>So if a factory worker in China makes 5 cents an hour (a high estimate),
It's far more than that. Minimum wage laws (where they exist in certain Chinese cities) specify about much more pay. For an example, Guangzhou city's minimum wage is $61.80 a month. Assuming the usual (5 days/7 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.44 an hour. Assuming the worst (7 days/12 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.18 an hour.
US workers are paid about 4.84 times what Asian "slave" workers are paid for the same amount of work.
4.84 times $2.13 = $10.31 an hour.
In Luxembourg, the minimum wage is 46,275 LUF, or $1,445.15 monthly. Assuming 7 paid hours daily, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $10.32 an hour.
So yes, as far as pay goes, America *should* look to Europeans like China looks to Americans. It should look like slave labour. Hopefully Europeans will despise American worker treatment so much that they will refuse to purchase any and all American goods. That should certainly fix the problem.
Oh wait. That would suck. Badly.
So why do we want to do this to China, again? I'm missing where China would benefit from us not buying their products.
>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
Workers are only part of the system. Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.
Money is made to be spent. Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet.;-)
>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
Of course it is. They're going (quickly) through the same steps that took us through the industrial revolution. Right now they're at the foothills of it, getting the short shrift.
>Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.
I'll argue the other point: Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies? Or, was it in fact mob rule (Unions) that did it?
I'd hedge my bets on the latter. The people of the US, as a whole, really don't (and never really did) care if their ketchup was made by a unionized Heinz or a non-Unionized local company.
There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.
>It reminds me of the Mac vs. PC cost debate, because Macs need less overall maintenance and therefore end up being the same cost or cheaper than competing PCs.....
Where the heck did you pull that one from? Especially today, when, apart from the CPU and chipset, Macs are using PC Hardware (ATi Video, Western Digital IDE HDDs, VGA video, etc, etc, etc). And, as far as PCs go, chipsets and CPUs are the least likely parts to break. In fact, apart from abuse, I've never actually seen a CPU fail (I've once seen a chipset fail, but I question if the owner knew how to use an audio card properly...).
Don't get me started on Apple Laptops. They're made by Acer, Compal, Asus, and Quanta, amongst others. Anyone who has owned an Acer PC can attest to the ""quality"" (quad quotes for effect) level of them. The other manufacturers have a better rep, but also make PC laptops.
The differences between an Apple and a PC are, nowadays, pretty much:
- Choice of Operating System
- Choice of CPU
- Choice of Chipset
Apart from that, you can hardly even choose a manufacturer anymore.
I'm wondering, how, exactly, you get this maintenance difference when an Apple and a PC are made from similar parts (apart from the above differences) by the same companies.
If you're talking software maintenance, well, that's more a question of knowing how to operate the machine rather than a question of "maintenance".
>So I say, go for a higher-end model from a name brand manufacturer like Sony, Philips, etc. and have something that you can enjoy for years(with much better support from the company and industry),
Sony, along with Philips, OEM for more companies than I care to think about! Some good (Hey, I loved my old Tektronics monitor!), some not so good (bargain tubes for bargain electronics).
The secret is to buy *smart* and cheap. Some cheap products really are made by crapola companies. Other cheap products are made by companies with a clue. And some "good" products (early Apple Powerbooks, for example) are made by companies whose overally quality standards are questionable, at best.
Leaking Capacitors are actually a very common problem for all hardware, expensive and not-so, made in the past couple of years ("High-End" computer companies such as ASUS and ABIT have even been caught out). Sorry to hear you were bit by the pirate hand that feeds some of these companies.
>Globalization of the economy has many downsides, and one small "upside"; prices.
Also one large upside: Improvement of life in developing countries by sending much needed money into their countries the old fashioned way rather than the "economic life-support" way.
>The next time you do that, I'm going to assume that you are too stupid to understand that Canada is not the US and that you are incapable of rational discussion on this subject.
Your inability to realize that contrast and comparison are a valid writing format seriously makes me wonder if YOU are capable of rational discussion.
>You might want to note the part about "Telephone harassment" and "Use of racial slurs" and "Verbal abuse" in there.
To quote from your book, "I don't really care what Washinton DC law says". This isn't about individual US cities. It's about the US as an entire country. That includes places like Hawaii and Alaska, and heck, Puerto Rico too.
