That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
You can't walk with a gun into any business that has a sign saying that firearms are not allowed, even if you have a concealed carry permit. Convenience stores post those signs, if a bank (or any other business) wants to make it illegal to walk in there with a gun then all they need to do is put a sign up. A business without a sign can still ask you to remove your gun provided that they have a secure place for you to store it while you're there. There are other places where you're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, for example within a certain range of a school. You're never allowed to bring a weapon to a polling place on the day of the election. You also can't walk into Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station with a gun, or secured areas of the airport, or a jail. You can walk into a bar with a gun as long as the owner doesn't prohibit it, but you can't drink alcohol with a gun on you.
But you know what's prohibited here? Nunchucks. That's not a joke, either. You can walk down the street without a license carrying a loaded shotgun in each hand, handguns strapped all over your waist and legs, and rifles slung over your back, but nunchucks are illegal. We need to draw the line somewhere. This isn't the wild west any more.
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt.
I think it's much more likely that Sony is trying to shift media attention away from all of the information that was leaked, and onto the story of the threats and the movie. Pulling the movie all of a sudden makes the threats seem much more credible, and now that's what the media is talking about. The real story here is all of the data that was stolen from Sony, like the story about them wanting to go after DNS to take down piracy websites. The movie isn't the story, but that's where the narrative is being steered.
it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic
I haven't moved on from the "Fuck Sony" part yet. Especially after they pulled the movie. The article that the summary links to is the first response to this that actually makes sense. Every other response from every talking head, or politician, or executive, has been completely fucking stupid. There's not really another way to say it. It's just moronic.
Yep pretty much. Just because someone is robbing you doesn't mean there is a need to kill them.
Correct, but you can go in and confront them, because you don't want them taking your stuff. They are invading your property. Have you ever experienced a break-in where people that you don't know are going through all of your stuff deciding what they want to take? It's a pretty vulnerable feeling, you feel violated after that. Why let someone do that to you? Why roll over just because they decide to break a window and come in your house? Why not stand up to them and tell them that they aren't going to be taking anything? They very well might have a weapon on them, so you defending your house and your property and your family isn't going to carry a ton of weight with them unless you can back things up with force. If they decide to back down and leave, great, you don't have to kill them. If they decide to pull their weapon over your TV, then they've made the decision to escalate things.
Hopefully your solution isn't to let people roam through your house and do whatever they want, and you'll just call insurance. Make sure to inform your family that if they see anyone in the house stealing things, the proper response is to just get out of their way and try to make a note of what they're taking. Hopefully they decide that the only things they want to take are material goods.
So before Keurig came along, coffee was limited to only a handful of flavors and was difficult to find? And Keurig solved this problem, but no other coffee maker has, so the best solution is to buy a consumer-screwing machine?
Or how about an ad that has a button "I agree to upload my address book" ?
As with many "good" ideas, the big problems are often due to the unintended consequences and responses.
What? You've discovered a way for Javascript code to access someone's "address book" and upload it without any further prompting from the user? And this is a real problem rather than some hypothetical issue that would never happen?
I don't know if this extends to files without DRM, and it sounds like it does not, but Apple is admitting that they deleted files purchased from Real, at least:
If this is a case of what it's being made to sound to be, that actual non-DRM, legally purchased files got burnt out? I don't believe said things existed at the time, did they?
You realize that DRM came after the MP3 format, right? And, in fact, that DRM was basically a direct response to people making and sharing MP3 files over services like Napster? I have a small library of fantastic 56kbps quality MP3 files because I sat there and loaded each CD into my computer, played it back and recorded the audio going out, then chopped up that giant audio track into the individual songs. Eventually I found a tool that wouldn't involve me sitting there until the CD finished playing.
So, if I loaded all of those MP3s that I made myself onto my iPod, you're saying that it's ok for Apple to delete them?
Should they be rewarded for their hard work? I don't know, I remember a couple years ago that I had my mind made up that I would not be buying the last Dragon Age because of the behavior of EA. You don't think I've forgotten that, do you? I was angry enough at EA then to decide that I wouldn't buy any more of their games, even though I had a lot of fun with the first 2 Dragon Age games, so why would I open my wallet to them now? What, because a couple years have gone by?
Tracking what I look at or how long I'm looking at it isn't representative of my decision making process.
How do you know that? Are you really all that sure that your eyes don't look at something that you enjoy for a tenth of a second longer than when looking at things you don't enjoy?
George Washington the aristocratic slaveholder who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion
You have to be joking.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army.
Yeah, sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On 4 August 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On 7 August, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
Look at all that tyranny, what with the due process and everything.
