Stargate is pretty much guaranteed to run its whole plot out without getting cancelled (since there's only 1 season left, and production is already a good deal underway). Unfortunately, the later seasons' plotlines aren't as good as the earler ones... but at least it's another to add to the list.
Also, there is ReBoot... well, sorta. They finished off the story started in season 2 when they were picked up (nearly 5 years later) for season 3. Then a few years later they got the greenlight to do new episodes and started a new major plot... just in time to get cancelled mid-plotline yet again! However, it is animated so it may not count in this list, anyway.
If I'm standing across the mexican border, and you are on the US side, and I take you out with a high-powered rifle... [...]
I have broken no US laws, right? Because I wasn't in the US at the time?
This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons:
1) This story is talking about something that is a "crime" in only one of the two places involved. Murder is a crime in both the US and Mexico.
2) The death ocurred in the US, even if you fired the gun in Mexico. Even if murder wasn't illegal in Mexico, the US would definitely charge you if it could get its hands on you, since the target was on US soil.
A better metaphor for the argument at hand would be:
I go to Amsterdam and buy some marijuana in a store (legally). I come back to the US and get busted for posession (of the pot I bought in Amsterdam). When interrogated as to who my dealer is, I give them the name of the guy who runs the pot bar in Amsterdam.
USA charges guy in Amsterdam with a crime. Does the Amsterdam police force make an arrest and extradite the shop owner?
--The Rizz
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer
Hmmm... well, maybe someone should just register some kind of appropriate, easy-to-remember domain name for this. Something like "SlashTorrent.net" or "SlashTorrent.org", perhaps?
--The Rizz
"Law-and-order candidates are rarely dangerous to criminals." --David Gerrold
However, I was thinking of a more "official" one, like "torrent.slashdot.org" or something like that. The site you mention is nice, but doesn't have a very easy to remember URL.
--The Rizz
"Some people have one-track gutters." --Harlan Ellison
As soon as I saw this on slashdot, I thought I'd quick take a look at it before it got swamped - I actually got all the images and videos downloaded before the site went down due to/. effect.
I was thinking I could put a.torrent of it up for download, but realized that I didn't have any tracker to post it to if I did make one...
Perhaps Shalsdot needs to look into providing a public tracker for backups of video/images/etc. from sites they link to.
--The Rizz
"The girl who swears no one has ever made love to her has a right to swear." --Sophia Loren
I recall that, as well - that time, though (if memory serves), the light was only reconstructed several feet away - the increase to a mile would be considered a significant step.
My big concern is how they will bring him back without making the plot totally absurd!
They actually set that up near the beginning of season 5 (in episode 3, "Ascension"), long before Jackson left the show. It is aparrently easy for any ascended being to become mortal again - it's ascending again that's difficult.
--The Rizz
"The only 'ism' that has justified itself is 'pessimism'." --George Orwell
As far as SG-1 goes, I kept Showtime for two years just for that show... and dropped it as soon as it moved over to sci-fi.
That's too bad, because you've missed out on what is looking to be the best new sci-fi show of the year; Jeremiah.
Some of the episodes have been fairly cheezy, but the "plot" episodes have been excellent. It is reminding me alot of Bablyon 5 - slow beginning with some weak episodes. In fact, Straczynski (of Bab5) is doing this series, too, and I think it's going to turn out to be one heck of a show.
--The Rizz
"Comedians and politicians each tell the audience what it wants to hear. The difference is that the audience laughs at the comedian and the politician laughs at the audience." --Alexis A. Gilliland
"... the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota..."
It seems like a plot by Senator Daschle, otherwise he had no chance to get reelected in 2004.
Try get the right state. Daschle is from South Dakota.
North Dakota's senators are Conrad and Dorgan.
--The Rizz
"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." --G. B. Shaw
I think the quality has gone up. Off the top of my head, in the last 3 years: Okay... let's take a look at these selections...
The Matrix, Not a very good movie - the whole draw of the movie is based upon the eye-candy involved. This is hardly a new idea - this just happened to be the first movie to have a passable enough plot and spectacular enough SFX to pull it off.
This one is an oddity, as it used the "classic Hollywood formula" and achieved success.
Toy Story 1 + 2, Shrek Well, on the one hand you've got Pixar (an indie company - even though they've been bought out they still act as one), and on the other you've got a group that reacted directly to Pixar, using the same formula for success.