Tell me, if I go on speakers corner in the US (in general, not just in a few handpicked territories) [I'm sure there's a US version of that show] and say "All Jews are faggots" *how* are you going to sue? *How*? What for? The other poster has explained you'll need to prove some form of personal financial loss. What loss? How? I'd love to be in that courtroom!
I've heard people doing this before (the joys of "Voice of America's" more eclectic programming) and they don't go to jail. They don't get sued. At worst they get angry callers and hate mail. At worst.
If I can get away with that then libel/slander don't cover hate speech in the general sense, do they? Just in the specific sense, such as me saying an untruth like "khasim is a faggot".
>If I say "all Jews are faggots", you can, legally, sue me for libel or slander.
I'll believe that when I see it. You can't sue for libel or slander unless you are *specifically* named. By specific, it needs to be more exact than a race. That's why Canada has a "hate crimes" law (not that I agree with it). The man wasn't charged with slander or libel or anything like that. He was charged under the Canadian Criminal Code for "Hate Propaganda" (yes, it's labelled that). If you'd like I'll show you the actual law. Awww hell, here it is.
If that were true, there'd be a lot more KKK going to jail than now. I am sure I can find you books even with this printed in them, and not just examples of examples of hate, but REAL HATE BOOKS. You know, like Mein Kampf, except with a living author. It isn't hard.
>Or do you take "Freedom of Speech" to mean that I can say things that are not true?
Yup. Well, it is in the USA. Not in Canada. But in the USA, if you want to say "All jews are faggots" you're more than welcome too (just don't try to do it in my store or home).
>So telling a lie (as in slander) does not come under "Freedom of Speech".
If you'll check out the above, it does. As an example of how extreme this freedom of speech right in the USA can be, here's a couple of sites hosted in the USA, one of which runs for president yearly. The other one chosen simply because the man running it was arrested in Canada for "abusing" his right to free speech, and forced to move his opinions to a less oppressive country. Do I agree with either of them?
HELL NO. But that doesn't give me the right to force them out of my country. Or does it?
Yes, you see, there's a big difference between abusing a right, and abusing a priviledge.
With a priviledge, there doesn't need to be a "victim" to cause a crime. Simply abusing the priviledge (driving too fast) does the job.
In the case of a right, there is normally always a victim (I'm straining to think of any cases where there wouldn't be and I'm coming up empty). In the case of public nudity, the "victim" would be anyone who saw the person. In this case, the "victim" would be anyone who viewed the site that didn't want to.
Sure, it's stretching the idea of victim, but welcome to the way police operate.
The cop can give you a speeding ticket. If you refuse to pay it, they won't renew your license, and might just suspend it as well. In general, that's as far as they can go unless you hit something. That's because driving is a priveledge and they can revoke it.
They can't revoke your right to be naked. That's the big difference here.
Sometimes fighting extreme positions with another one works.
>1 in 14 people die of a cold?
Hey, you read the article, you can see what it says. Of course, I was being a bit snide with my naming of the diseases, but hey, that's what the BBC says. At least I give links!
>For comparison, cancer killed about 1.6/1000 (1988). Heart disease , about 1.9/1000. Do you really believe that cancer and CVD kill only 3x as many people as the cold each of us gets every year?
Seriously? No, no I don't believe the cold is that dangerous. But then again, there's that article...:-)
I believe that article, though, about as much as I believe his death by automobile numbers.
The death rate from automobiles is 0.2/1000 (using your data). As a percentage, car accidents account for a bit more than 2% of all world deaths.
For comparison, over 4 million die yearly from getting a cold. In other words, the death rate from the common cold is 0.6/1000, or a little more than 7% of total worldwide deaths. That's about 11,000 daily. Or, another way, a 9/11 every 9 hours.
I think we need to find a cure for the common cold before we worry about car accidents. What do you think?
Stealing is stealing even when it isn't stealing, eh?
If downloading is stealing, why is it that I can't put BMG out of business by continually downloading all their work?
I mean, stealing is stealing. Seems pretty obvious that enough stealing should put anyone out of business. If I (somehow) sucessfully stole BMG's office building, they'd be out of business pretty fast.
