Forgot to mention I really like those statistics. Good links.
You're welcome. I was referred to them by someone else recently, and found them interesting as well. Most studies compare relatively large numbers of people, presuming that the entire data set from a country is homogenous.
But, when you can break it down into , some interesting patterns (or lack of patterns) emerge. I've traveled quite a bit on business, and am amazed how different places and people can be, only a few miles apart.
The US is a relatively young country, settled by immigrants from all over the world. Most tend to cluster with their own kind, and I believe the various communities are still dominated by the cultural norms brought from their ancestral homes, even generations later.
A while back, I read of a study that found exactly that: immigrant communities closely mirrored their home countries. People of Scandinavian descent had the same low murder rate in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. On the other hand, people from more violent cultures tended to mimic that behavior among themselves in the US. However, I haven't been able to find it, so I don't know if I'm citing it correctly.
Now, here's the point, in two simple steps: of all the people that get killed yearly by gunshots (and a shocking amount of them minors) most could be avoided and have little to do with normal crime but are a direct exponent of the liberal gun laws you have.
Sorry, it's not that simple:
Even if you remove all the murders committed with a firearm, the US still has a higher overall murder rate than Western European countries. It's something about our culture, not the guns.
And, those murders are clustered, indicating that it's not a problem across the entire US. The FBI's most recent data for 2001: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl08.xls
is very interesting: add a column that computes the murders per 100,000 and sort it by the rate. You'll find that 55% of the cities with a population exceeding 10,000 had no murders in 2001. Sort on city population, you'll see that total population isn't a discernible factor, either.
Gun laws are hardly liberal in many parts of the US: Boston and NYC are good examples of rather draconian measures, but it hasn't done them any good. On the other hand, there are fairly large cities in the South and West (where gun control is less stringent) that have low murder rates. I'm not claiming that gun control causes crime -- the cause and effect in the US seems to be that crime causes gun control.
Statistics claiming that "children" are being killed at a high rate in the US redefine children as anyone under the age of 20, although people of ages 18-19 are legally considered adults. The reason for this subterfuge is that it includes murders related to gang warfare that is epidemic in some parts of the US. Look for yourself at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-5.xls, which shows a sharp drop off below the age of 17, and again below the age of 13. This particular data is grouped into three-year intervals, but other data I've seen shows that the murder rate jumps sharply at the age of 14-15: the prime recruiting age for the gangs.
Compare gun deaths in the US to eg gun deaths in Canada, Australia, the EG, all with a varying degree of freedom and accountability, but none of them as personal-protection-gun-crazy as the US.
And, while you are at it, you should also check countries like Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, and most of the Eastern European countries. All have stringent gun control, and significantly higher murder rates than the US.
Guns are designed to launch a bullet in the direction it is aimed. The overwhelming majority of bullets shot every year are aimed at inanimate paper targets.
Weapons are common in competitive sports. Baseball uses modern versions of a club and a rock. Many Olympic sports (the javelin, the hammer, and the discus) utilize ancient weapons. The pole vault was once a method to assault fortified positions.
Used carelessly, almost anything can be dangerous. For that matter, almost anything can be used as a weapon. But, they are just inanimate objects -- it's the wielder that determines whether they are used for good or bad purposes.
If the "well regulated militia" part wasn't a condition, it seems like the Founding Fathers would have just said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and left it at that. After all, the First Amendment doesn't start with "Since these freedoms are necessary to keep the peons happy,..."
Actually, the First Amendment did have such a clause. Madison's draft of what became the First Amendment:
the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the breath bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable
became:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
His first draft of what became the Second Amendment:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country
became:
"[a] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes, I know there are extra commas. Some hand-written versions of the Bill of Rights have those extra commas. However, I believe the authorative version has only one.
The Senate removed all of the preambles, apparently thinking they were unnecessary or redundant. However, they left in the preamble to the Second Amendment. There is some evidence that they viewed it as a separate issue that was tangentially related to the right to keep and bear arms.
But, in case you think it might limit that right to a "collective" right rather than an individual right, consider that the Senate refused to add "for the common defense" to the right to arms guarantee, which would have suggested that the guarantee's purpose was linked solely to the militia:
Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States 77 (Washington 1820) "On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words: 'for the common defense' next to the words 'to bear arms'; it passed in the negative."
