One of the nice things about Compact Flash is that it was designed to work on an IDE bus. That means that with a cheap, simple adapter, that compact flash card is now an IDE hard drive.
As for keeping the system state, don't power off, use "suspend-to-RAM".
Your fonts won't look any different (except maybe slightly smaller) if you're choosing the right resolution. Uing a resolution with a 4:3 aspect ratio (like 640*480, 1024*768, 1600*1200) on a screen with an aspect ratio of 16:9 will make things look funny, but that's why you get resolution choices with a 16:9 aspect ratio: So that everything comes out right.
I've been planning for some time to tear the tile out above the bathtub faucets, frame a nice space in the wall, and put an LCD TV in there with some plexiglass over it. Simpsons while soaking, baby.
When I was younger, I'd read in the bathtub until I fell asleep. I guess I've degenerated since then.
You can't really compare electricity from one month to another if you're talking about a dollar or two. Differences in climate, usage, etc. can have a bigger effect than that. Let's do some real calculations.
If electricity costs you 10 cents/kilowatt-hour after applicable taxes and fees, then each watt that you consume will cost you about 7.4 cents/month. At 200 watts total, that's about $14.88. And 200 watts will run a *serious* system: I measured my Athlon 3200 w/ GeForce 6800GT, and only when truly maxing out the CPU and video card would it bump a 200-watt draw from the wall.
My P3/650 file server (4 drives) and my dual-P133 router combined only draw about 130 watts under load, for a cost of about $9.50 per month.
Now my central air that pulls 9 amps on a 220-volt circuit all day long during the hot months, that's entirely another story...
My file server is a P3/650 with 4x120-gig hard drives, and it draws about 85 watts under load.
I have a dual Pentium 133 (yes, dual-CPUs!) with 96 megs of RAM that I picked up a few years ago for $40. I've been using it as my router with Coyote Linux, and always thought it was probably sucking down the power. I measured the power draw at the wall yesterday while downloading a couple of bit torrents, it was only 47 watts.
Of course, if you were to pick up one of those Epia/Eden/C3 systems, the entire package can consume as little as 20 watts. Maybe 25 or so with a second hard drive.
There's always the possibility of underclocking and undervolting a processor (a mobile Athlon would make a *perfect* candidate), but those tiny Via systems still take less power, and are sexy to boot.
Not *most* of them, but maybe a good percentage. The funny ones are when someone in ITT's job placement department sends us a stack of thirty or fourty resumes, every one of which looks exactly alike.
Really, I am. You see, for years I've been putting up with "I'm a techie, too!" people. The kind that have no idea what they're doing.
They're people who go to a two-week certification class. They're people who take a 6-month class. They're people who go to ITT for two years. They're people who learned everything on their own. And they're even people with four-year degrees.
For every 100 people that say "Yeah, I work with computers, too!", I'm lucky if I meet three or four that actually have a clue, and (here's the important part) actually have any marketable skills.
Yes, they're the ones that whine and moan that "the market is flooded", "you can't get a job in (insert state name)", "it's all these people willing to work for nothing", or "the economy is so horrible."
I know a lot of people who make their living with computers. And while "the economy was bad", I can honestly say that the job difficulties they faced were inversely proportional to their expertise. The better they really were, the less trouble they had.
When we put an ad in the paper for a programmer who (a) has used Perl in a CGI environment, (b) has some knowledge of SQL, and (c) has some knowledge of HTML, you'd be amazed at how many applicants we get - literally, hundreds. And again, literally, without any exageration, over 85% of the applicants do not meet those requirements in any way, shape, or form. We're lucky if we get three or four people out of 150 applicants that can really say that they're proficient in those three areas - and to me, that's not asking much at all.
The sad fact is that the tech job market was massively, grossly over-inflated during the "dot-com craze", and is now back at a more reasonable level. Yes, I know, that makes it tough for all of the "But I want to be a programmer, too!" people, but that's just fine. They've been making it tough on the rest of us for quite some time.
The current implementation doesn't seem to work very well, but the idea is pretty cool.