Explain, why is it that illegally downloading a BMG song (or any other company) 200,000,000,000 times won't put them out of business, yet it still comes under "stealing is stealing"?
If I managed to steal that many CDs, hell, they'd not only be broke, they'd probably have to get a loan to build the new factory it'd take to make that many discs for me to steal!
>It's called rentals. You know, blockbuster, netflix, etc.??
Did you know that at the people who fed you the line "stealing is stealing" consider it stealing when you lend your DVD to a friend? Don't believe me? Read the fine print on your discs.
If "stealing is stealing" and stealing is lending, then stealing really isn't stealing, or is it just that stealing isn't really a crime? In all those cases, stealing has ceased to be a useful word if stealing simply means letting someone else use something you sold in a manner you'd rather them not. We already have a good word for that: Lending.
Of course, this can all be mitigated by calling your version of stealing by the word we already have plundered: Piracy.
Because, if you ask a judge, stealing really ISN'T stealing unless:
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
And no pirate I've ever known has been successful in more than just making a copy. They've never been able to actually prevent the author of the work from enjoying their copy, which, alas, is required to constitute what you're talking about about.
Besides, I know a lot of pirates who'd much rather be charged with stealing. Even armed robbery often seems to carry a lesser sentence than piracy. I just suppose the people of this world are more afraid of people using Kazaa than people shooting AK-47s in banks.
They include a DVD burner? Ohhh, now when this baby is modded, you won't even need a computer to back up your games. And the contoller chip seems to be unchanged (from what I can see in this photograph -- can't read the numbers on it, though.). Good news.
>With violent video games we are teaching younger generations that killing little figures on the screen is nothing bad.
Have you read the bible lately? That thing is FULL of HORRIBLE stories.
Seriously, man, killing a computer character is nothing compared to teaching a kid that a woman's body is only worth 50 silver pieces, and that "pulling out" is punishable by graphic death. Hell, let's not forget about when you should stone your children to death! Worse yet, they teach young children that this is all normal, and that it all really happened! And they've been doing it for over 2000 years!
CRAZY SHIT THAT.
>In the past you had to have a very good reason to fight with someone.
>Soon no soldier will ever see a speck of blood. They will only shoot vectorized figures on the screen. And because they have grown up with killing people on the computer screen they won't find this wrong.
I'd take that in a heartbeat over what used to be sanctioned. Things really have only gone forward in society with regards to violence. Forward being less violent and more tolerant.
>but in general, the idea that "gun-control" affects the "bad guys" is mostly a myth.
They say that, but in my home country (Canada), I rarely hear about any weapons being used in crimes apart from handguns and rifles (and even then that's quite the rarity and always front page news, every time). Fully automatic weapons, to be honest, the only time I've ever seen one on TV news was when Denis Lortie tried to take over the Quebec parliament. For an idea of Canada's gun control laws, here's a paper.
That all being said, there's limits to what I can take, and Canada's latest gun control bill, C68, is going way too far. Sorry to bring the Canadian perspective into this, I know the US is a different country with different needs, but we do seem to have fewer problems with people shooting each other.
As I've mentioned, I'm a fan of allowing organized groups ("militias") to own weapons. That's simply because as part of an organized group, with any luck you'll either be let go if you go insane, or better yet, others in the group will advise you not to do idiotic things.
>Obviously you accept that widely quoted argument
I did at one point, but I have had the figures countering it shown to me. That's why I say I wouldn't want to make it true -- it might not be right now, but it could be. No sense in helping it along.
>Please don't get the idea that I'm blood-thirsty or anything though
I wouldn't... the only people here like that are the deranged trolls.:-)
>So, what happens when some raging lunatic (maybe he thinks your sleeping with his wife / daughter / sister / whatever ) decides to go on a rampage in YOUR house? Still so in favor of gun-control?
Actually, yes. I'd rather him be armed with something less than an AK-47. Also, I'd rather not be armed and make true the "most weapons in the house are used to shoot family members" argument. I'd rather give up everything I own than be forced to kill. I'm no murderer. Possessions are just possessions, you can always get them back. A life is a life, wether its a petty theif or a rapist. Nothing gives you the right to kill someone (IMHO), unless you're a judge in certain states (not that I'm all for that either).