Lord of the Rings, This movie was made based upon the drive of a single man, not the chaotic whims of the hollywood system.
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, A foreign film, and so should not be included in a list of Hollywood's achievements.
Spider-man, A so-so movie whose success can be attributed to the fact that it was made by a "cult" director out of an overly-popular comic book series. These two things together drew in so much hype, and such a large crowd, that its success was guaranteed as long as it wasn't completely fucked up.
American Beauty, Being John Malkovich Two independant films. I don't care who the production companies are - these films were indy scripts that got a few big name actors hooked on them, and those actors' names helped get the funding from Hollywood.
Fight Club, Traffic, Requiem For A Dream, I have to admit I have yet to see these films, so I will have to take your word for it on them...
That leaves us with probably 4 or 5 out of 12 movies that are actually what I would consider "Hollywood movies". The rest are movies that had little to do with Hollywood other than distribution and, possibly, funding. Hardly a stellar track record.
Don't forget how completely full of drek the early 90s were. The ratio of good-to-bad in studio films, IMHO, has improved. Oh, I don't know about that. Just off the top of my head, the following all came from the early 90's: Shawshank Redemption, The Fisher King, Scent of a Woman, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Twelve Monkeys, Clerks, Goodfellas, The Usual Suspects, Far and Away, and Desperado.
--The Rizz
"When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters--one represents danger and the other represents opportunity." --John F. Kennedy
you can sell copies of 'Steamboat Willie' and 'Plane Crazy', but you won't be able to print Mickey's name or likeness anywhere on the box.
That is incorrect. If you use Mickey's likeness from the "Steamboat Willie" cartoon, you can put it on the box. Also, if Mickey's name appears anywhere in the cartoon (I haven't seen it in years, so I don't remember if it does), then you can freely use it in anything relating to that product.
--The Rizz
"I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." --Victor Hugo
the 1946 movie, "It's a Wonderful Life" has made millions for public and commercial teevee even though it lapsed into the public domain through oversight. it's certainly created more value than any of its comtemporary films that are still under copyright.
That movie actually has the value it does specifically because it fell out of copyright.
That movie was a massive flop, losing the studio money and sitting unused in a vault for years and years until the copyright ran out.
Fast-forward a few years - TV stations are swamped with royalty payments for their shows, and need something to put on during the Christmas season. Someone notices this crappy little film that nobody really liked or remembers... but it's royalty-free, so we're gonna play it constantly to fill airtime. (Heck, it's even directed by Frank Capra and stars James Stewart and Donna Reed, so it might even pull a small audience.)
Now fast-forward to a few years later - everyone in the US has seen that show dozens of times every year at Christmas. Watching it has become a tradition... Suddenly it's no longer that crappy little film, but one of the most popular Christmas classics of all time.
If It's a Wonderful Life had remained in copyright, it would have been lost with all those other barely-remembered movies from the 1940s.
--The Rizz
"The more things change, the more they remain insane." --Johnny Carson
Actually, I was just quoting the list prices. If you want to talk bargain shopper pricing, you can get a whole season of Farscape for about $120, and a whole season of Stargate for $45.
That's still quite a large difference - Farscape is over twice the cost (almost 3x, in fact).
They are released by ADV Films, who are not a member of the MPAA
Perhaps not, but they do put out their series at prohibitively high prices. $25 for 2 episodes? The series may be good, but $275 per season is a bit much for me...
Stargate SG-1, on the other hand, sells for only $70 per season. True, it's an MPAA company, but at least they're not going to bankrupt me if I want to buy their shows.
I also heard that a bigger-budget version was being done, but that was only one rumor.
There is definitely a movie at some stage of production, but the last information I know of was from a little over two years ago, when Richard Loncraine had been signed as the director (although there were later rumors that he might not be directing due to a schedule conflict).
Jim Henson's production company and Dimension Films are the companies involved.
Aparrently the filming was supposed to be starting the spring/summer of 2001, but I have heard nothing on it since then, so the current status is unknown (at least to me).
--The Rizz
"Grandpa died and was resurrected after three days, but no one called him the Son of God; they just said, 'Hey, that's Gramps!'" --Steve Martin
Well, for Windows, there's always the Font Creator Program from High-Logic.
Granted, it's not open source, and it's not free (it's shareware), but it seems to work OK.