With a current workstation being much more powerful than most users really need, this isn't a bad idea.
For the office, I've built a score of AthlonXP 2500+/Nforce2 IGP machines with 512 megs of memory and all-around good, quality hardware for about $450 each. It doesn't make much sense to go for anything slower on the CPU. If I saved $30 (less than 10% of the system cost), I'd probably lose 30% of the performance. But at the same time, that's a lot more CPU than they need for IE, Excell, and Thunderbird.
It would be very cool to build similar with a gig of memory (say, $600), and let two people in the same cubicle use them. We currently have our customer-service monkies stacked two and three to a cube, so it would work out terrifically.
In fact, if it weren't for one terribly critical piece of Windows-only software, I would have long ago gone to a dual-CPU Linux machine with 8 gigs of memory, and given twenty people a dumb/thin client with which to connect to it. However, that *still* requires an extra computer on their desktop.
You mean the one that happened over 30 years ago? The crime that was committed by non-Europeans against non-Europeans and just happened to take place in Europe? Is that supposed to tell us anything more than that international events have to deal with the problem of 'imported' violence and need proper security?
Yep, that one. And if anyone is being alarmist and taking things out of context, it's you.
If you read my post, you'll see exactly my point: No matter how enlightened you are, there's some other jerk that's not, and your enlightenment and education do exactly nothing to protect you from him.
Statistically, it is far more likely that you die in traffic than that you get murdered (unless you are a criminal).
You're right. That's why thousands of dollars of the cost of a car go into providing safety: Even though you're not likely to be in an accident, it could happen, and you want to be ready. I'm not likely to ever need a gun. But if I ever did, it would be nice to have one.
Some people want to outlaw guns because, like you said... "think of the children!" Far more children drown in bathtubs than are killed with guns, once you've excluded gang-related shootings. In fact, far more children are run over and killed by school busses than are accidentally killed with guns.
even though it has never been proven that guns stop crime.
Oh, it's been proven many times that guns reduce crime. And it's been proven many times that they don't. How is that possible? Easy: The majority of people are unable to look at it objectively, and will stick to whatever their first gut-reaction was. It's the same about a lot of things - government elections, choice of car company, the best stereo. That's how people are.
For a short while, years ago, I lived in an apartment building where police, ambulances, and firetrucks were a *nightly* occurance. I even got to watch a prison SWAT team raid the apartment below me. I've asked some policemen about those apartments, they say that it's almost hourly now.
Now, I live in a neighborhood where I don't believe there has been a violent crime in anyone's memory. That's great for me, but for a lot of people, they simply can't afford living in an area like mine. Their only options are going to be crime-ridden.
You're absolutely right, house robbers tend to rob houses when nobody is there. And in interviews with imprisoned house robbers, they'll almost universally tell you that it's because someone could be home with a gun or other weapon. You see, you don't even need to own a gun to enjoy that benefit: Just the fact that *some* people own guns is enough to extend some protection to you!
That's a gross exaggeration. You see every last one (in your area) that ends up in a shelter because some idiot doesn't really have the patience for a dog,
I'm not talking out of my butt here. I've dealt with both dog-lovers and dog-abandoners for almost three decades. Yes, there are a lot of good people. But the numbers of irresponsible people are staggering.
People who do that aren't just cut from the same cloth as the groups you mention, they almost univerally *are* the groups you mention. And there's a lot of them.
When someone in your neighborhood gets a puppy, keeps it for a month, and takes it to the shelter because they couldn't take the time to try and potty-train it correctly, you probably won't even know about it. The people that you see walking their dog every day make a lot larger impression, and give you the sense that most people are like that.
If you don't believe what I'm telling you, go volunteer at a local animal shelter. See for yourself.
Like I said, the watchdog schtick is really an excuse for having the dog you really want to have around anyway.
If someone is willing to live up to all of the responsibilities of caring for a dog, then I'm more than happy to see them get one! There are just far too many people who get one with the idea of a watchdog who simply aren't prepared to live up to it.
