When the NRA went to Columbine to insult and abuse the locals after their tragedy, they pretty much lost all the legitimacy they had for their viewpoint with me.
The NRA never went to Columbine. They went to Denver, to hold the convention that they had planned years in advance. Their position was pretty much like this "We're sorry about your tragedy, but that had nothing to do with US."
What does this small issue with Symantec have to do with "rights"?? It isn't your right to use their software, it isn't their right to provide you with anything you want.
Libraries are required to use this kind of software. Publicly funded institutions shouldn't be used to indoctrinate children with political rhetoric.
now, firstly I am from Australia where we have VERY estrictive gun laws.
The Australian people have the right to choose whatever rules they want to live under. As do we in the US. Here we have chosen to preserve the right of firearms ownership.
The onus should be on the owner of the gun to PROVE THAT HE/SHE NEEDS IT. A submachine gun is not required for hunting squirrels.
That isn't the way it works here. A right doesn't need to be justified to anyone's satisfaction.
When the first quantum computer is completed, will it be retroactive?
Meaning, once they exist, will they have always existed?
Also, once they exist, won't every computation possible be instantaneously computed?
Will we know what the billionth, trillionth, quadrillionth, millionth digit of Pi be known, before the question is even asked?
Will this create a parodox in terms of general relativity? Einstein theorized that time travel wouldn't be possible because of the potential for creating such a paradox. Meaning, if we learn how to travel back in time, we can then take the knowledge of time travel back with us to a time before it was known. If I could go back to yesterday, I could tell myself (from yesterday) how to go back to his yesterday (for me the day before yesterday), there he could tell the me from that day how to go back to his yesterday, and so on and so on.
The whole idea of quantum computing, though very cool, makes me nervous.
I never said my ideas would create a utopia, though a 1/2 to 1% reduction in gun crimes would be great. Also, 1/2 to 1% is not 0%, so obviously some criminals do use them.
Um, no. Not 1/2 to 1%, less than 1/2 OF 1%. Meaning Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights.
You have the right to that belief, but you're wrong. From a deontological point of view, one can justify ethnic cleansing because most of the people in a given place may think that it is for the best.
If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated).
Legitimate or not, constitutionally protected trumps that.
My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning).
Crime prevention. Hunting. Collecting. Recreation. All of which are legitimate uses, but the fact that firearms ownership is constitutionally protected makes none of that relevant.
Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me.
The purpose of this debate is not for either of us to sway the other. It is not possible. You have made up your mind, I have made up mind. If you were to try to persuade me that black licorice is delicious, you'd be wasting your breath. Same here. It is to sway those who are undecided.
I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
I don't care. Be it deontology, or the flip of a coin. Your justification for your position on this is meaningless to everyone except you.
Not one of your arguments supports the posession of anything more powerful than a handgun or hunting rifle.
None of your argumens supports banning them.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
No one is suggesting that a lone gunman with an AK-47 would be able to stop the entire US military. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. They outnumber the military by a factor of 8 to 1. You also assume that none of the members of the military would refuse to carry out illegal or immoral orders. When president Clinton had a survey taken among the Marines as to if they would be willing to open fire on American citizens if they resisted gun confiscation, the majority of them responded "No". If such a scenario were to come to pass, we'd have a sizeable portion of the military on our side.
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
I pointed out your bias, because you implied that bias is indicative of inaccuracy.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
Good, just like bad is subject to subjective interpretation. You have the right to think that the Canadian system is better, most Americans disagree with you.
Now before everyone begins to quote Ben Franklin, please consider that he lived in a very different era where the ability of a very few to cause significant harm was simply not available.
History doesn't support your assertion. Ask any Native American if Christopher Columbus caused "significant harm" to the native peoples of this country.
Smallpox existed in Franklin's day, it had been used as a weapon against the Native americans long before Ben's famous freedom/safety line.
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC. All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens.
History doesn't support your conclusion. Once again, I'll point out that the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto held off the Nazis with a few cheap pistols.
This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
You really need to study up on history. The FBI's own statistics show that semiautomatic rifles are used in less than 1/2 of 1% of all gun related crime. Why is it so important to ban them if they're not used by criminals?
The site you used is highly biased, and that bias is evident in the quoted statement.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source when it comes to Guns or abortion. That's life. Biased and inaccurate are not the same thing. If we're debating whether or not the crack dealer a few miles down the street should date my baby sister, I'm going to be VERY biased against it; that doesn't mean that I'm not right.
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No reasonable person thinks that the bank robbing crank smoker who just got parole should be handed a.45 when he gets out of prison. Criminals are not the issue. Law abiding people like me (and presumably you) are.
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
And?
You're deluding yourself if your think a sub-machine gun will keep you alive in the event of a military coup.