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 543
I don't actively use it, but I still have a working Compaq "luggable" PC (see serial # in subject), later upgraded to an XT with a 10 megabyte hard drive.
The processor is a 4.77 MHz 8088 (with a separate 8087 co-processor). It has 256K on the motherboard and another 256K in an XT add-on board. It still has DOS 3.? on it, but I don't think I have the installation floppies any longer.
At one time, I had a complete 386 motherboard with its own memory in an XT slot. It used the rest of the PC for I/O and keyboard/monitor. When I replaced the computer with a 486/33, I sold the 386 motherboard and retired the original system to the closet.
Speakeasy reacted quickly, changing their DNS servers to block Sitefinder. I see they are in the list, but I'm not sure if the study identified ISPs actually known to have blocked Sitefinder, or if they just concluded it from the drop in traffic.
Ron Paul is the House gadfly. He's a former Libertarian candidate for President, and reflexively votes against anything that expands government regulation.
The reason (at least, as I understand it) is that all those people (mostly/.ers, probably) who went short on SCO stock a month ago have now had to buy it back at whatever price it's at currently, thus driving up the price in the market.
Given the margin requirements for SCOX (80% at my broker, vs. 30% for MSFT and IBM), it's not likely that your average/.'er has sufficient assets to short a significant amount of SCOX.
Note the jump in shorted shares since 5/3: an order of magnitude. And, the latest data is almost two months old -- I'm not even going to guess what the 8/3 report will be.
Did the original release (in 1977) have the flattened projection?
I think it was added to for the "special edition" release just before the beginning of the current trilogy. There was a big advertising blitz about "better sound", "new scenes", and "better special effects".
http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0076759 seems to confirm it: "In addition, the film now features new special effects shots and scenes [...] including new explosions for the Death Star and Alderaan;
No, the case came that way. But, you will notice that they are stacked next to each other, blocking the side ports for all except the ones on the left end.
I've been wondering the same thing. The market hasn't reacted to this at all: SCO stock is down only about 1%. This is all over various tech websites and even some non-tech websites. You would think that word would have already leaked out.
SCO's response is going to be interesting. They now have to show something that enhances their credibility, and I'll bet they are scrambling to make sure it holds up under scrutiny.
Newton Crosby: Where are you from, anyway? Ben Jabituya: Bakersfield, originally. Newton Crosby: No, I mean your ancestors. Ben Jabituya: Oh, them. Pittsburgh.
Anyway, my idea for an open source number generator is to have people on slashdot post the first number that comes to mind in this thread. I don't know if it could get more random.... (patent pending)
Slashdot Mirror
More than a few large cities. AT&T is rolling out GSM to all of their service area, and have done most or all of the major metro areas already:
AT&T Wireless GSM map
Cingular has done the same:
Cingular CSM map
AT&T and Cingular were the two major TDMA networks in the US, and have are converting to GSM.
You're welcome. I was referred to them by someone else recently, and found them interesting as well. Most studies compare relatively large numbers of people, presuming that the entire data set from a country is homogenous.
But, when you can break it down into , some interesting patterns (or lack of patterns) emerge. I've traveled quite a bit on business, and am amazed how different places and people can be, only a few miles apart.
The US is a relatively young country, settled by immigrants from all over the world. Most tend to cluster with their own kind, and I believe the various communities are still dominated by the cultural norms brought from their ancestral homes, even generations later.
A while back, I read of a study that found exactly that: immigrant communities closely mirrored their home countries. People of Scandinavian descent had the same low murder rate in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. On the other hand, people from more violent cultures tended to mimic that behavior among themselves in the US. However, I haven't been able to find it, so I don't know if I'm citing it correctly.
Sorry, it's not that simple:
Compare gun deaths in the US to eg gun deaths in Canada, Australia, the EG, all with a varying degree of freedom and accountability, but none of them as personal-protection-gun-crazy as the US.
And, while you are at it, you should also check countries like Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, and most of the Eastern European countries. All have stringent gun control, and significantly higher murder rates than the US.