Before the extreme argument is brought up, yes, if I had a daughter and she was being raped, I'd rather catch the guy and give him up to the cops than kill him. Why? Because, wether he rapes her for 30 seconds or for 2 minutes, it doesn't make any difference. She's been violated. The only way to win is to see the man pay for his crimes, and hopefully rehabilitate him. In jail. Or the nuthouse. Whatever works best for you.:-)
>IF, and again, this is unlikely to ever happen, but IF an armed rebellion against the government should ever become necessary, it would be nice if the good guys have weapons that give them a somewhat realistic chance of winning
Unless you have an Atom Bomb, I'd say you're hosed. Just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure a shooting any automatic weapons at a biological weapon isn't going to make a whole pile of difference.
>Does it mean I advocate private ownership of atomic bombs? No, because atomic weapons would never be used in an internal war inside the borders of our nation, by either side...
Agreed. But a nice, easy to contain, vaccinatable virus would make just the thing, wouldn't it? Guns don't fix that problem. Unless you decide to shoot yourself instead of infecting others. I suppose that could be a benefit. But that would certainly suck.
Yes. Just like religions. Made up of multiple individuals. Just like a single individuals rantings doesn't make a religion, a single person does not a militia make.
>If the ownership of firearms were restricted to "official" -- that is, under the control of the federal government -- militias, then there would be no way for individuals to ensure the security of a free state.
Well, you see, I didn't say "official" did I? I said gun clubs. It may be different in your corner of the world, but here they don't register with the government.
That doesn't protect individuals. It protects militias, which, by definition, aren't individuals.
>The main reason that comes to mind is an armed revolution against the existing government, should it ever become tyranical / dictatorial / etc.
Best done by... a well organized militia. Not a single nut going on a rampage in the white house.
>but fundamentally the 2nd Amendment is all about making sure that the ultimate power lies in the hands of "the people" where it belongs.
Agreed. That being said -- it was all about letting the north military beat the hell out of the south. Never about an individual nut being able to own an AK-47. There's a reason those words are present there. They weren't just put in for flowery reasons.
>Also, you might be interested to know that legally owned / properly licensed fully automatic weapons are almost NEVER used in the commission of armed crimes.
I can believe you. That's generally because the nuts grab the first thing handy, which is usually a handgun. The people owning fully automatic weapons are usually part of a gun club which would, in some ways, count as an organized militia. And, there's the crux of the matter, isn't it?
>Although the national offices get most of the attention, ballots may include 20-100 other things to vote on. Everything from state representatives down to obscure changes in county and city charters that most don't even take the time to read.
Canada has the same problems. Sometimes that will be done by "X" ballots, sometimes it will be done by scantron style ballots. However, important elections, such as electing a new Prime Minister or Premier have always been done with "X" ballots.
This is simplified in Canada by separating National, Provincial, and Mayoral elections.
I've seen results from the less key positions (they are often posted on the city's website), and there is rarely more than a percent or two difference in casted ballots between candidates, indicating people simply vote randomly anyways (on the compound Mayoral/Trustee/Councillor ballots, for some candidates I know I had to, otherwise I'd invalidate the ballot). I wouldn't worry if the wrong school trustee got voted in. I would worry if the wrong Prime Minister were voted in.
Slashdot Mirror
>So if a factory worker in China makes 5 cents an hour (a high estimate),
It's far more than that. Minimum wage laws (where they exist in certain Chinese cities) specify about much more pay. For an example, Guangzhou city's minimum wage is $61.80 a month. Assuming the usual (5 days/7 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.44 an hour. Assuming the worst (7 days/12 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.18 an hour.
>and the minimum wage in my state is 6.75
If only! It's actually $2.13 per hour.
So, let's do the math:
US workers are paid about 4.84 times what Asian "slave" workers are paid for the same amount of work.
4.84 times $2.13 = $10.31 an hour.
In Luxembourg, the minimum wage is 46,275 LUF, or $1,445.15 monthly. Assuming 7 paid hours daily, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $10.32 an hour.
So yes, as far as pay goes, America *should* look to Europeans like China looks to Americans. It should look like slave labour. Hopefully Europeans will despise American worker treatment so much that they will refuse to purchase any and all American goods. That should certainly fix the problem.
