approximately 400,000 internet subscribers in the division that I work out of. At an average of around $50 a month, that is $20,000,000 per MONTH that my company pulls in from my division alone. That is more than enough for my company to afford employees, maintenance, and expansion efforts for this area while still making a ridiculous amount of profit.
Finally, unlimited bandwidth is not a faulty ideal. What is a faulty ideal is making industry changes for the purpose of satisfying GREED.
ISPs already make a ton of money. Verizon, as a prime example, is not hurting financially because people actually USE the unlimited bandwidth. This is simply greedy men realizing there is potentially a revenue stream to tap into.
The thing is that people need to stop thinking of "the poor companies that are losing money" and think about how these types of limitations will severely and negatively effect access to the Internet.
The Internet would not have grown as quickly or to the size that it is if bandwidth had been tiered from the get go.
If you limit bandwidth, or limit incentives to use bandwidth, and you will limit innovation on the Web. This needs to be protected, to continue to drive change and innovation.
I work for a major national ISP, and I do NOT support tiered bandwidth.
How the data is switched is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the content and different types of technology to deliver that content. Youtube, Netflix, VPN services, etc. etc. You start limiting how much a person can download, or give them less incentives to use bandwidth because you decide to charge on a per data unit rate, you will be negatively effecting those types of services.
The problem with tiered web browsing is that unlike electricity, gas and water, the internet and technologies surrounding it have ALWAYS been developed with the ideals of unlimited bandwidth capabilities.
Look at Netflix for Christ sake. If you are charged on a per gigabyte usage (which in reality it will be a rate based off of a per megabyte usage, or worse, per kilobyte usage) how much money do you think it will cost you to stream movies from Netflix?
Now sure, you could always just wait for the DVD in the mail, but that's not the point. The point is that moves like this only HINDER not just customers, but also competition for home rentals. Netflix will be negatively affected by this because people will be less inclined to stream movies.
And that's just the video part of it. Think of people who do all their work online and upload and download files to remote servers for work. Or people that use their Internet for VPN into their work networks. All of that uses bandwidth.
Besides all of that... living in this country is already expensive enough. The government takes 30% of your gross income, healthcare is expensive as hell, gas is expensive, food is expensive. Enough is enough.
This needs to be fought by every one who can. I am so sick of people just rolling over and taking this shit from companies and from our own government. This is pushing the idea of the Internet into a bad direction that will ultimately LIMIT your freedoms online.
I appreciate your responses, but again, you failed to address certain points. How do you explain the drop in crime rate in D.C. when the gun ban was lifted in 2005? Or Kennesaw, Georgia where they mandate home owners have at least one firearm having their violent crime rates drop by 75% in the FIRST YEAR the law was put into effect?
This statistical PROVEN data says otherwise about "the easy access to guns doesn't seem to be helping." How do you respond to that?
And then there are legions of idiots who ignore all of the data available from around the world that prove that strict gun control rates are associated with very low homicide rates, and engage in worthless speculation to claim that guns don't make it much easier to kill people.
If guns weren't so effective at ending human life, the Army would still be using bayonets. Give one idiot a gun, and he can kill half dozen people with virtually no prior training. Give everyone a gun, and they kill each other and themselves on a more regular basis.
You can prove me wrong by pointing to a nationwide enforced gun control policy that has resulted in higher homicide rates.
First off, I would really like for you to provide statistical evidence to support "Give everyone a gun, and they kill each other and themselves on a more regular basis". Be sure to pull these statistics from AMERICAN crime rates. Again, what happens in other countries doesn't mean anything when compared to the U.S. Different cultures and different states of mind.
Second, why did you only respond to the last sentence of his argument? You also never even acknowledged anything that I said in direct response to YOU in my post #31725576.
Please, as you are obviously very anti-gun, respond in an intelligent and respectful manner to arguments we bring up. If not, then all you are doing is proving that you have a biased opinion on a topic, and cannot or will not back up your claims with any statistical data.
I am not trying to start a flame war or be labeled as a troll, but for once I would like to get some kind of thought out arguments from anti-gun people about the issue. They seem to always ignore what they can't argue.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Read my other post on the very real, and very strict guns laws in Switzerland.
Denmark's homicide rate is per 100,000 per year is .88
The US homicide rate is 5.4
Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.
You're quite simply full of shit.
Unfortunately for you, crime statistics here in the U.S. disagree with you. Just because something works in your country does NOT mean that it will work by default in our country.
Here in America, the right to own and bear arms is very much a deeply rooted ideal that stems from the founding of this country. It is statistically proven over and over that here in America, states and cities that allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have much lower crime rates than in states or cities that restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
As I have said in previous comments, before 2005 Washington D.C. had a general gun ban. No one in the city limits was allowed any firearms at all. D.C. had some of the highest crime rates in the country.
When the Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional in 2005 and lifted the ban, violent crime rates plummeted, dropping 25% within the first year and continued to decline after.
Prior to 2005, D.C. had extremely high crime rates. After 2005, D.C. is no longer in the top 10 list of highest crime rated cities in the U.S. In reality, it's not even one of the top 25 of most violent places to live. The only thing that change... the gun ban was lifted.
In the U.S. more legally owned guns means less crime. Our statistics prove that over and over again.
I also reference a town called Kennesaw in Georgia. This town actually REQUIRES that all home owners maintain atleast one firearm WITH ammunition. This was passed in 1982 and to this day, the town sees some of the lowest crime rates in the country. In the first year the law being passed, crime fell 75%.
Here is the link where you can read about it:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html?cat=17
Guns are necessary to a free and safer America, and are an essential liberty that needs to be maintained.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
That's because you live in a nanny state where NO one has guns. Typically in European countries, not even the police have firearms. The problem is that your lives are decided for you by your governments, you also live in a very different culture than we do. So what "works" in your country doesn't necessarily work in ours. One of them being gun bans.
When Washington D.C. had the general gun ban in effect, D.C. had some of the worst violent crime rate in the country. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional and lifted it in 2005, crime rate in D.C. plummeted almost overnight.
In OUR country, cities and states that make it easier for citizens to carry firearms have lower crime rates than those that try to restrict them more. This is America, not Europe and we hold true to certain values, one of them being gun rights.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
Then you are looking at old catalogs my friend.... no, serial is not included on every piece of hardware.
PATA/IDE... whatever, its the same difference. And no, most optical drives out there are now SATA. Got a new computer a couples months ago, and it has a SATA optical. Goto newegg... the SATA drives outnumber PATA almost 3-1. And the majority of motherboards still carry a PATA port of some kind. Maybe they include it because almost all modern CMOS's still only look towards a floppy disk when there is a full system crash... so maybe its for last resort emergency situations with computers???
He means on desktops, laptops, servers, and shit like that. Other than cisco routers and switches, you can't really fine hardware that has a serial port on it. But all routers and switches are still manufactured with serial...