In early August 1794, Washington dispatched three commissioners, all of them Pennsylvanians, to the west: Attorney General William Bradford, Justice Jasper Yeates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Senator James Ross. Beginning on 21 August, the commissioners met with a committee of westerners that included Brackenridge and Gallatin. The government commissioners told the committee that it must unanimously agree to renounce violence and submit to U.S. laws, and that a popular referendum must be held to determine if the local people supported the decision. Those who agreed to these terms would be given amnesty from further prosecution.
Because nothing says "tyranny" like "popular referendum".
The total human cost of the "crushing" of the Whiskey Rebellion? 3 or 4 deaths (literally), which occurred in the years prior to Washington getting involved, along with 2 civilians who were killed when the militia was being raised. What did the tyrant Washington do about the civilian deaths? He probably held them up as examples of why you shouldn't resist, or maybe had them quartered and the body parts sent to the revolting counties, right?
Two civilians were killed in these operations. On 29 September, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired. Two days later, a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. President Washington ordered the arrest of the two soldiers and had them turned over to civilian authorities. A state judge determined the deaths had been accidental, and the soldiers were released.
Yeah, some fucking tyrant.
The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was therefore viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians.
Historians not including noted 18th century constitutional scholar Mr. Slippery.
The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Legal historian Christian G. Fritz argued, even after ratification of the Constitution, there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States. Federalists believed the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people, so radical protest actions, which were permissible during the American Revolution, were no longer legitimate. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed the
"Just as likely"? I would imagine that, among all of the versions of Windows that have the Korean language installed, the vast majority of them are being used by Koreans rather than English-speaking Americans.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
And you're thinking that George Washington was one of those idiots who thought a little tyranny would work out well? I don't see how this law contradicts the Constitution. It doesn't say what jurisdiction a court has, just that a court is allowed to issue orders to obtain information that is already within its jurisdiction.
...which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
Which part of that is "the feds" "shredding the Constitution"?
The capitalisation thing is a piss-take on the tabloid press
They have succeeded immensely, because their headlines look exactly like tabloid fodder. Seriously, I will never click on any article describing a scientist or researcher as a "boffin", regardless of how much it makes everyone in their office giggle. The articles look like crap.
In general The Register doesn't take itself very seriously.
And no one else should, either. Which is exactly why I want their stupid headlines removed from my news feed.
God said 640x480 16 color graphics is a covenant like circumcision. Children will do offerings. Think of 16 colors like the Simpson's cartoons.
I wonder if God suggested The Simpsons as a frame of reference.
We do not put any hooks for future changes. "Perfect" means we always act as though it is final, for all time. Microsoft allowed the Windows BMP file format to adapt to the future and it became grotesque.
There is a limit of 100,000 lines of code for all time, not including applications and demos. Code comments count, however. 3rd party libraries are banned because they circumvent the intent of this limit. The vision is a Commodore 64 ROM -- a fixed core API that is the only dependency of applications. Currently, there are 80,668 lines of code.
One platform. x86_64 PC compatibles.
One driver for each class of device. Limited exceptions are allowed. With divergent device capabilities, it is a nightmare for user applications and what is gained? A three button mouse is like a leg you cannot put weight on.
No networking, so malware is not an issue.
No encryption or passwords. Files are compressed, not encrypted.
Documents are not for printing. They're dynamic, intended for the screen.
Just one 8x8 fixed-width font. No Unicode, just Extended ASCII.
No multimedia. Sounds and images will be primarily calculated in real-time, not fetched from storage.
Is there a way to have Google News block domains from showing up in a personalized feed? The Register is the only site that frequently shows up in Google News that I refuse to click on (other than a few sites that only show up in the Entertainment section). I can't stand their writing, THEIR headlines capitalize RANDOM words and they apparently refer to everyone who uses their brain in their job (as opposed to writers for The Register) as some sort of "boffin". It's the worst kind of writing.
All the kid had done so far was steal a box of cigars and resist arrest.
And assault an officer, and attempt to take his weapon.
The only reason Wilson had to use deadly force was because Brown was larger than him.
Both Wilson and Brown were 6'4". Wilson was a relatively lean 210 while Brown was 270-290. Wilson alone may have been able to subdue Brown, Wilson had training.
Really though, yeah. Congress is made up of the House Of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, a Senator is also a Congressman. A Representative is a Congressman also. A Representative is not a Senator, and a Senator is not a Representative. Really. That's how it actually works. Just because people might prefer to refer to Representatives as the more general Congressmen does not mean that Senators are not also Congressmen.
Slashdot Mirror
This city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but it literately is a warzone.
You're stretching the literal definition of war with that claim.