Oh wait. That would suck. Badly.
So why do we want to do this to China, again? I'm missing where China would benefit from us not buying their products.
>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
;-)
Workers are only part of the system. Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.
Money is made to be spent. Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet.
>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.
Of course it is. They're going (quickly) through the same steps that took us through the industrial revolution. Right now they're at the foothills of it, getting the short shrift.
>Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.
I'll argue the other point: Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies? Or, was it in fact mob rule (Unions) that did it?
I'd hedge my bets on the latter. The people of the US, as a whole, really don't (and never really did) care if their ketchup was made by a unionized Heinz or a non-Unionized local company.
There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.
>It reminds me of the Mac vs. PC cost debate, because Macs need less overall maintenance and therefore end up being the same cost or cheaper than competing PCs.....
Where the heck did you pull that one from? Especially today, when, apart from the CPU and chipset, Macs are using PC Hardware (ATi Video, Western Digital IDE HDDs, VGA video, etc, etc, etc). And, as far as PCs go, chipsets and CPUs are the least likely parts to break. In fact, apart from abuse, I've never actually seen a CPU fail (I've once seen a chipset fail, but I question if the owner knew how to use an audio card properly...).
Don't get me started on Apple Laptops. They're made by Acer, Compal, Asus, and Quanta, amongst others. Anyone who has owned an Acer PC can attest to the ""quality"" (quad quotes for effect) level of them. The other manufacturers have a better rep, but also make PC laptops.
The differences between an Apple and a PC are, nowadays, pretty much:
- Choice of Operating System
- Choice of CPU
- Choice of Chipset
Apart from that, you can hardly even choose a manufacturer anymore.
I'm wondering, how, exactly, you get this maintenance difference when an Apple and a PC are made from similar parts (apart from the above differences) by the same companies.
If you're talking software maintenance, well, that's more a question of knowing how to operate the machine rather than a question of "maintenance".
>So I say, go for a higher-end model from a name brand manufacturer like Sony, Philips, etc. and have something that you can enjoy for years(with much better support from the company and industry),
Sony, along with Philips, OEM for more companies than I care to think about! Some good (Hey, I loved my old Tektronics monitor!), some not so good (bargain tubes for bargain electronics).
The secret is to buy *smart* and cheap. Some cheap products really are made by crapola companies. Other cheap products are made by companies with a clue. And some "good" products (early Apple Powerbooks, for example) are made by companies whose overally quality standards are questionable, at best.
Leaking Capacitors are actually a very common problem for all hardware, expensive and not-so, made in the past couple of years ("High-End" computer companies such as ASUS and ABIT have even been caught out). Sorry to hear you were bit by the pirate hand that feeds some of these companies.
>Globalization of the economy has many downsides, and one small "upside"; prices.
Also one large upside: Improvement of life in developing countries by sending much needed money into their countries the old fashioned way rather than the "economic life-support" way.
>The next time you do that, I'm going to assume that you are too stupid to understand that Canada is not the US and that you are incapable of rational discussion on this subject.
Your inability to realize that contrast and comparison are a valid writing format seriously makes me wonder if YOU are capable of rational discussion.
>You might want to note the part about "Telephone harassment" and "Use of racial slurs" and "Verbal abuse" in there.
To quote from your book, "I don't really care what Washinton DC law says". This isn't about individual US cities. It's about the US as an entire country. That includes places like Hawaii and Alaska, and heck, Puerto Rico too.
Tell me, if I go on speakers corner in the US (in general, not just in a few handpicked territories) [I'm sure there's a US version of that show] and say "All Jews are faggots" *how* are you going to sue? *How*? What for? The other poster has explained you'll need to prove some form of personal financial loss. What loss? How? I'd love to be in that courtroom!
I've heard people doing this before (the joys of "Voice of America's" more eclectic programming) and they don't go to jail. They don't get sued. At worst they get angry callers and hate mail. At worst.
If I can get away with that then libel/slander don't cover hate speech in the general sense, do they? Just in the specific sense, such as me saying an untruth like "khasim is a faggot".
>If I say "all Jews are faggots", you can, legally, sue me for libel or slander.