(Of course, then there are the people who want a "watchdog", so they get whatever breed has a reputation for being mean, beat it, abuse it, and encourage aggressiveness. Don't even get me started on that sort of people.)
Actually, in both interviews with real violent criminals and analysis of their behavior, the vast majority show a very great aversion to being shot themselves, and typically go greatly out of their way to make sure that their victims are not armed, rather than simply shooting them first.
Your gun is useful only if the attacker is unarmed or if you see him first, but for some reason some gun owner believes he's the only one who is smart and prepared.
And they typically believe that they'll be able to see to fire the gun. And they think that with all of the adrenaline, they'll actually be able to hit anything. There are a lot of false beliefs, just like there are a lot of people who think that they're not dangerous drivers. It's not perfect. No matter what you're dealing with (guns, cars, gasoline, ladders, pressurized canisters), you just can't avoid some level of stupidity.
How many people do you know that this has happened to?
I've had a number of acquaintences and extended family to whom things like that have happened. I have a distant cousin (through marriage, admittedly) who was raped and killed by Ted Bundy. Had she been carrying a pistol, not only would she and her family been spared from that horror, but a lot of other people and families would have as well.
And even more than people who have had these things happen to them, I know even more people who have prevented things like that from happening through a firearm, whether that firearm was actually used or not.
I do however know of hundreds of drunked arguments that would have gone a lot further than simple wound-up fist-fights had guns been in every home
For every drunken argument that would go worse, there are ten thousand that go just fine. Really. Despite the alarmist reporting in the media, the legitimate uses of firearms are vastly more numerous than the illegitimate uses.
I'm not at all pretending that a couple of regular Joes at the games with a pistol could have stopped a squad of determined terrorists with automatic weapons and training.
My point is just that no matter how enlightened a nation or person believes they are, no matter how above violence that person has become, there's always somebody else who isn't, and is going to cause that person a lot of grief.
Perhaps this is a Western "Cowboy" attitude, but I firmly believe that at the instant someone decides to harm another human being, their life is instantly worth less than that of their victim.
A simple lack of education barely scratches the tip of the iceberg in the economic divide. As just one other example, poor people are much, much more likely to live in more polluted areas. Take lead as just one pollutant: Even incredibly tiny amounts during critical stages, far below the EPA's "danger" levels, are enough to cause measurable drops in IQ - as much as 10 to 20 points.
Imagine a poor family growing up where lead contamination is actually severe. No matter how hard they try to educate their children, those kids are going at life with a very real disadvantage compared to more affluent children growing up in cleaner environments.
Fine, then. I'll get rid of my car, my house, my computer, even my clothes - after all, someone out there may want them.
Perhaps *you're* not getting it: Law-abiding people shouldn't have to make sacrifices, law-breakers should.
Occasionally, you might bend that a bit. As an example, I don't leave my wallet in my car when I go out. But telling someone to get rid of anything of value to avoid crime is just plain silly.
A few years ago, my mother's neighbor was out of town on a bus trip. She got home, a creepy guy started following her around the bus station, she went out, got in her car, and drove home. She got home, and noticed that the guy had followed her. She went in and locked the door. Her husband loaded up the shotgun. The bad guy came up to the door, and broke it down to get to the woman. He promptly got a chest full of buckshot. The police showed up, took the shotgun as a matter of policy. The judge quickly determined that it was self-defense, he got the gun back, the story ended happily.
I'm sure that he never thought he'd use the gun in self-defense. Especially not like that. And chances are that I'll never have to use a gun in self-defence. But I know people who have had to, and they'll universally tell you that they were glad they had the gun around.
They're not gun nuts. They're not people who watch too many movies. They're not people who go "a-packin'". They're just people who happened to have a gun around when they needed it, and they were awfully glad that they did.
You're confusing the Assault Weapons Ban with previous gun control. Fully-automatic weapons still won't be legal without the proper permits.
As of tomorrow, about the only difference is that you'll be able to have a gun with (a) a detachable magazine, (b) a bayonet lug, and (c) a flash suppressor. Oh, and high-capacity magazines will get a little less expensive(*).