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
You can't walk with a gun into any business that has a sign saying that firearms are not allowed, even if you have a concealed carry permit. Convenience stores post those signs, if a bank (or any other business) wants to make it illegal to walk in there with a gun then all they need to do is put a sign up. A business without a sign can still ask you to remove your gun provided that they have a secure place for you to store it while you're there. There are other places where you're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, for example within a certain range of a school. You're never allowed to bring a weapon to a polling place on the day of the election. You also can't walk into Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station with a gun, or secured areas of the airport, or a jail. You can walk into a bar with a gun as long as the owner doesn't prohibit it, but you can't drink alcohol with a gun on you.
But you know what's prohibited here? Nunchucks. That's not a joke, either. You can walk down the street without a license carrying a loaded shotgun in each hand, handguns strapped all over your waist and legs, and rifles slung over your back, but nunchucks are illegal. We need to draw the line somewhere. This isn't the wild west any more.
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt.
I think it's much more likely that Sony is trying to shift media attention away from all of the information that was leaked, and onto the story of the threats and the movie. Pulling the movie all of a sudden makes the threats seem much more credible, and now that's what the media is talking about. The real story here is all of the data that was stolen from Sony, like the story about them wanting to go after DNS to take down piracy websites. The movie isn't the story, but that's where the narrative is being steered.
it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic
I haven't moved on from the "Fuck Sony" part yet. Especially after they pulled the movie. The article that the summary links to is the first response to this that actually makes sense. Every other response from every talking head, or politician, or executive, has been completely fucking stupid. There's not really another way to say it. It's just moronic.
Yep pretty much. Just because someone is robbing you doesn't mean there is a need to kill them.
Correct, but you can go in and confront them, because you don't want them taking your stuff. They are invading your property. Have you ever experienced a break-in where people that you don't know are going through all of your stuff deciding what they want to take? It's a pretty vulnerable feeling, you feel violated after that. Why let someone do that to you? Why roll over just because they decide to break a window and come in your house? Why not stand up to them and tell them that they aren't going to be taking anything? They very well might have a weapon on them, so you defending your house and your property and your family isn't going to carry a ton of weight with them unless you can back things up with force. If they decide to back down and leave, great, you don't have to kill them. If they decide to pull their weapon over your TV, then they've made the decision to escalate things.
Hopefully your solution isn't to let people roam through your house and do whatever they want, and you'll just call insurance. Make sure to inform your family that if they see anyone in the house stealing things, the proper response is to just get out of their way and try to make a note of what they're taking. Hopefully they decide that the only things they want to take are material goods.
So before Keurig came along, coffee was limited to only a handful of flavors and was difficult to find? And Keurig solved this problem, but no other coffee maker has, so the best solution is to buy a consumer-screwing machine?
Or how about an ad that has a button "I agree to upload my address book" ?
As with many "good" ideas, the big problems are often due to the unintended consequences and responses.
What? You've discovered a way for Javascript code to access someone's "address book" and upload it without any further prompting from the user? And this is a real problem rather than some hypothetical issue that would never happen?
Ablation can in theory remove single atomic layers with thermal damage only a few atoms deep to the underlying surface.
So the damage to the surface is only a few times larger than what was removed?
I don't know if this extends to files without DRM, and it sounds like it does not, but Apple is admitting that they deleted files purchased from Real, at least:
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
If this is a case of what it's being made to sound to be, that actual non-DRM, legally purchased files got burnt out? I don't believe said things existed at the time, did they?
You realize that DRM came after the MP3 format, right? And, in fact, that DRM was basically a direct response to people making and sharing MP3 files over services like Napster? I have a small library of fantastic 56kbps quality MP3 files because I sat there and loaded each CD into my computer, played it back and recorded the audio going out, then chopped up that giant audio track into the individual songs. Eventually I found a tool that wouldn't involve me sitting there until the CD finished playing.
So, if I loaded all of those MP3s that I made myself onto my iPod, you're saying that it's ok for Apple to delete them?
I think anything short of a cruise ship would get cramped on a mission to Mars.
Should they be rewarded for their hard work? I don't know, I remember a couple years ago that I had my mind made up that I would not be buying the last Dragon Age because of the behavior of EA. You don't think I've forgotten that, do you? I was angry enough at EA then to decide that I wouldn't buy any more of their games, even though I had a lot of fun with the first 2 Dragon Age games, so why would I open my wallet to them now? What, because a couple years have gone by?
Whoever has the second most viewed video on YouTube probably cares.
Tracking what I look at or how long I'm looking at it isn't representative of my decision making process.
How do you know that? Are you really all that sure that your eyes don't look at something that you enjoy for a tenth of a second longer than when looking at things you don't enjoy?
I'd say your drop of the rest of the sentence there was its own problem.
I addressed the rest of his question near the end of my response.
George Washington the aristocratic slaveholder who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion
You have to be joking.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army.
Yeah, sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On 4 August 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On 7 August, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
Look at all that tyranny, what with the due process and everything.