I'll believe that when I see it. You can't sue for libel or slander unless you are *specifically* named. By specific, it needs to be more exact than a race. That's why Canada has a "hate crimes" law (not that I agree with it). The man wasn't charged with slander or libel or anything like that. He was charged under the Canadian Criminal Code for "Hate Propaganda" (yes, it's labelled that). If you'd like I'll show you the actual law. Awww hell, here it is.
If that were true, there'd be a lot more KKK going to jail than now. I am sure I can find you books even with this printed in them, and not just examples of examples of hate, but REAL HATE BOOKS. You know, like Mein Kampf, except with a living author. It isn't hard.
>Or do you take "Freedom of Speech" to mean that I can say things that are not true?
Yup. Well, it is in the USA. Not in Canada. But in the USA, if you want to say "All jews are faggots" you're more than welcome too (just don't try to do it in my store or home).
>So telling a lie (as in slander) does not come under "Freedom of Speech".
If you'll check out the above, it does. As an example of how extreme this freedom of speech right in the USA can be, here's a couple of sites hosted in the USA, one of which runs for president yearly. The other one chosen simply because the man running it was arrested in Canada for "abusing" his right to free speech, and forced to move his opinions to a less oppressive country. Do I agree with either of them?
HELL NO. But that doesn't give me the right to force them out of my country. Or does it?
Hope that helps!
>You are not "legally" allowed to tape off radio. It is just impossible to track and prosecute.
You know, I thought that once too. Then someone mentioned this, which allows you to do exactly that. Tape broadcast material.
The keyword was "multiple". As in the professor purchased an unusued copy of the textbook for every student in the class...
:)
Or so I assume.
>What do you mean? I have a right to vote. Where is the victim in me exercising my right to vote?
Sorry I didn't make it clearer. Allow me to eludicate:
In the case of abusing a right, there is normally always a victim...
Again, sorry I didn't make it obvious what I was talking about.
>This is about public nudity.
Yes, you see, there's a big difference between abusing a right, and abusing a priviledge.
With a priviledge, there doesn't need to be a "victim" to cause a crime. Simply abusing the priviledge (driving too fast) does the job.
In the case of a right, there is normally always a victim (I'm straining to think of any cases where there wouldn't be and I'm coming up empty). In the case of public nudity, the "victim" would be anyone who saw the person. In this case, the "victim" would be anyone who viewed the site that didn't want to.
Sure, it's stretching the idea of victim, but welcome to the way police operate.
Yeah, but driving is a priveledge, not a right.
Going naked is a right, not a priveledge.
The cop can give you a speeding ticket. If you refuse to pay it, they won't renew your license, and might just suspend it as well. In general, that's as far as they can go unless you hit something. That's because driving is a priveledge and they can revoke it.
They can't revoke your right to be naked. That's the big difference here.
>You can't really believe that, can you?
:-)
Sometimes fighting extreme positions with another one works.
>1 in 14 people die of a cold?
Hey, you read the article, you can see what it says. Of course, I was being a bit snide with my naming of the diseases, but hey, that's what the BBC says. At least I give links!
>For comparison, cancer killed about 1.6/1000 (1988). Heart disease , about 1.9/1000. Do you really believe that cancer and CVD kill only 3x as many people as the cold each of us gets every year?
Seriously? No, no I don't believe the cold is that dangerous. But then again, there's that article...
I believe that article, though, about as much as I believe his death by automobile numbers.
The death rate of the entire world is 8.83/1000. The world population is 6,302,309,691.
The death rate from automobiles is 0.2/1000 (using your data). As a percentage, car accidents account for a bit more than 2% of all world deaths.
For comparison, over 4 million die yearly from getting a cold. In other words, the death rate from the common cold is 0.6/1000, or a little more than 7% of total worldwide deaths. That's about 11,000 daily. Or, another way, a 9/11 every 9 hours.
I think we need to find a cure for the common cold before we worry about car accidents. What do you think?
>Stealing is stealing
Stealing is stealing even when it isn't stealing, eh?
If downloading is stealing, why is it that I can't put BMG out of business by continually downloading all their work?
I mean, stealing is stealing. Seems pretty obvious that enough stealing should put anyone out of business. If I (somehow) sucessfully stole BMG's office building, they'd be out of business pretty fast.