Cars have also been used to move bombs around.
Guns are designed to kill people.
Guns are designed to launch a bullet in the direction it is aimed. The overwhelming majority of bullets shot every year are aimed at inanimate paper targets.
Weapons are common in competitive sports. Baseball uses modern versions of a club and a rock. Many Olympic sports (the javelin, the hammer, and the discus) utilize ancient weapons. The pole vault was once a method to assault fortified positions.
Used carelessly, almost anything can be dangerous. For that matter, almost anything can be used as a weapon. But, they are just inanimate objects -- it's the wielder that determines whether they are used for good or bad purposes.
Aside from the US Code, many states have laws that explicitly make anyone eligible a member of the militia. For example, California law:
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Actually, the First Amendment did have such a clause. Madison's draft of what became the First Amendment:
the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the breath bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable
became:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
His first draft of what became the Second Amendment:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country
became:
"[a] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes, I know there are extra commas. Some hand-written versions of the Bill of Rights have those extra commas. However, I believe the authorative version has only one.
The Senate removed all of the preambles, apparently thinking they were unnecessary or redundant. However, they left in the preamble to the Second Amendment. There is some evidence that they viewed it as a separate issue that was tangentially related to the right to keep and bear arms.
But, in case you think it might limit that right to a "collective" right rather than an individual right, consider that the Senate refused to add "for the common defense" to the right to arms guarantee, which would have suggested that the guarantee's purpose was linked solely to the militia:
Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States 77 (Washington 1820) "On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words: 'for the common defense' next to the words 'to bear arms'; it passed in the negative."
Read your own link:
ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Would you care to eat crow, or your own bullshit?
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 543
This is cited in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) and Justice Stewart's concurrence to Roe v. Wade.
If you did, the NY Times would be every color except white.
Yes:
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/noose/balloon.htm
The processor is a 4.77 MHz 8088 (with a separate 8087 co-processor). It has 256K on the motherboard and another 256K in an XT add-on board. It still has DOS 3.? on it, but I don't think I have the installation floppies any longer.
At one time, I had a complete 386 motherboard with its own memory in an XT slot. It used the rest of the PC for I/O and keyboard/monitor. When I replaced the computer with a 486/33, I sold the 386 motherboard and retired the original system to the closet.
You forgot the phrase that usually precedes this:
Here, hold muh beer....
Speakeasy reacted quickly, changing their DNS servers to block Sitefinder. I see they are in the list, but I'm not sure if the study identified ISPs actually known to have blocked Sitefinder, or if they just concluded it from the drop in traffic.
Could other Linux contributors join the suit? Maybe it could be certified as a class action?
However, those 60 million aren't likely voters that can swing the results of the next election.
Given the margin requirements for SCOX (80% at my broker, vs. 30% for MSFT and IBM), it's not likely that your average /.'er has sufficient assets to short a significant amount of SCOX.
It doesn't apply here, since there are no options available for SCOX.
I'll also note a source for short interest in SCOX:
http://www.viwes.com/invest/shorts/query.cgi?q=SCO X
Note the jump in shorted shares since 5/3: an order of magnitude. And, the latest data is almost two months old -- I'm not even going to guess what the 8/3 report will be.
There are no options on SCOX.
If you don't believe me, call your broker and ask them for a quote on calls or puts for SCOX.
I think it was added to for the "special edition" release just before the beginning of the current trilogy. There was a big advertising blitz about "better sound", "new scenes", and "better special effects".
http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0076759 seems to confirm it: "In addition, the film now features new special effects shots and scenes [...] including new explosions for the Death Star and Alderaan;
See here:
For example, each case came with two side fans, which we converted into a redundant stack venting out the back.
That's probably why they did this:
For example, each case came with two side fans, which we converted into a redundant stack venting out the back.
SCO's response is going to be interesting. They now have to show something that enhances their credibility, and I'll bet they are scrambling to make sure it holds up under scrutiny.
Newton Crosby: Where are you from, anyway?
Ben Jabituya: Bakersfield, originally.
Newton Crosby: No, I mean your ancestors.
Ben Jabituya: Oh, them. Pittsburgh.
42