A few misc. handguns did just that for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
Who says that the second amendment is just about protecting yourself from the federal government? State and local governments can overstep their bounds too. Have a peek at this http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
The military and police will defend you in other significant scenarios.
They have no obligation to protect ME from anything. If my house gets robbed, I can't sue them. If I get murdered, my estate can't collect damages because they didn't want to come to my house. I am the only one responsible for my safety.
Even restrictive gun laws (like in Canada) allow you to have self defense in much smaller scenarios (i.e. robbery).
If Canada is right while we're wrong, feel free to emigrate.
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
This statement tells me everything about your bias that I need to know.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That's right "OF THE PEOPLE" is a part of the second amandment.
If you believe that the second amendment is no longer needed, fine, that is your right. You must lobby to get it repealed. As long as it is a part of the constitution, we can't ignore it.
African-americans of the 60's and 70's did exactly what he was suggesting. Instead of violently and inflexibly expressing their position, the made progress through supporting programs and institutions that were sympathetic to their views.
The key point is that you be vocal about your action. Let us not forget that sit-ins were illegal at the time. It was clearly tresspassing. Music piracy, is also clearly illegal. In order for people to know what you're doing you must speak up.
Just like MLK, he is suggesting that we boycott the buying of over-priced cd's, and instead spend money at places that cater to our views.
What he is suggesting would be more like the Montgomery bus boycott, without publicly admitting that you are boycotting.
So then they come out with the H2, which is not really even a Hummer or anything like the HMMV -- the thing is a freakin' Suburban (or Tahoe or whatever) with some stupid looking grill on it to make you believe that Governer Arnold drives one of these things but he doesn't.
I agree that the H2 is butt-ugly, but it ain't no Suburban. The H2 is bigger and wider than any other "normal" full sized SUV.
I don't subscribe to all of the current anti-SUV hysteria(I drive a GMC S15 Jimmy), but some of them (like the H2) are just plain ugly.
The way to combat RIAA, etc isn't by shouting from the rooftops that you'll pirate/whatever you want to call it their music from now till doomsday.
You have the right to that opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.
What you're saying is akin to saying that the black people in the south of the US shouldn't have had sit-ins and protests. They should have just spent their money at the stores that treated them properly. They should have just ridden in the back of the bus.
The simple fact is this, music piracy can not be stopped. The RIAA can find a way to make money using new technology, or they can lose millions. People like this guy reminding them that they're using the wrong tactics is just what is needed.
What I keep reading about is people talking about bans, revoked licenses, and prison time for what is in essence an IR flashlight.
WTF? This doesn't even pass the giggle test. some people out there want to make new laws to make it illegal to use an IR flashlight in your car!
If these devices were to recognize the color patterns of emergency vehicles would you people be talking about banning white colored cars with red or blue trim?
I don't get it, bans are good when it comes to things you don't like, but when someone tries to ban DeCSS or OSS you have a cow. How about being consistant here people.
It proly wouldn't be too hard for the officer inside to look over at that screen and see a big bright spot on your car.
If you had it on all of the time, you'd be right. Like I said in my previous post, I'm talking about judicious use. If the officer in question happens to be looking at you while you use it, he or she might know you've just done something illegal, or it might look like sunlight reflecting off of your car.
Since you're actually preaching the use of such devices in circumstances where they won't be easily caught, I'll find it to be extremely knee-slapping if someone in your family dies from the traffic flow being messed up by those devices, and the police was unable to find out who did it.
It is the price we pay for freedom. I have had relatives die because of gunshots. I blame the people who did the shooting, not the technology that enabled them to do so.
Change a light with lots of people around and you just pissed off everyone in the opposite flow of traffic. Radar jammers are inconspicuous and don't affect anyone but the cops.
Properly implemented an infrared emitter wouldn't raise any more attention than a radar jammer.
Actually, license plate covers are Illegal in Illinois. That goes for tinted ones (I've seen some that were nearly black) and it extends to perfectly clear covers.
I'm glad I don't live there.
I hate jerk-weeds that drive around with smoked plastic over their license plates.
I personally think that they're stupid, but how does someone with a lense over their license plate effect you?
Slashdot Mirror
So people who want to eliminate all private firearms ownership, are being more fair than Symantec.
Boy, this is going to really tempt me to warez all of my anti virus products from now on.
When the NRA went to Columbine to insult and abuse the locals after their tragedy, they pretty much lost all the legitimacy they had for their viewpoint with me.
The NRA never went to Columbine. They went to Denver, to hold the convention that they had planned years in advance. Their position was pretty much like this "We're sorry about your tragedy, but that had nothing to do with US."
LK
They probably felt it was easier to just censor the site and let the parents unblock if if they chose.
The kind of parents who would use software like this are the same kind of people who wouldn't know how to change the settings.