Explain, why is it that illegally downloading a BMG song (or any other company) 200,000,000,000 times won't put them out of business, yet it still comes under "stealing is stealing"?
If I managed to steal that many CDs, hell, they'd not only be broke, they'd probably have to get a loan to build the new factory it'd take to make that many discs for me to steal!
>It's called rentals. You know, blockbuster, netflix, etc.??
Did you know that at the people who fed you the line "stealing is stealing" consider it stealing when you lend your DVD to a friend? Don't believe me? Read the fine print on your discs.
If "stealing is stealing" and stealing is lending, then stealing really isn't stealing, or is it just that stealing isn't really a crime? In all those cases, stealing has ceased to be a useful word if stealing simply means letting someone else use something you sold in a manner you'd rather them not. We already have a good word for that: Lending.
Of course, this can all be mitigated by calling your version of stealing by the word we already have plundered: Piracy.
Because, if you ask a judge, stealing really ISN'T stealing unless:
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
And no pirate I've ever known has been successful in more than just making a copy. They've never been able to actually prevent the author of the work from enjoying their copy, which, alas, is required to constitute what you're talking about about.
Thanks dictionary.com!
Besides, I know a lot of pirates who'd much rather be charged with stealing. Even armed robbery often seems to carry a lesser sentence than piracy. I just suppose the people of this world are more afraid of people using Kazaa than people shooting AK-47s in banks.
They include a DVD burner? Ohhh, now when this baby is modded, you won't even need a computer to back up your games. And the contoller chip seems to be unchanged (from what I can see in this photograph -- can't read the numbers on it, though.). Good news.
Dude... there's not one, but TWO shift keys on your keyboard. And then there's a third shifter -- Caps Lock. TRY THEM OUT! :-)
That being said, I'd rather watch TV on my computer for the convenience of it. Also, it's cheaper on electricity if you're already using the computer.
>i have a tv tuner card with my playstatiojn hooked up to it and it really isnt that great.
You really just need to try dscaler.
There's other software as well, but it just doesn't come to mind right now.
>With violent video games we are teaching younger generations that killing little figures on the screen is nothing bad.
Have you read the bible lately? That thing is FULL of HORRIBLE stories.
Seriously, man, killing a computer character is nothing compared to teaching a kid that a woman's body is only worth 50 silver pieces, and that "pulling out" is punishable by graphic death. Hell, let's not forget about when you should stone your children to death! Worse yet, they teach young children that this is all normal, and that it all really happened! And they've been doing it for over 2000 years!
CRAZY SHIT THAT.
>In the past you had to have a very good reason to fight with someone.
Yeah. For example, they could be a christian. In which case, you have to slay them (graphically, of course!) using a sword.
>Soon no soldier will ever see a speck of blood. They will only shoot vectorized figures on the screen. And because they have grown up with killing people on the computer screen they won't find this wrong.
I'd take that in a heartbeat over what used to be sanctioned. Things really have only gone forward in society with regards to violence. Forward being less violent and more tolerant.
I was wondering, have you had any experience with third party OBD-II interface ICs, such as the one sold by these guys?
:-)
Seems there's some free software for them, too.
Just wondering, since I was thinking about giving it a shot. Might be fun to see just what I can find out about my car.
>but in general, the idea that "gun-control" affects the "bad guys" is mostly a myth.
:-)
They say that, but in my home country (Canada), I rarely hear about any weapons being used in crimes apart from handguns and rifles (and even then that's quite the rarity and always front page news, every time). Fully automatic weapons, to be honest, the only time I've ever seen one on TV news was when Denis Lortie tried to take over the Quebec parliament. For an idea of Canada's gun control laws, here's a paper.
That all being said, there's limits to what I can take, and Canada's latest gun control bill, C68, is going way too far. Sorry to bring the Canadian perspective into this, I know the US is a different country with different needs, but we do seem to have fewer problems with people shooting each other.
As I've mentioned, I'm a fan of allowing organized groups ("militias") to own weapons. That's simply because as part of an organized group, with any luck you'll either be let go if you go insane, or better yet, others in the group will advise you not to do idiotic things.