Supposedly, somehow having a detachable magazine and a bayonet lug was alright, having a detachable magazine with a flash suppressor was alright, but having *both* a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug made the gun evil.
One of my person favorite provisions is that included in the list of items that you're allowed to have two of is "grenade launcher". Somehow, the ban assumes that a semiautomatic rifle with a grenade launcher and a detachable magazine is just fine, but if you were to have a pistol grip on that same gun, then you've crossed the line.
The Assault Weapons Ban really did nothing but make it more expensive to get ugly guns. If you're of the opinion that more gun laws will do anything to reduce crime, that's fine - but the AWB itself sure hasn't (and won't).
(*) High-cap magazines aren't in any short supply, they're just more expensive. And despite laws to the contrary, there is still a very real influx into the country of hi-cap mags (I've seen some myself). It's a shame that we can't get those criminals to obey the laws, isn't it?
Web cams? What, do you think that the FBI is going to put your pictures on their most-wanted list?
"Yes, officer, someone broke into my car. The window will cost me $200, and they took $20 in cash. I have a picture of them."
"Well, I don't recognize the guy. Too bad, tell your insurance company about it."
Even when finger prints are recovered (it takes a LOT of badgering to even get the cop to try and look for them), if they aren't an immediate match, then too bad. The cops have better things to do with their time than waste it on your $300 loss.
By the time someone knows if you have anything to steal, they've usually already broken into your car or home, or mugged you.
I had my car broken into four times in three months. In no case was there anything at all to steal in the car.
I've even seen people with lettering on their car that says "this car has no stereo." Well, too bad, half of the street punks that are doing smash-and-grabs would rather find cash, drugs, or a pistol than a stereo. And the only way to see if you have any of those in your glove compartment, under your seat, or anywhere else is, of course, to break into the car. That's why it's not at all uncommon to see a parking garage/lot where they've nailed fifteen or twenty cars, and most didn't have anything worth stealing. They're playing the numbers game, sooner or later, they're going to get lucky. If they cause a few thousand in damage along the way, that doesn't matter to them one bit.
I completely agree. I have a siren inside the trunk of my car that will practically split your skull in two. But it's only loud at all if the trunk is *open*. The idea being that if someone hasn't gone to the trouble to disable my alarm (which could, of course, happen), then they'd better be wearing ear plugs if they're going to rummage through my trunk.
Yeah, it's a very small amount of protection. Maybe not even any at all. But it was only $20, and I was in a good mood that day. : )
As much as a dog can be a deterrent, I really hate the "I want a dog for protection" crowd.
You see, I volunteer at an animal shelter. And for every ten people who get a dog because they want some protection, I'd say that at least seven of those dogs wind up in the shelter.
A dog is a social animal, with feelings, needs, and emotions that need to be taken care of (in addition to the financial costs and occasional hastle/headache). And most people who get a dog for protection just aren't willing to take the responsibility when the dog's needs become an inconvenience.
Alternatively, those who actually keep the dogs often resort to just leaving them in the yard. Stripped of all social interaction, the dog will start barking and anything and everything - just trying to find something to do, and someone to do it with. At that point, when they're barking all day and night anyway, they don't do you a whole lot of good, because neither you nor your neighbors will take the time to investigate when it barks.
I had a car that was broken into four times in three months, even though there was nothing to take, and they all happened in different parts of town. I put a car alarm in, six years later, still not a single break-in. Sorry, bud, my alarm is staying.
Now, don't get me wrong: You'll probably never hear my alarm. It takes a pretty good jolt to the car to make it go off, by the time it does, it's pretty certain that someone is breaking in to the car. On the other hand, there's a guy down the street whose car alarm goes off at least three times per night - no kidding. And he's not doing himself any favors, because like you say: Nobody cares about his car alarm.
Like guns, food, dogs, driving, computers, and so many other things, the object isn't the problem: It's the stupidity of the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Whadaya mean?
One of the nice things about Compact Flash is that it was designed to work on an IDE bus. That means that with a cheap, simple
adapter, that compact flash card is now an IDE hard drive.
