Hmm, that reminds me of one of the senior Bush's campaign slogan, something like "Vote Bush to Annoy the Media". Both pithy statements, and both idiotic motives to base your decisions on.
Amazing how you fail to make a logical connection here. By your own faulty rationale, we should then ban stairs, ladders, swimming pools, alcohol, and cars.
Nope. I actually, am against gun control, for some of the same reasons that have been cited by others.
Good going, Jack - you win the door prize for "stupid premise - stupid conclusion".
Quite witty of you, but you've apparently misread everything I wrote. The argument was, "anti-gun legislation has no effect on gun deaths". That is, quite simply, incorrect. It does, and has had, an effect. Now you might argue that it has LITTLE effect, or ALMOST no effect, but that's quite a different logical construction than NO effect.
However, I don't simplify the other side's position so I can put up an easily-knocked-down strawman. Restricting firearms WOULD cut down on gun deaths. The question becomes, is it worth the lessening of freedom required? Some people say yes, some people say no, but both sides come up with poor arguments while doing so. The difference between me and those attacking me on this thread are I prefer to speak with PRECISION.
Yes, you should. And every gun-toting, Ayn Rand-reading, welfare-bashing one of you would say the same thing if you needed one and couldn't afford the surgery. And anyone who says otherwise is lying.
If we prevent just one death then the law will have been worth it.
So you think it would only prevent one death?
this means that of the approximately 30,000 people who were murdered last year, about 3,000 were killed with guns.
Wait, you just said one person, now you're saying 3,000? There's a difference, you know. Maybe some people think that it WOULD be worth it to save 3,000.
You're aware of the logical construction of this argument, right? All I have to do is find a single example of gun laws preventing a single ex-convict from obtaining a single handgun, and your statement is disproven.
Prohibition has been used as an analogy for just about everything. It doesn't really fit the mold, though; liquor was legal everywhere else in the world, so importation was easy. Guns, however, are far more restricted everywhere else than they are in the US, and there are a lot fewer manufacturers (it's much easier to make liquor than to manufacture guns).
Secondly, it's not that easy to get an illegal gun. I'm constantly hearing people declare how they can "go down to a van on the street and buy an uzi off it"; these tend to be suburbanites who couldn't take a cross-town bus without getting lost, let alone contact gunrunners. Yes, there are people who sell illegal guns. No, they don't do it openly on the street. Laws that prevent the easy sale of guns WILL cut down on the amount of gun deaths. It will not eliminate it, but laws shouldn't be passed only when we're positive they'll never be broken.
. We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.
In the issue under debate, these laws will regulate minors, not adults. Minors shouldn't be granted the same freedoms as adults.
You know something, I remember plenty of violent, unpleasant, and sexually explicit images I saw as a kid, and you know what; I'd rather I hadn't seen them. The fact that they're still with me shows that things we can brush off now can have an entirely different effect on children.
The problem is parents who do not take an active role in the kids lives.
You can't legislate against bad parenting. You CAN legislate to reduce the amount of guns and violent video games in kids' hands. Yes, it's an imperfect solution, but guess what: it's an imperfect world.
You are a fool to think that kids or criminals who want to get a hold of a new video game, or a firearm is going to be thwarted by some new legislation.
Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands? Or that theaters NEVER turned away ANY child under 18 from an R-rated movie? Yes, a lot of guns and violent video games will fall through the cracks, but that doesn't mean the legislation will have 0 effect.
Good lord, does anyone on this board know how to understand simple English, or have even a rudimentary understanding of the world you live in? One, he was not talking about Africa, he was talking about South Africa in particular. Two, as anyone not completely ignorant about the subject knows, Africa in general has a scarcity of natural resources. South Africa probably does have more than the rest of the continent. It may even have as wide a variety as any other country on earth. But for you to claim that it has more, by volume, is idiotic.
Oh really, the only thing that South Africa really has to import is steel and iron. I suggest you read a book on South Africa.
They have the most resources? MOST? Just because they have a fair amount of resources doesn't mean they have the MOST in the world. They don't have more than the United States, or China, or Russia. They just don't.
Given that they are hurting right now, due to a glut of screens, this is not likely.
Of course, a digital screen could help them edge out the competition.
br.
One sign that they're really desperate for customers is how a lot of theaters in my area replaced their economy class seating with some truly luxurious captain's chairs.
Looks like IPO's for internet companies can still bring in something.