>Obviously you accept that widely quoted argument
I did at one point, but I have had the figures countering it shown to me. That's why I say I wouldn't want to make it true -- it might not be right now, but it could be. No sense in helping it along.
>Please don't get the idea that I'm blood-thirsty or anything though
I wouldn't... the only people here like that are the deranged trolls.
>So, what happens when some raging lunatic (maybe he thinks your sleeping with his wife / daughter / sister / whatever ) decides to go on a rampage in YOUR house? Still so in favor of gun-control?
:-)
Actually, yes. I'd rather him be armed with something less than an AK-47. Also, I'd rather not be armed and make true the "most weapons in the house are used to shoot family members" argument. I'd rather give up everything I own than be forced to kill. I'm no murderer. Possessions are just possessions, you can always get them back. A life is a life, wether its a petty theif or a rapist. Nothing gives you the right to kill someone (IMHO), unless you're a judge in certain states (not that I'm all for that either).
Before the extreme argument is brought up, yes, if I had a daughter and she was being raped, I'd rather catch the guy and give him up to the cops than kill him. Why? Because, wether he rapes her for 30 seconds or for 2 minutes, it doesn't make any difference. She's been violated. The only way to win is to see the man pay for his crimes, and hopefully rehabilitate him. In jail. Or the nuthouse. Whatever works best for you.
>IF, and again, this is unlikely to ever happen, but IF an armed rebellion against the government should ever become necessary, it would be nice if the good guys have weapons that give them a somewhat realistic chance of winning
Unless you have an Atom Bomb, I'd say you're hosed. Just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure a shooting any automatic weapons at a biological weapon isn't going to make a whole pile of difference.
>Does it mean I advocate private ownership of atomic bombs? No, because atomic weapons would never be used in an internal war inside the borders of our nation, by either side...
Agreed. But a nice, easy to contain, vaccinatable virus would make just the thing, wouldn't it? Guns don't fix that problem. Unless you decide to shoot yourself instead of infecting others. I suppose that could be a benefit. But that would certainly suck.
>Militias are *made up of* individuals.
Yes. Just like religions. Made up of multiple individuals. Just like a single individuals rantings doesn't make a religion, a single person does not a militia make.
>If the ownership of firearms were restricted to "official" -- that is, under the control of the federal government -- militias, then there would be no way for individuals to ensure the security of a free state.
Well, you see, I didn't say "official" did I? I said gun clubs. It may be different in your corner of the world, but here they don't register with the government.
Try reading more closely next time. Thanks.
>It's called the 2nd Amendment.
That doesn't protect individuals. It protects militias, which, by definition, aren't individuals.
>The main reason that comes to mind is an armed revolution against the existing government, should it ever become tyranical / dictatorial / etc.
Best done by... a well organized militia. Not a single nut going on a rampage in the white house.
>but fundamentally the 2nd Amendment is all about making sure that the ultimate power lies in the hands of "the people" where it belongs.
Agreed. That being said -- it was all about letting the north military beat the hell out of the south. Never about an individual nut being able to own an AK-47. There's a reason those words are present there. They weren't just put in for flowery reasons.
>Also, you might be interested to know that legally owned / properly licensed fully automatic weapons are almost NEVER used in the commission of armed crimes.
I can believe you. That's generally because the nuts grab the first thing handy, which is usually a handgun. The people owning fully automatic weapons are usually part of a gun club which would, in some ways, count as an organized militia. And, there's the crux of the matter, isn't it?
>Although the national offices get most of the attention, ballots may include 20-100 other things to vote on. Everything from state representatives down to obscure changes in county and city charters that most don't even take the time to read.
Canada has the same problems. Sometimes that will be done by "X" ballots, sometimes it will be done by scantron style ballots. However, important elections, such as electing a new Prime Minister or Premier have always been done with "X" ballots.
This is simplified in Canada by separating National, Provincial, and Mayoral elections.
I've seen results from the less key positions (they are often posted on the city's website), and there is rarely more than a percent or two difference in casted ballots between candidates, indicating people simply vote randomly anyways (on the compound Mayoral/Trustee/Councillor ballots, for some candidates I know I had to, otherwise I'd invalidate the ballot). I wouldn't worry if the wrong school trustee got voted in. I would worry if the wrong Prime Minister were voted in.