As for keeping the system state, don't power off, use "suspend-to-RAM".
steve
Your fonts won't look any different (except maybe slightly smaller) if you're choosing the right resolution. Uing a resolution with a 4:3 aspect ratio (like 640*480, 1024*768, 1600*1200) on a screen with an aspect ratio of 16:9 will make things look funny, but that's why you get resolution choices with a 16:9 aspect ratio: So that everything comes out right.
steve
I've been planning for some time to tear the tile out above the bathtub faucets, frame a nice space in the wall, and put an LCD TV in there with some plexiglass over it. Simpsons while soaking, baby.
When I was younger, I'd read in the bathtub until I fell asleep. I guess I've degenerated since then.
steve
You can't really compare electricity from one month to another if you're talking about a dollar or two. Differences in climate, usage, etc. can have a bigger effect than that. Let's do some real calculations.
If electricity costs you 10 cents/kilowatt-hour after applicable taxes and fees, then each watt that you consume will cost you about 7.4 cents/month. At 200 watts total, that's about $14.88. And 200 watts will run a *serious* system: I measured my Athlon 3200 w/ GeForce 6800GT, and only when truly maxing out the CPU and video card would it bump a 200-watt draw from the wall.
My P3/650 file server (4 drives) and my dual-P133 router combined only draw about 130 watts under load, for a cost of about $9.50 per month.
Now my central air that pulls 9 amps on a 220-volt circuit all day long during the hot months, that's entirely another story...
steve
My file server is a P3/650 with 4x120-gig hard drives, and it draws about 85 watts under load.
I have a dual Pentium 133 (yes, dual-CPUs!) with 96 megs of RAM that I picked up a few years ago for $40. I've been using it as my router with Coyote Linux, and always thought it was probably sucking down the power. I measured the power draw at the wall yesterday while downloading a couple of bit torrents, it was only 47 watts.
Of course, if you were to pick up one of those Epia/Eden/C3 systems, the entire package can consume as little as 20 watts. Maybe 25 or so with a second hard drive.
There's always the possibility of underclocking and undervolting a processor (a mobile Athlon would make a *perfect* candidate), but those tiny Via systems still take less power, and are sexy to boot.
steve
Not *most* of them, but maybe a good percentage. The funny ones are when someone in ITT's job placement department sends us a stack of thirty or fourty resumes, every one of which looks exactly alike.
steve
Really, I am. You see, for years I've been putting up with "I'm a techie, too!" people. The kind that have no idea what they're doing.
They're people who go to a two-week certification class. They're people who take a 6-month class. They're people who go to ITT for two years. They're people who learned everything on their own. And they're even people with four-year degrees.
For every 100 people that say "Yeah, I work with computers, too!", I'm lucky if I meet three or four that actually have a clue, and (here's the important part) actually have any marketable skills.
Yes, they're the ones that whine and moan that "the market is flooded", "you can't get a job in (insert state name)", "it's all these people willing to work for nothing", or "the economy is so horrible."
I know a lot of people who make their living with computers. And while "the economy was bad", I can honestly say that the job difficulties they faced were inversely proportional to their expertise. The better they really were, the less trouble they had.
When we put an ad in the paper for a programmer who (a) has used Perl in a CGI environment, (b) has some knowledge of SQL, and (c) has some knowledge of HTML, you'd be amazed at how many applicants we get - literally, hundreds. And again, literally, without any exageration, over 85% of the applicants do not meet those requirements in any way, shape, or form. We're lucky if we get three or four people out of 150 applicants that can really say that they're proficient in those three areas - and to me, that's not asking much at all.
The sad fact is that the tech job market was massively, grossly over-inflated during the "dot-com craze", and is now back at a more reasonable level. Yes, I know, that makes it tough for all of the "But I want to be a programmer, too!" people, but that's just fine. They've been making it tough on the rest of us for quite some time.
steve
Just read Bugtraq and NT Bugtraq, and you'll know even before Microsoft!
steve
The current implementation doesn't seem to work very well, but the idea is pretty cool.