LK
What does this small issue with Symantec have to do with "rights"?? It isn't your right to use their software, it isn't their right to provide you with anything you want.
Libraries are required to use this kind of software. Publicly funded institutions shouldn't be used to indoctrinate children with political rhetoric.
LK
now, firstly I am from Australia where we have VERY estrictive gun laws.
The Australian people have the right to choose whatever rules they want to live under. As do we in the US. Here we have chosen to preserve the right of firearms ownership.
The onus should be on the owner of the gun to PROVE THAT HE/SHE NEEDS IT. A submachine gun is not required for hunting squirrels.
That isn't the way it works here. A right doesn't need to be justified to anyone's satisfaction.
LK
When the first quantum computer is completed, will it be retroactive?
Meaning, once they exist, will they have always existed?
Also, once they exist, won't every computation possible be instantaneously computed?
Will we know what the billionth, trillionth, quadrillionth, millionth digit of Pi be known, before the question is even asked?
Will this create a parodox in terms of general relativity? Einstein theorized that time travel wouldn't be possible because of the potential for creating such a paradox. Meaning, if we learn how to travel back in time, we can then take the knowledge of time travel back with us to a time before it was known. If I could go back to yesterday, I could tell myself (from yesterday) how to go back to his yesterday (for me the day before yesterday), there he could tell the me from that day how to go back to his yesterday, and so on and so on.
The whole idea of quantum computing, though very cool, makes me nervous.
LK
I never said my ideas would create a utopia, though a 1/2 to 1% reduction in gun crimes would be great. Also, 1/2 to 1% is not 0%, so obviously some criminals do use them.
Um, no. Not 1/2 to 1%, less than 1/2 OF 1%. Meaning Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights.
You have the right to that belief, but you're wrong. From a deontological point of view, one can justify ethnic cleansing because most of the people in a given place may think that it is for the best.
If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated).
Legitimate or not, constitutionally protected trumps that.
My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning).
Crime prevention. Hunting. Collecting. Recreation. All of which are legitimate uses, but the fact that firearms ownership is constitutionally protected makes none of that relevant.
Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me.
The purpose of this debate is not for either of us to sway the other. It is not possible. You have made up your mind, I have made up mind. If you were to try to persuade me that black licorice is delicious, you'd be wasting your breath. Same here. It is to sway those who are undecided.
I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
I don't care. Be it deontology, or the flip of a coin. Your justification for your position on this is meaningless to everyone except you.
LK
Not one of your arguments supports the posession of anything more powerful than a handgun or hunting rifle.
None of your argumens supports banning them.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
No one is suggesting that a lone gunman with an AK-47 would be able to stop the entire US military. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. They outnumber the military by a factor of 8 to 1. You also assume that none of the members of the military would refuse to carry out illegal or immoral orders. When president Clinton had a survey taken among the Marines as to if they would be willing to open fire on American citizens if they resisted gun confiscation, the majority of them responded "No". If such a scenario were to come to pass, we'd have a sizeable portion of the military on our side.
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
I pointed out your bias, because you implied that bias is indicative of inaccuracy.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
Good, just like bad is subject to subjective interpretation. You have the right to think that the Canadian system is better, most Americans disagree with you.
LK
Now before everyone begins to quote Ben Franklin, please consider that he lived in a very different era where the ability of a very few to cause significant harm was simply not available.
History doesn't support your assertion. Ask any Native American if Christopher Columbus caused "significant harm" to the native peoples of this country.
Smallpox existed in Franklin's day, it had been used as a weapon against the Native americans long before Ben's famous freedom/safety line.
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC. All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens.
History doesn't support your conclusion. Once again, I'll point out that the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto held off the Nazis with a few cheap pistols.
LK
This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
You really need to study up on history. The FBI's own statistics show that semiautomatic rifles are used in less than 1/2 of 1% of all gun related crime. Why is it so important to ban them if they're not used by criminals?
LK
The site you used is highly biased, and that bias is evident in the quoted statement.
.45 when he gets out of prison. Criminals are not the issue. Law abiding people like me (and presumably you) are.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source when it comes to Guns or abortion. That's life. Biased and inaccurate are not the same thing. If we're debating whether or not the crack dealer a few miles down the street should date my baby sister, I'm going to be VERY biased against it; that doesn't mean that I'm not right.
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No reasonable person thinks that the bank robbing crank smoker who just got parole should be handed a
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
And?
You're deluding yourself if your think a sub-machine gun will keep you alive in the event of a military coup.
A few misc. handguns did just that for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
Who says that the second amendment is just about protecting yourself from the federal government? State and local governments can overstep their bounds too. Have a peek at this http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
The military and police will defend you in other significant scenarios.
They have no obligation to protect ME from anything. If my house gets robbed, I can't sue them. If I get murdered, my estate can't collect damages because they didn't want to come to my house. I am the only one responsible for my safety.