IPOs always bring in something; an IPO just means that the institutions that are underwriting it buy a set amount of stock, then offer it for sale on the market. The company itself risks nothing, as the stock was bought for an agreed-upon price beforehand.
It wasn't that great. The little of it that I saw seemed to be fairly generic sunday-afternoon syndicated science fiction, with nothing particularly new or original.
Please, read Brin. He's got a much more thoughtful (and productive) take on how to maintain a reasonable balance of power between individuals and institutions than mainstream civil libertarianism.
Of course I read Brin, otherwise I wouldn't have commented. But you're missing the point.
Maybe you should reread the thread again; I was replying to a poster that brought up another point, not Brin. If I was replying to Brin it would have been as a standalone comment.
Just like the guy whose company owns the billboards probably never has to see them. And I'm sure the CEOs of the telecom companies aren't spammed by telemarketers.
And mark my words, in 100 years when the Earth's atmosphere becomes too toxic to breathe, it's the people who own the factories who are going to be the first to get the oxygen masks...
What we really need is a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy; the only problem is the Constitution places limits on the power of government, not private individuals/corporations. So while it would be nice for it to be easier to prevent the government from spying on us, we still have the problem of corporations eager to figure out what breakfast cereals we prefer.
It'll wane; I just hope it wanes enough before the next election.
My prediction; Bush will probably hold onto popularity long enough for a second term. Unless he vetoes campaign finance reform, in which case I think McCain will very publicly not endorse him, costing him the few percentage points he needs to win.
Now I have to remember to check this old post in 3 year.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, now we accidently kill the wrong process and we become murderers.
Hmm, that reminds me of one of the senior Bush's campaign slogan, something like "Vote Bush to Annoy the Media". Both pithy statements, and both idiotic motives to base your decisions on.
Amazing how you fail to make a logical connection here. By your own faulty rationale, we should then ban stairs, ladders, swimming pools, alcohol, and cars.
Nope. I actually, am against gun control, for some of the same reasons that have been cited by others.
Good going, Jack - you win the door prize for "stupid premise - stupid conclusion".
Quite witty of you, but you've apparently misread everything I wrote. The argument was, "anti-gun legislation has no effect on gun deaths". That is, quite simply, incorrect. It does, and has had, an effect. Now you might argue that it has LITTLE effect, or ALMOST no effect, but that's quite a different logical construction than NO effect.
However, I don't simplify the other side's position so I can put up an easily-knocked-down strawman. Restricting firearms WOULD cut down on gun deaths. The question becomes, is it worth the lessening of freedom required? Some people say yes, some people say no, but both sides come up with poor arguments while doing so. The difference between me and those attacking me on this thread are I prefer to speak with PRECISION.
Yes, you should. And every gun-toting, Ayn Rand-reading, welfare-bashing one of you would say the same thing if you needed one and couldn't afford the surgery. And anyone who says otherwise is lying.
like enron embracing campaign finance reform.
Better analogy--like Enron embracing the Kyoto Treaty. Which they did, but not for any moral or ethical reasons...
If we prevent just one death then the law will have been worth it.
So you think it would only prevent one death?
this means that of the approximately 30,000 people who were murdered last year, about 3,000 were killed with guns.
Wait, you just said one person, now you're saying 3,000? There's a difference, you know. Maybe some people think that it WOULD be worth it to save 3,000.
I would be suggesting exactly that.
You're aware of the logical construction of this argument, right? All I have to do is find a single example of gun laws preventing a single ex-convict from obtaining a single handgun, and your statement is disproven.
Prohibition has been used as an analogy for just about everything. It doesn't really fit the mold, though; liquor was legal everywhere else in the world, so importation was easy. Guns, however, are far more restricted everywhere else than they are in the US, and there are a lot fewer manufacturers (it's much easier to make liquor than to manufacture guns).
Secondly, it's not that easy to get an illegal gun. I'm constantly hearing people declare how they can "go down to a van on the street and buy an uzi off it"; these tend to be suburbanites who couldn't take a cross-town bus without getting lost, let alone contact gunrunners. Yes, there are people who sell illegal guns. No, they don't do it openly on the street. Laws that prevent the easy sale of guns WILL cut down on the amount of gun deaths. It will not eliminate it, but laws shouldn't be passed only when we're positive they'll never be broken.
. We expect laws to provide reasonable limits on our behaviour, not to dictate our lives.
In the issue under debate, these laws will regulate minors, not adults. Minors shouldn't be granted the same freedoms as adults.