With a current workstation being much more powerful than most users really need, this isn't a bad idea.
For the office, I've built a score of AthlonXP 2500+/Nforce2 IGP machines with 512 megs of memory and all-around good, quality hardware for about $450 each. It doesn't make much sense to go for anything slower on the CPU. If I saved $30 (less than 10% of the system cost), I'd probably lose 30% of the performance. But at the same time, that's a lot more CPU than they need for IE, Excell, and Thunderbird.
It would be very cool to build similar with a gig of memory (say, $600), and let two people in the same cubicle use them. We currently have our customer-service monkies stacked two and three to a cube, so it would work out terrifically.
In fact, if it weren't for one terribly critical piece of Windows-only software, I would have long ago gone to a dual-CPU Linux machine with 8 gigs of memory, and given twenty people a dumb/thin client with which to connect to it. However, that *still* requires an extra computer on their desktop.
steve
You mean the one that happened over 30 years ago? The crime that was committed by non-Europeans against non-Europeans and just happened to take place in Europe? Is that supposed to tell us anything more than that international events have to deal with the problem of 'imported' violence and need proper security?
Yep, that one. And if anyone is being alarmist and taking things out of context, it's you.
If you read my post, you'll see exactly my point: No matter how enlightened you are, there's some other jerk that's not, and your enlightenment and education do exactly nothing to protect you from him.
Statistically, it is far more likely that you die in traffic than that you get murdered (unless you are a criminal).
You're right. That's why thousands of dollars of the cost of a car go into providing safety: Even though you're not likely to be in an accident, it could happen, and you want to be ready. I'm not likely to ever need a gun. But if I ever did, it would be nice to have one.
Some people want to outlaw guns because, like you said... "think of the children!" Far more children drown in bathtubs than are killed with guns, once you've excluded gang-related shootings. In fact, far more children are run over and killed by school busses than are accidentally killed with guns.
even though it has never been proven that guns stop crime.
Oh, it's been proven many times that guns reduce crime. And it's been proven many times that they don't. How is that possible? Easy: The majority of people are unable to look at it objectively, and will stick to whatever their first gut-reaction was. It's the same about a lot of things - government elections, choice of car company, the best stereo. That's how people are.
steve
For a short while, years ago, I lived in an apartment building where police, ambulances, and firetrucks were a *nightly* occurance. I even got to watch a prison SWAT team raid the apartment below me. I've asked some policemen about those apartments, they say that it's almost hourly now.
Now, I live in a neighborhood where I don't believe there has been a violent crime in anyone's memory. That's great for me, but for a lot of people, they simply can't afford living in an area like mine. Their only options are going to be crime-ridden.
You're absolutely right, house robbers tend to rob houses when nobody is there. And in interviews with imprisoned house robbers, they'll almost universally tell you that it's because someone could be home with a gun or other weapon. You see, you don't even need to own a gun to enjoy that benefit: Just the fact that *some* people own guns is enough to extend some protection to you!
steve
That's a gross exaggeration. You see every last one (in your area) that ends
up in a shelter because some idiot doesn't really have the patience for a dog,
I'm not talking out of my butt here. I've dealt with both dog-lovers and dog-abandoners for almost three decades. Yes, there are a lot of good people. But the numbers of irresponsible people are staggering.
People who do that aren't just cut from the same cloth as the groups you mention, they almost univerally *are* the groups you mention. And there's a lot of them.
When someone in your neighborhood gets a puppy, keeps it for a month, and takes it to the shelter because they couldn't take the time to try and potty-train it correctly, you probably won't even know about it. The people that you see walking their dog every day make a lot larger impression, and give you the sense that most people are like that.
If you don't believe what I'm telling you, go volunteer at a local animal shelter. See for yourself.
Like I said, the watchdog schtick is really an excuse for having the dog you
really want to have around anyway.
If someone is willing to live up to all of the responsibilities of caring for a dog, then I'm more than happy to see them get one! There are just far too many people who get one with the idea of a watchdog who simply aren't prepared to live up to it.