[Re: License to own guns] I pretty much agree with this sentiment, as long as (1) the barrier to obtaining such a license isn't set too high and (2) such a license also functions as a concealed carry permit and has nationwide reciprocity (just like a driver's license).
Well, here I'd say (1) agreed, and (2) I'll definitely agree on the reciprocity. As for the concealed carry, I think that's an issue that needs more looking into - there are pros and cons to the "universal conceal & carry" laws, and I've never seen anything to convince me conclusively one way or another.
[Re: Registering guns for tracking] This creates a problem. The old saw that registration leads to confiscation is an old saw for a reason: it's happened too many times before in the real world.
So has racial cleansing and a fascist police state. We just have to hope that it doesn't happen here.
Frankly, though, I see only two situations where a government with widespread gun ownership will try this: when it becomes (or is on the verge of becoming) a fascist state (at which point I, who have never even fired a gun, will borrow one from my neighbor and help with the open revolt), or when the country becomes so peaceful guns are not seen to ever be needed again (at which point it would be so peaceful you wouldn't NEED to try take them away).
And registration does zip, zero, nothing, to prevent firearms from being stolen and winding up in the hands of a gangbanger or convicted felon;
You are confusing the issue; that's not the point of registration. The point is that when a gun is used in a crime, the police have a starting point to use in tracking down who used the gun. In this way it is much the same as license plates: The license plate does not prevent a gangbanger or convicted felon from stealing the car - but when a car is seen leaving a crime, the license plate is used to help the police track down who did the crime by giving them a starting point for the investigation.
[Re: heavy weaponry] You'll be glad to know that this restriction is in place and is vigorously enforced. One needs a Class III permit to legally own an automatic weapon or a destructive device; these permits are a real bitch to get your hands on, as they require an extensive background check, approval from local law enforcement, and $200 for the tax stamp
Strange that it would require local law enforcement's approval - if the Feds are willing to let you have it, I'd say that should be the main consideration. As for making it difficult to get, a friend of mine once met a "gun enthusiast" who owned a surface-to-air missile. Frankly, I think I'll sleep a little better at night knowing this guy passed a "real bitch to get your hands on" level of check before being allowed to buy this sort of thing. Now, I don't think a plain old automatic weapon, even an M-60 or similar, should really be lumped into the same category with that class of hardware - perhaps a "Class 2.5" or similar needs to be introduced, but that's not really what we're discussing here...
If the BATF even thinks you own an automatic weapon or a similar Class III device without the proper stamp, they go in with guns blazing, often with disasterous results (Waco, Ruby Ridge).
This, however, is a policy problem with the BATF and not a problem with the laws involved.
I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms,
Now you're getting into semantics. Just because one is defined in the Constitution, and the other in the larger body of law, should not be seen as giving one of them more value than the other. The constitution does not grant the right to get married, get an education, or even eat food, but few are trying to say those things are "privileges" and not rights.
--The Rizz
"Support the right of unborn males to bear arms!" --A public service announcement from Phyllis Schlafly, the Catholic Church, and the National Rifle Association
Such weapons are called Class III weapons and a member of the public CAN get them legally by paying a $200 tax surcharge on the firearm. [...] Also anyone with a FFL (Federal Firearm License - i.e. a licensed gun dealer) can own and traffic in Class III weapons as long as the paperwork is done right.
Well, I'd probably say that a simple "Class III Weapons License" (with a required safety course) would be better than an extra per-purchase tax, but that's more or less what I meant - even weapons that no average citizen would ever have a serious use for can be owned. I think that this sort of thing is just fine, so long as it is determined in a way that allows any reasonably stable person to own what they want to.
--The Rizz
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it." --Ronald Reagan
when the first gun was made, they didn't need to make a new law for that Try to tell that to a liberal.
Okay, I'm a liberal - try tell it to me.
I beleive that a gun is just a tool, and it's the people who pull the triggers that do the harm. Also, I don't beleive there needs to be any sort of extra laws passed for the "special case" of when a gun is used.
I do, however, believe that you should need a license use a gun (in the same way that you need a license to drive a car). I also beleive that guns should be registered for the purposes of tracking ownership (in the same way you have to register a car). I also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public... at least, not without special permits (much like you need a special class of license to drive a semi - you can't drive one with the same type of license you get to drive your car).