You know something, I remember plenty of violent, unpleasant, and sexually explicit images I saw as a kid, and you know what; I'd rather I hadn't seen them. The fact that they're still with me shows that things we can brush off now can have an entirely different effect on children.
The problem is parents who do not take an active role in the kids lives.
You can't legislate against bad parenting. You CAN legislate to reduce the amount of guns and violent video games in kids' hands. Yes, it's an imperfect solution, but guess what: it's an imperfect world.
You are a fool to think that kids or criminals who want to get a hold of a new video game, or a firearm is going to be thwarted by some new legislation.
Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gun legislation has NEVER prevented guns falling into the wrong hands? Or that theaters NEVER turned away ANY child under 18 from an R-rated movie? Yes, a lot of guns and violent video games will fall through the cracks, but that doesn't mean the legislation will have 0 effect.
Its becuase they get alot of pressure from people who actually take the time and write to them
How DARE those elected officials devise new laws by listening to their constituents. What do they think this is, a democracy?
Yes, it was inelegant, and clumsy, and 16 bit, but near the end it was extremely fast and really stable. I still have fond memories of 6.2.
Good lord, does anyone on this board know how to understand simple English, or have even a rudimentary understanding of the world you live in? One, he was not talking about Africa, he was talking about South Africa in particular. Two, as anyone not completely ignorant about the subject knows, Africa in general has a scarcity of natural resources. South Africa probably does have more than the rest of the continent. It may even have as wide a variety as any other country on earth. But for you to claim that it has more, by volume, is idiotic.
Oh really, the only thing that South Africa really has to import is steel and iron. I suggest you read a book on South Africa.
They have the most resources? MOST? Just because they have a fair amount of resources doesn't mean they have the MOST in the world. They don't have more than the United States, or China, or Russia. They just don't.
Given that they are hurting right now, due to a glut of screens, this is not likely.
Of course, a digital screen could help them edge out the competition.
br. One sign that they're really desperate for customers is how a lot of theaters in my area replaced their economy class seating with some truly luxurious captain's chairs.
Looks like IPO's for internet companies can still bring in something.
IPOs always bring in something; an IPO just means that the institutions that are underwriting it buy a set amount of stock, then offer it for sale on the market. The company itself risks nothing, as the stock was bought for an agreed-upon price beforehand.
If the stock tanks, they still get 70 million.
The term "third world" is pretty much useless; it lumps too many people into one category.
South Africa isn't a third world country, but neither is it fully modernized; a large segment of the population live in abject poverty.
And South Africa does NOT have "the most resources" of any country on Earth. That's just insanely wrong. Good grief, it's not even close.
Head over to the Skeptics Society's web page if you want to read a good debunking of John Edwards.
It wasn't that great. The little of it that I saw seemed to be fairly generic sunday-afternoon syndicated science fiction, with nothing particularly new or original.
Please, read Brin. He's got a much more thoughtful (and productive) take on how to maintain a reasonable balance of power between individuals and institutions than mainstream civil libertarianism.
Of course I read Brin, otherwise I wouldn't have commented. But you're missing the point.
Maybe you should reread the thread again; I was replying to a poster that brought up another point, not Brin. If I was replying to Brin it would have been as a standalone comment.
I just hope *I'm* still going at 82 like this guy.
I hope that when I'm 82 I spend my days lying on a beach, being served cold drinks by my 18-year-old wife.
Good point.
Just like the guy whose company owns the billboards probably never has to see them. And I'm sure the CEOs of the telecom companies aren't spammed by telemarketers.
And mark my words, in 100 years when the Earth's atmosphere becomes too toxic to breathe, it's the people who own the factories who are going to be the first to get the oxygen masks...
Or the 9th...
What we really need is a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy; the only problem is the Constitution places limits on the power of government, not private individuals/corporations. So while it would be nice for it to be easier to prevent the government from spying on us, we still have the problem of corporations eager to figure out what breakfast cereals we prefer.
Only on slashdot would the third pre-release of a software package be considered front page news.
No, I'm not complaining, I just think it's funny...
Is that the kind of world we want?
Yes.
It'll wane; I just hope it wanes enough before the next election.
My prediction; Bush will probably hold onto popularity long enough for a second term. Unless he vetoes campaign finance reform, in which case I think McCain will very publicly not endorse him, costing him the few percentage points he needs to win.
Now I have to remember to check this old post in 3 year.