(Of course, then there are the people who want a "watchdog", so they get whatever breed has a reputation for being mean, beat it, abuse it, and encourage aggressiveness. Don't even get me started on that sort of people.)
steve
Actually, in both interviews with real violent criminals and analysis of their behavior, the vast majority show a very great aversion to being shot themselves, and typically go greatly out of their way to make sure that their victims are not armed, rather than simply shooting them first.
Your gun is useful only if the attacker is unarmed or if you see him first, but for some reason some gun owner believes he's the only one who is smart and prepared.
And they typically believe that they'll be able to see to fire the gun. And they think that with all of the adrenaline, they'll actually be able to hit anything. There are a lot of false beliefs, just like there are a lot of people who think that they're not dangerous drivers. It's not perfect. No matter what you're dealing with (guns, cars, gasoline, ladders, pressurized canisters), you just can't avoid some level of stupidity.
steve
How many people do you know that this has happened to?
I've had a number of acquaintences and extended family to whom things like that have happened. I have a distant cousin (through marriage, admittedly) who was raped and killed by Ted Bundy. Had she been carrying a pistol, not only would she and her family been spared from that horror, but a lot of other people and families would have as well.
And even more than people who have had these things happen to them, I know even more people who have prevented things like that from happening through a firearm, whether that firearm was actually used or not.
I do however know of hundreds of drunked arguments that would have gone a lot further than simple wound-up fist-fights had guns been in every home
For every drunken argument that would go worse, there are ten thousand that go just fine. Really. Despite the alarmist reporting in the media, the legitimate uses of firearms are vastly more numerous than the illegitimate uses.
steve
I'm not at all pretending that a couple of regular Joes at the games with a pistol could have stopped a squad of determined terrorists with automatic weapons and training.
My point is just that no matter how enlightened a nation or person believes they are, no matter how above violence that person has become, there's always somebody else who isn't, and is going to cause that person a lot of grief.
Perhaps this is a Western "Cowboy" attitude, but I firmly believe that at the instant someone decides to harm another human being, their life is instantly worth less than that of their victim.
steve
A simple lack of education barely scratches the tip of the iceberg in the economic divide. As just one other example, poor people are much, much more likely to live in more polluted areas. Take lead as just one pollutant: Even incredibly tiny amounts during critical stages, far below the EPA's "danger" levels, are enough to cause measurable drops in IQ - as much as 10 to 20 points.
Imagine a poor family growing up where lead contamination is actually severe. No matter how hard they try to educate their children, those kids are going at life with a very real disadvantage compared to more affluent children growing up in cleaner environments.
steve
Fine, then. I'll get rid of my car, my house, my computer, even my clothes - after all, someone out there may want them.
Perhaps *you're* not getting it: Law-abiding people shouldn't have to make sacrifices, law-breakers should.
Occasionally, you might bend that a bit. As an example, I don't leave my wallet in my car when I go out. But telling someone to get rid of anything of value to avoid crime is just plain silly.
steve
A few years ago, my mother's neighbor was out of town on a bus trip. She got home, a creepy guy started following her around the bus station, she went out, got in her car, and drove home. She got home, and noticed that the guy had followed her. She went in and locked the door. Her husband loaded up the shotgun. The bad guy came up to the door, and broke it down to get to the woman. He promptly got a chest full of buckshot. The police showed up, took the shotgun as a matter of policy. The judge quickly determined that it was self-defense, he got the gun back, the story ended happily.
I'm sure that he never thought he'd use the gun in self-defense. Especially not like that. And chances are that I'll never have to use a gun in self-defence. But I know people who have had to, and they'll universally tell you that they were glad they had the gun around.
They're not gun nuts. They're not people who watch too many movies. They're not people who go "a-packin'". They're just people who happened to have a gun around when they needed it, and they were awfully glad that they did.
steve
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=119041&nid=5
steve
You're confusing the Assault Weapons Ban with previous gun control. Fully-automatic weapons still won't be legal without the proper permits.
As of tomorrow, about the only difference is that you'll be able to have a gun with (a) a detachable magazine, (b) a bayonet lug, and (c) a flash suppressor. Oh, and high-capacity magazines will get a little less expensive(*).