Now, I'm a liberal and beleive these things - that except in the case of those who have done something to lose the right (such as commit murder or armed robbery), or have it be proven that it is an actual danger to allow the posession of a gun (a mental imbalance causing, for example, paranoia and violent tendancies), the government should never take away a person's right to own a gun. Also, 90% of my friends, many of whom are liberals, beleive these things as well.
Now then, what exactly were you going to "try tell a liberal" again?
--The Rizz
"I belong to no organized party--I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers
I thought it was against some kind of law that phone solicitors could not call your cellular phone anyway? (Correct me if I am wrong)
Actually, I think it's only illegal because it costs you extra money (via the per-minute charges) when they call you - if it's your own phone company, and they don't bill you for those minutes, they may be able to get around that restriction.
--The Rizz
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer
After watching season 1, I was actually surprised that it caught on. It must just hit the right nerve.
If all you watched was season 1, I can see why you thought that. There are only about 3 or 4 episodes in the first season I'd ever go back and watch - the rest of them were absolute crap.
Once you get into the second season, however, things start to get MUCH, MUCH better! Go watch season 2 before you write the show off.
--The Rizz
"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." --G.B. Shaw
I have to say, SG-1 is definitely the better of the two shows, for just the reason you've mentioned:
Farscape got to be too soap-opera most of the time.
Granted, SG-1 can get kinda soapy from tiem to time as well, but at least those episodes are in the minority, and are almost never anything except subplot.
--The Rizz
"It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have given up believing in the devil when he is the only explanation of it." --Ronald Knox
I have, and continue to boycott "Gattaca". That's obvious. If you'd ever seen it, you wouldn't have posted this message.
Gattaca may have a few themes in common with Brave New World, but it is hardly a rip-off of it.
The themes it shares are the same ones shared with other dystopian novels/movies/whatever. Is Brazil just a rip-off of 1984? Is THX-1138 nothing more than a rewrite of We?
Similarities exist between all these books/movies. Not because any of them specifically copy one another, but because they all are in the same genre, and draw upon the same basic ideas.
Perhaps you should try to actually watch the movie before you start telling people it's nothing more than a rip-off of another work.
--The Rizz
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." --Mark Twain
While the CHANNEL is sci-fi, the SHOW is fantasy. Do you read Lord of the Rings or Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and think "oh man, there's so little scientific fact in these!". Of course not. They're from the fantasy genre... not science fiction. Same with Farscape.
Yes, but the what I was refuting was that the show was the "best scifi on TV".
Now, the best fantasy show in a scifi setting? Yeah, I could probably go for that.
Also, the other problem is that it's not just the lack of realistic science I don't like. It's the soap opera feel to it.
Don't get me wrong, though - I like the show, and watch Farscape on a regular basis. I just don't think it's as good as Stargate: SG-1 (which, IMHO, has superior plotlines and writing).
--The Rizz
"Television is democracy at its ugliest." --Paddy Chayefsky
Slashdot Mirror
Stargate is pretty much guaranteed to run its whole plot out without getting cancelled (since there's only 1 season left, and production is already a good deal underway). Unfortunately, the later seasons' plotlines aren't as good as the earler ones... but at least it's another to add to the list.
... well, sorta. They finished off the story started in season 2 when they were picked up (nearly 5 years later) for season 3. Then a few years later they got the greenlight to do new episodes and started a new major plot ... just in time to get cancelled mid-plotline yet again!
Also, there is ReBoot
However, it is animated so it may not count in this list, anyway.
[...]
I have broken no US laws, right? Because I wasn't in the US at the time?
This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons:
1) This story is talking about something that is a "crime" in only one of the two places involved. Murder is a crime in both the US and Mexico.
2) The death ocurred in the US, even if you fired the gun in Mexico. Even if murder wasn't illegal in Mexico, the US would definitely charge you if it could get its hands on you, since the target was on US soil.
A better metaphor for the argument at hand would be:
I go to Amsterdam and buy some marijuana in a store (legally). I come back to the US and get busted for posession (of the pot I bought in Amsterdam). When interrogated as to who my dealer is, I give them the name of the guy who runs the pot bar in Amsterdam.
USA charges guy in Amsterdam with a crime. Does the Amsterdam police force make an arrest and extradite the shop owner?
--The Rizz
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer
Hmmm... well, maybe someone should just register some kind of appropriate, easy-to-remember domain name for this. Something like "SlashTorrent.net" or "SlashTorrent.org", perhaps?