Even restrictive gun laws (like in Canada) allow you to have self defense in much smaller scenarios (i.e. robbery).
If Canada is right while we're wrong, feel free to emigrate.
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
This statement tells me everything about your bias that I need to know.
LK
The second amendment reads as follows
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That's right "OF THE PEOPLE" is a part of the second amandment.
If you believe that the second amendment is no longer needed, fine, that is your right. You must lobby to get it repealed. As long as it is a part of the constitution, we can't ignore it.
LK
doesn't matter. try being a ham radio operator and explaining to a cop that your radio is not a scanner.
:-) have a nice day.
I don't know about where YOU live, but scanners are perfectly legal here.
if the light turn's green and your car is a blinking IR beacon, your butt will be nabbed.
What do you think courts are for? If you have an IR camera, any competent lawyer will be able to make reasonable doubt out of that fact alone.
LK
At the end when Dade is telling Joey where to find the garbage file, he dictates to him a command that is obviously really *NIX-like.
LK
Who's to say that it's not simply an illuminator for my IR camera?
BTW, yes I'm working on a project car that will include, among other things an IR camera.
LK
African-americans of the 60's and 70's did exactly what he was suggesting. Instead of violently and inflexibly expressing their position, the made progress through supporting programs and institutions that were sympathetic to their views.
The key point is that you be vocal about your action. Let us not forget that sit-ins were illegal at the time. It was clearly tresspassing. Music piracy, is also clearly illegal. In order for people to know what you're doing you must speak up.
Just like MLK, he is suggesting that we boycott the buying of over-priced cd's, and instead spend money at places that cater to our views.
What he is suggesting would be more like the Montgomery bus boycott, without publicly admitting that you are boycotting.
LK
So then they come out with the H2, which is not really even a Hummer or anything like the HMMV -- the thing is a freakin' Suburban (or Tahoe or whatever) with some stupid looking grill on it to make you believe that Governer Arnold drives one of these things but he doesn't.
I agree that the H2 is butt-ugly, but it ain't no Suburban. The H2 is bigger and wider than any other "normal" full sized SUV.
I don't subscribe to all of the current anti-SUV hysteria(I drive a GMC S15 Jimmy), but some of them (like the H2) are just plain ugly.
LK
Cop cars have cameras, cameras can see IR.
A quick pulse of IR would look alot like reflected sunlight.
LK
The way to combat RIAA, etc isn't by shouting from the rooftops that you'll pirate/whatever you want to call it their music from now till doomsday.
You have the right to that opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.
What you're saying is akin to saying that the black people in the south of the US shouldn't have had sit-ins and protests. They should have just spent their money at the stores that treated them properly. They should have just ridden in the back of the bus.
The simple fact is this, music piracy can not be stopped. The RIAA can find a way to make money using new technology, or they can lose millions. People like this guy reminding them that they're using the wrong tactics is just what is needed.
LK
What I keep reading about is people talking about bans, revoked licenses, and prison time for what is in essence an IR flashlight.
WTF? This doesn't even pass the giggle test. some people out there want to make new laws to make it illegal to use an IR flashlight in your car!
If these devices were to recognize the color patterns of emergency vehicles would you people be talking about banning white colored cars with red or blue trim?
I don't get it, bans are good when it comes to things you don't like, but when someone tries to ban DeCSS or OSS you have a cow. How about being consistant here people.
LK
Should be the penalty for having one of these in your car. Period.
Question mark. What do you do if someone has a TV remote in his/her car?
LK
It proly wouldn't be too hard for the officer inside to look over at that screen and see a big bright spot on your car.
If you had it on all of the time, you'd be right. Like I said in my previous post, I'm talking about judicious use. If the officer in question happens to be looking at you while you use it, he or she might know you've just done something illegal, or it might look like sunlight reflecting off of your car.
LK
Since you're actually preaching the use of such devices in circumstances where they won't be easily caught, I'll find it to be extremely knee-slapping if someone in your family dies from the traffic flow being messed up by those devices, and the police was unable to find out who did it.
It is the price we pay for freedom. I have had relatives die because of gunshots. I blame the people who did the shooting, not the technology that enabled them to do so.
LK
Change a light with lots of people around and you just pissed off everyone in the opposite flow of traffic. Radar jammers are inconspicuous and don't affect anyone but the cops.
Properly implemented an infrared emitter wouldn't raise any more attention than a radar jammer.
Actually, license plate covers are Illegal in Illinois. That goes for tinted ones (I've seen some that were nearly black) and it extends to perfectly clear covers.
I'm glad I don't live there.
I hate jerk-weeds that drive around with smoked plastic over their license plates.
I personally think that they're stupid, but how does someone with a lense over their license plate effect you?
LK