Supposedly, somehow having a detachable magazine and a bayonet lug was alright, having a detachable magazine with a flash suppressor was alright, but having *both* a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug made the gun evil.
One of my person favorite provisions is that included in the list of items that you're allowed to have two of is "grenade launcher". Somehow, the ban assumes that a semiautomatic rifle with a grenade launcher and a detachable magazine is just fine, but if you were to have a pistol grip on that same gun, then you've crossed the line.
The Assault Weapons Ban really did nothing but make it more expensive to get ugly guns. If you're of the opinion that more gun laws will do anything to reduce crime, that's fine - but the AWB itself sure hasn't (and won't).
(*) High-cap magazines aren't in any short supply, they're just more expensive. And despite laws to the contrary, there is still a very real influx into the country of hi-cap mags (I've seen some myself). It's a shame that we can't get those criminals to obey the laws, isn't it?
steve
Web cams? What, do you think that the FBI is going to put your pictures on their most-wanted list?
"Yes, officer, someone broke into my car. The window will cost me $200, and they took $20 in cash. I have a picture of them."
"Well, I don't recognize the guy. Too bad, tell your insurance company about it."
Even when finger prints are recovered (it takes a LOT of badgering to even get the cop to try and look for them), if they aren't an immediate match, then too bad. The cops have better things to do with their time than waste it on your $300 loss.
steve
Bzzt. Wrong answer, too bad.
By the time someone knows if you have anything to steal, they've usually already broken into your car or home, or mugged you.
I had my car broken into four times in three months. In no case was there anything at all to steal in the car.
I've even seen people with lettering on their car that says "this car has no stereo." Well, too bad, half of the street punks that are doing smash-and-grabs would rather find cash, drugs, or a pistol than a stereo. And the only way to see if you have any of those in your glove compartment, under your seat, or anywhere else is, of course, to break into the car. That's why it's not at all uncommon to see a parking garage/lot where they've nailed fifteen or twenty cars, and most didn't have anything worth stealing. They're playing the numbers game, sooner or later, they're going to get lucky. If they cause a few thousand in damage along the way, that doesn't matter to them one bit.
steve
I completely agree. I have a siren inside the trunk of my car that will practically split your skull in two. But it's only loud at all if the trunk is *open*. The idea being that if someone hasn't gone to the trouble to disable my alarm (which could, of course, happen), then they'd better be wearing ear plugs if they're going to rummage through my trunk.
Yeah, it's a very small amount of protection. Maybe not even any at all. But it was only $20, and I was in a good mood that day. : )
steve
As much as a dog can be a deterrent, I really hate the "I want a dog for protection" crowd.
You see, I volunteer at an animal shelter. And for every ten people who get a dog because they want some protection, I'd say that at least seven of those dogs wind up in the shelter.
A dog is a social animal, with feelings, needs, and emotions that need to be taken care of (in addition to the financial costs and occasional hastle/headache). And most people who get a dog for protection just aren't willing to take the responsibility when the dog's needs become an inconvenience.
Alternatively, those who actually keep the dogs often resort to just leaving them in the yard. Stripped of all social interaction, the dog will start barking and anything and everything - just trying to find something to do, and someone to do it with. At that point, when they're barking all day and night anyway, they don't do you a whole lot of good, because neither you nor your neighbors will take the time to investigate when it barks.
steve
I had a car that was broken into four times in three months, even though there was nothing to take, and they all happened in different parts of town. I put a car alarm in, six years later, still not a single break-in. Sorry, bud, my alarm is staying.
Now, don't get me wrong: You'll probably never hear my alarm. It takes a pretty good jolt to the car to make it go off, by the time it does, it's pretty certain that someone is breaking in to the car. On the other hand, there's a guy down the street whose car alarm goes off at least three times per night - no kidding. And he's not doing himself any favors, because like you say: Nobody cares about his car alarm.
Like guns, food, dogs, driving, computers, and so many other things, the object isn't the problem: It's the stupidity of the user.
steve