--The Rizz
"Law-and-order candidates are rarely dangerous to criminals." --David Gerrold
Yes, like that one.
However, I was thinking of a more "official" one, like "torrent.slashdot.org" or something like that. The site you mention is nice, but doesn't have a very easy to remember URL.
--The Rizz
"Some people have one-track gutters." --Harlan Ellison
As soon as I saw this on slashdot, I thought I'd quick take a look at it before it got swamped - I actually got all the images and videos downloaded before the site went down due to /. effect.
.torrent of it up for download, but realized that I didn't have any tracker to post it to if I did make one...
I was thinking I could put a
Perhaps Shalsdot needs to look into providing a public tracker for backups of video/images/etc. from sites they link to.
--The Rizz
"The girl who swears no one has ever made love to her has a right to swear." --Sophia Loren
I recall that, as well - that time, though (if memory serves), the light was only reconstructed several feet away - the increase to a mile would be considered a significant step.
They actually set that up near the beginning of season 5 (in episode 3, "Ascension"), long before Jackson left the show. It is aparrently easy for any ascended being to become mortal again - it's ascending again that's difficult.
--The Rizz
"The only 'ism' that has justified itself is 'pessimism'." --George Orwell
That's too bad, because you've missed out on what is looking to be the best new sci-fi show of the year; Jeremiah.
Some of the episodes have been fairly cheezy, but the "plot" episodes have been excellent. It is reminding me alot of Bablyon 5 - slow beginning with some weak episodes. In fact, Straczynski (of Bab5) is doing this series, too, and I think it's going to turn out to be one heck of a show.
--The Rizz
"Comedians and politicians each tell the audience what it wants to hear. The difference is that the audience laughs at the comedian and the politician laughs at the audience." --Alexis A. Gilliland
It seems like a plot by Senator Daschle, otherwise he had no chance to get reelected in 2004.
Try get the right state. Daschle is from South Dakota.
North Dakota's senators are Conrad and Dorgan.
--The Rizz
"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." --G. B. Shaw
Okay... let's take a look at these selections...
The Matrix,
Not a very good movie - the whole draw of the movie is based upon the eye-candy involved. This is hardly a new idea - this just happened to be the first movie to have a passable enough plot and spectacular enough SFX to pull it off.
This one is an oddity, as it used the "classic Hollywood formula" and achieved success.
Toy Story 1 + 2, Shrek
Well, on the one hand you've got Pixar (an indie company - even though they've been bought out they still act as one), and on the other you've got a group that reacted directly to Pixar, using the same formula for success.
Lord of the Rings,
This movie was made based upon the drive of a single man, not the chaotic whims of the hollywood system.
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon,
A foreign film, and so should not be included in a list of Hollywood's achievements.
Spider-man,
A so-so movie whose success can be attributed to the fact that it was made by a "cult" director out of an overly-popular comic book series. These two things together drew in so much hype, and such a large crowd, that its success was guaranteed as long as it wasn't completely fucked up.
American Beauty, Being John Malkovich
Two independant films. I don't care who the production companies are - these films were indy scripts that got a few big name actors hooked on them, and those actors' names helped get the funding from Hollywood.
Fight Club, Traffic, Requiem For A Dream,
I have to admit I have yet to see these films, so I will have to take your word for it on them...
That leaves us with probably 4 or 5 out of 12 movies that are actually what I would consider "Hollywood movies". The rest are movies that had little to do with Hollywood other than distribution and, possibly, funding. Hardly a stellar track record.
Don't forget how completely full of drek the early 90s were. The ratio of good-to-bad in studio films, IMHO, has improved.
Oh, I don't know about that. Just off the top of my head, the following all came from the early 90's: Shawshank Redemption, The Fisher King, Scent of a Woman, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Twelve Monkeys, Clerks, Goodfellas, The Usual Suspects, Far and Away, and Desperado.
--The Rizz
"When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters--one represents danger and the other represents opportunity." --John F. Kennedy
That is incorrect. If you use Mickey's likeness from the "Steamboat Willie" cartoon, you can put it on the box. Also, if Mickey's name appears anywhere in the cartoon (I haven't seen it in years, so I don't remember if it does), then you can freely use it in anything relating to that product.
--The Rizz
"I don't mind what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." --Victor Hugo
That movie actually has the value it does specifically because it fell out of copyright.