In early August 1794, Washington dispatched three commissioners, all of them Pennsylvanians, to the west: Attorney General William Bradford, Justice Jasper Yeates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Senator James Ross. Beginning on 21 August, the commissioners met with a committee of westerners that included Brackenridge and Gallatin. The government commissioners told the committee that it must unanimously agree to renounce violence and submit to U.S. laws, and that a popular referendum must be held to determine if the local people supported the decision. Those who agreed to these terms would be given amnesty from further prosecution.
Because nothing says "tyranny" like "popular referendum".
The total human cost of the "crushing" of the Whiskey Rebellion? 3 or 4 deaths (literally), which occurred in the years prior to Washington getting involved, along with 2 civilians who were killed when the militia was being raised. What did the tyrant Washington do about the civilian deaths? He probably held them up as examples of why you shouldn't resist, or maybe had them quartered and the body parts sent to the revolting counties, right?
Two civilians were killed in these operations. On 29 September, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired. Two days later, a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. President Washington ordered the arrest of the two soldiers and had them turned over to civilian authorities. A state judge determined the deaths had been accidental, and the soldiers were released.
Yeah, some fucking tyrant.
The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was therefore viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians.
Historians not including noted 18th century constitutional scholar Mr. Slippery.
The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Legal historian Christian G. Fritz argued, even after ratification of the Constitution, there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States. Federalists believed the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people, so radical protest actions, which were permissible during the American Revolution, were no longer legitimate. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed the
"Just as likely"? I would imagine that, among all of the versions of Windows that have the Korean language installed, the vast majority of them are being used by Koreans rather than English-speaking Americans.
And now try to word that in a way that a judge can understand
OK, start with an analogy of a company that manufactures locks without keys.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
And you're thinking that George Washington was one of those idiots who thought a little tyranny would work out well? I don't see how this law contradicts the Constitution. It doesn't say what jurisdiction a court has, just that a court is allowed to issue orders to obtain information that is already within its jurisdiction.
...which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
Which part of that is "the feds" "shredding the Constitution"?
The capitalisation thing is a piss-take on the tabloid press
They have succeeded immensely, because their headlines look exactly like tabloid fodder. Seriously, I will never click on any article describing a scientist or researcher as a "boffin", regardless of how much it makes everyone in their office giggle. The articles look like crap.
In general The Register doesn't take itself very seriously.
And no one else should, either. Which is exactly why I want their stupid headlines removed from my news feed.
I have no idea what his does
Here's a peek:
God said 640x480 16 color graphics is a covenant like circumcision. Children
will do offerings. Think of 16 colors like the Simpson's cartoons.
I wonder if God suggested The Simpsons as a frame of reference.
We do not put any hooks for future changes. "Perfect" means we always act as
though it is final, for all time. Microsoft allowed the Windows BMP file format
to adapt to the future and it became grotesque.
There is a limit of 100,000 lines of code for all time, not including
applications and demos. Code comments count, however. 3rd party libraries are
banned because they circumvent the intent of this limit. The vision is a
Commodore 64 ROM -- a fixed core API that is the only dependency of
applications. Currently, there are 80,668 lines of code.
One platform. x86_64 PC compatibles.
One driver for each class of device. Limited exceptions are allowed. With
divergent device capabilities, it is a nightmare for user applications and what
is gained? A three button mouse is like a leg you cannot put weight on.
No networking, so malware is not an issue.
No encryption or passwords. Files are compressed, not encrypted.
Documents are not for printing. They're dynamic, intended for the screen.
Just one 8x8 fixed-width font. No Unicode, just Extended ASCII.
No multimedia. Sounds and images will be primarily calculated in real-time,
not fetched from storage.
Is there a way to have Google News block domains from showing up in a personalized feed? The Register is the only site that frequently shows up in Google News that I refuse to click on (other than a few sites that only show up in the Entertainment section). I can't stand their writing, THEIR headlines capitalize RANDOM words and they apparently refer to everyone who uses their brain in their job (as opposed to writers for The Register) as some sort of "boffin". It's the worst kind of writing.
All the kid had done so far was steal a box of cigars and resist arrest.
And assault an officer, and attempt to take his weapon.
The only reason Wilson had to use deadly force was because Brown was larger than him.
Both Wilson and Brown were 6'4". Wilson was a relatively lean 210 while Brown was 270-290. Wilson alone may have been able to subdue Brown, Wilson had training.
Not really, no.
Really though, yeah. Congress is made up of the House Of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, a Senator is also a Congressman. A Representative is a Congressman also. A Representative is not a Senator, and a Senator is not a Representative. Really. That's how it actually works. Just because people might prefer to refer to Representatives as the more general Congressmen does not mean that Senators are not also Congressmen.
TL;DNR
However, I'll just pick one point.
I'll do you one better, and ignore your entire post. Debating is fun.