That movie was a massive flop, losing the studio money and sitting unused in a vault for years and years until the copyright ran out.
Fast-forward a few years - TV stations are swamped with royalty payments for their shows, and need something to put on during the Christmas season. Someone notices this crappy little film that nobody really liked or remembers... but it's royalty-free, so we're gonna play it constantly to fill airtime. (Heck, it's even directed by Frank Capra and stars James Stewart and Donna Reed, so it might even pull a small audience.)
Now fast-forward to a few years later - everyone in the US has seen that show dozens of times every year at Christmas. Watching it has become a tradition... Suddenly it's no longer that crappy little film, but one of the most popular Christmas classics of all time.
If It's a Wonderful Life had remained in copyright, it would have been lost with all those other barely-remembered movies from the 1940s.
--The Rizz
"The more things change, the more they remain insane." --Johnny Carson
Actually, I was just quoting the list prices. If you want to talk bargain shopper pricing, you can get a whole season of Farscape for about $120, and a whole season of Stargate for $45.
That's still quite a large difference - Farscape is over twice the cost (almost 3x, in fact).
--The Rizz
Perhaps not, but they do put out their series at prohibitively high prices. $25 for 2 episodes? The series may be good, but $275 per season is a bit much for me...
Stargate SG-1, on the other hand, sells for only $70 per season. True, it's an MPAA company, but at least they're not going to bankrupt me if I want to buy their shows.
--The Rizz
There is definitely a movie at some stage of production, but the last information I know of was from a little over two years ago, when Richard Loncraine had been signed as the director (although there were later rumors that he might not be directing due to a schedule conflict).
Jim Henson's production company and Dimension Films are the companies involved.
Aparrently the filming was supposed to be starting the spring/summer of 2001, but I have heard nothing on it since then, so the current status is unknown (at least to me).
--The Rizz
"Grandpa died and was resurrected after three days, but no one called him the Son of God; they just said, 'Hey, that's Gramps!'" --Steve Martin
Well, for Windows, there's always the Font Creator Program from High-Logic. Granted, it's not open source, and it's not free (it's shareware), but it seems to work OK.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment, as long as (1) the barrier to obtaining such a license isn't set too high and (2) such a license also functions as a concealed carry permit and has nationwide reciprocity (just like a driver's license).
Well, here I'd say (1) agreed, and (2) I'll definitely agree on the reciprocity. As for the concealed carry, I think that's an issue that needs more looking into - there are pros and cons to the "universal conceal & carry" laws, and I've never seen anything to convince me conclusively one way or another.
[Re: Registering guns for tracking]
This creates a problem. The old saw that registration leads to confiscation is an old saw for a reason: it's happened too many times before in the real world.
So has racial cleansing and a fascist police state. We just have to hope that it doesn't happen here.
Frankly, though, I see only two situations where a government with widespread gun ownership will try this: when it becomes (or is on the verge of becoming) a fascist state (at which point I, who have never even fired a gun, will borrow one from my neighbor and help with the open revolt), or when the country becomes so peaceful guns are not seen to ever be needed again (at which point it would be so peaceful you wouldn't NEED to try take them away).
And registration does zip, zero, nothing, to prevent firearms from being stolen and winding up in the hands of a gangbanger or convicted felon;
You are confusing the issue; that's not the point of registration. The point is that when a gun is used in a crime, the police have a starting point to use in tracking down who used the gun. In this way it is much the same as license plates: The license plate does not prevent a gangbanger or convicted felon from stealing the car - but when a car is seen leaving a crime, the license plate is used to help the police track down who did the crime by giving them a starting point for the investigation.
[Re: heavy weaponry]
You'll be glad to know that this restriction is in place and is vigorously enforced. One needs a Class III permit to legally own an automatic weapon or a destructive device; these permits are a real bitch to get your hands on, as they require an extensive background check, approval from local law enforcement, and $200 for the tax stamp
Strange that it would require local law enforcement's approval - if the Feds are willing to let you have it, I'd say that should be the main consideration.
As for making it difficult to get, a friend of mine once met a "gun enthusiast" who owned a surface-to-air missile. Frankly, I think I'll sleep a little better at night knowing this guy passed a "real bitch to get your hands on" level of check before being allowed to buy this sort of thing.
Now, I don't think a plain old automatic weapon, even an M-60 or similar, should really be lumped into the same category with that class of hardware - perhaps a "Class 2.5" or similar needs to be introduced, but that's not really what we're discussing here...
If the BATF even thinks you own an automatic weapon or a similar Class III device without the proper stamp, they go in with guns blazing, often with disasterous results (Waco, Ruby Ridge).
This, however, is a policy problem with the BATF and not a problem with the laws involved.
I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms,
Now you're getting into semantics. Just because one is defined in the Constitution, and the other in the larger body of law, should not be seen as giving one of them more value than the other. The constitution does not grant the right to get married, get an education, or even eat food, but few are trying to say those things are "privileges" and not rights.
--The Rizz
"Support the right of unborn males to bear arms!" --A public service announcement from Phyllis Schlafly, the Catholic Church, and the National Rifle Association
[...]
Also anyone with a FFL (Federal Firearm License - i.e. a licensed gun dealer) can own and traffic in Class III weapons as long as the paperwork is done right.
Well, I'd probably say that a simple "Class III Weapons License" (with a required safety course) would be better than an extra per-purchase tax, but that's more or less what I meant - even weapons that no average citizen would ever have a serious use for can be owned. I think that this sort of thing is just fine, so long as it is determined in a way that allows any reasonably stable person to own what they want to.
--The Rizz
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it." --Ronald Reagan
Try to tell that to a liberal.
Okay, I'm a liberal - try tell it to me.
I beleive that a gun is just a tool, and it's the people who pull the triggers that do the harm.
Also, I don't beleive there needs to be any sort of extra laws passed for the "special case" of when a gun is used.
I do, however, believe that you should need a license use a gun (in the same way that you need a license to drive a car). ... at least, not without special permits (much like you need a special class of license to drive a semi - you can't drive one with the same type of license you get to drive your car).
I also beleive that guns should be registered for the purposes of tracking ownership (in the same way you have to register a car).
I also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public
Now, I'm a liberal and beleive these things - that except in the case of those who have done something to lose the right (such as commit murder or armed robbery), or have it be proven that it is an actual danger to allow the posession of a gun (a mental imbalance causing, for example, paranoia and violent tendancies), the government should never take away a person's right to own a gun.
Also, 90% of my friends, many of whom are liberals, beleive these things as well.
Now then, what exactly were you going to "try tell a liberal" again?
--The Rizz
"I belong to no organized party--I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers
Actually, I think it's only illegal because it costs you extra money (via the per-minute charges) when they call you - if it's your own phone company, and they don't bill you for those minutes, they may be able to get around that restriction.
--The Rizz
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer
If all you watched was season 1, I can see why you thought that. There are only about 3 or 4 episodes in the first season I'd ever go back and watch - the rest of them were absolute crap.
Once you get into the second season, however, things start to get MUCH, MUCH better! Go watch season 2 before you write the show off.
--The Rizz
"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." --G.B. Shaw
Farscape got to be too soap-opera most of the time.
Granted, SG-1 can get kinda soapy from tiem to time as well, but at least those episodes are in the minority, and are almost never anything except subplot.
--The Rizz
"It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have given up believing in the devil when he is the only explanation of it." --Ronald Knox
--The Rizz
"The trouble with finding your place in the eye of the storm is, you're basically surrounded." --D.C. Simpson
I have, and continue to boycott "Gattaca".
That's obvious. If you'd ever seen it, you wouldn't have posted this message.
Gattaca may have a few themes in common with Brave New World, but it is hardly a rip-off of it.
The themes it shares are the same ones shared with other dystopian novels/movies/whatever. Is Brazil just a rip-off of 1984? Is THX-1138 nothing more than a rewrite of We?
Similarities exist between all these books/movies. Not because any of them specifically copy one another, but because they all are in the same genre, and draw upon the same basic ideas.
Perhaps you should try to actually watch the movie before you start telling people it's nothing more than a rip-off of another work.
--The Rizz
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." --Mark Twain
Yes, but the what I was refuting was that the show was the "best scifi on TV".
Now, the best fantasy show in a scifi setting? Yeah, I could probably go for that.
Also, the other problem is that it's not just the lack of realistic science I don't like. It's the soap opera feel to it.
Don't get me wrong, though - I like the show, and watch Farscape on a regular basis. I just don't think it's as good as Stargate: SG-1 (which, IMHO, has superior plotlines and writing).
--The Rizz
"Television is democracy at its ugliest." --Paddy Chayefsky