Actually, I see it differently. This is Reuters playing with a kind of reverse psychology.
They don't quote anyone calling it a 'war on intellectual property theft'...THEY call it that. Primarily because they know what the reaction to that headline will be to the people it affects.
Reuters called it a war in their headline...not the government. They called it that without a quote or source to back it up. That is damned poor journalism, IMHO.
I think we disagree on which side is trying to manipulate...unfortunately, it's working all too well.
Please read the article and see it for what it is: The U.S. never said "we are declaring war on intellectual property theft". Reuters did - and Slashdot, being paragon of journalistic integrity, goes right along with it.
This is the kind of thing that makes people complain of media bias. That journalist likes knows very well that it will get reactions just like yours. There is not one qoute in the article to back it up...no representative of the government said that...they just want you to think that one did, and offer no proof to support it. (Now granted - if someone DID say that, they SHOULD be quoted and I WOULD take issue with that.)
Just take a look at what the whole thread has become. It's mostly people bashing the U.S. for something the U.S. didn't even say and taking it even one step further and likening it to a war on drugs that they don't agree with. (Not even going to argue the drug issue here as it's not material to the discussion, IMHO.) The groupthink here is just truely a sight to behold...I really hope some people can see through this and better learn to question how they read the media for it.
Well...if someone says that in the capacity of a government representative, then that individual should be quoted, AND is fair game as far as I am concerned.
Without a quote and a source, this is nothing but Reuter's behaving irresponsibly.
The flamewar about "why are we declaring war on everything!?" that abounds in this thread is rediculous to me. People are being completely ignorant...this is the kind of thing (though apparently too subtle for some) that makes people scream about a media bias. I hate to seem like I am being oversensitive about it, but the reader reaction in the thread is speaking for itself.
Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy.
Well...you made a statement that can't be proven wrong. It's slick, but misleading. Relative to the other branches of science, environmental sciences are very immature. For the record, what would qualify a branch of science as mature to you? That can't really be quantified in a meaningful way...it's all relative.
We've been dealing with mathematics, for a few thousand years now. We've been dealing with physics for at least several centuries. Metallurgy and chemistry goes back quite a long way as well. We've been studying the C02 levels in the atmosphere for a few decades at most...particularly since we have satellites to give us a better view of it.
He's making a point with logic instead of reacting emotionally. That is quite alot more scientific than much of the knee jerk environmentalism I've seen here so far, IMHO.
1. Will fans pony up the big bucks for a Sirius satellite radio receiver and pay the monthly fee just to hear Stern? Remember, unlike XM satellite radio, Sirius is still quite rare as pre-installed on new cars.
I'd consider this one the very big wildcard here...in my experience from back in college through now, there aren't alot of people willing to pay 10+ bucks a month to listen to Stern. Most of the people I knew who listened to him regularly, did so in college where we all subsided on Ramen and Mac & Cheese. Sorry Howard, but Ramen trumps low humor any day when you are hungry.
I do know some post-college folks who listened to him as well, but the most regular listener that comes to mind didn't even have cable TV...and the second big fan bought an expensive car and lived with a few roommates in a crappy apartment. These aren't people looking for another 10+ dollar expenditure every month just to listen to Stern's crap. They like it if it's free...but beyond that - they'll get on with their lives and find something else.
I don't think there is anything Stern could do with the newfound ability to spew uncensored words that he can't do now. Now they just bleep it, but honestly...like you don't know what he's saying anyways? Please. Sure...it'll be shocking...pretty much like before, sans beeps...that isn't going to generate much buzz for him. I think it's at least likely that he just shot himself in the foot, hard.
Well...that is my humble speculation anyways. I don't have a crystal ball, but it's my humble guess.
Ironically enough, you just responded to it with a strawman...since we are breaking out the debate rules.;)
Do you think that the inclusion of an ad hominem attack rules out all chance that the post and several others in the thread refute alot of what the Salon author has to say?
I don't think the author is doing anything with an objective mindset. He's another partisan hack, IMHO...some of his "opinion" pieces are probably as offensive to me as you said you find LGF.
The thing that bothers me, is that his opinion also permeates the articles that are labeled as "news and politics" rather than "opinion"...it's not as overt, but he drives for the exact same points, just without the insults.
For that matter, there are quite a few ad hominems in them, if that does indeed qualify as a discrediting factor.
For what it's worth, I might write Charles about the article you pointed out myself yet. I do have an account there, though I am a lurker. He is awfully busy with the recent media coverage and other matters by the sound of it, but it's worth a shot. I certainly don't think it's likely going to ban me over it.
Give it a shot. See how quick you get banned for 'not seeing the problem'.
Really, give it a shot. Let me know how it goes. Three people posted it in the thread, yet...
No...I challenged you to try it. POLITELY I might add, which appears as though it would be the greater challenge of the two. It is my opinion, based on this conversation so far, that you wouldn't be capable of writing Charles an email without insulting him, his site, or his views, and asking that he try to keep the intellectual highground on this point. (You know...the teacher was only cutting the kids ears...not cutting them off. That's MUCH better.)
It's kind of amusing that you point to three posters who set the record straight. If Charles was banning people for 'not seeing the problem', don't you think he'd also be removing posts? Yet there they are...interesting that. Especially interesting if you read Kos's behavior in the link I provided earlier. You are projecting.
One very important point for you. Websites don't make people hate. The decision to hate or not to hate is up to the individual.
LGF does often carry some interesting information...LGS is the site that first convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that the CBS memo was a fake. Not by 'spreading hate'...by providing information. If that information makes you automatically prone to hate, maybe you'd better get some help.
Its purpose is to point out how unworthy of life (extremist) Muslims are.
Perhaps their lives would improve if they stopped giving the civilized world quite so much to point at in this regard.
Granted, it would be great if he did. (I am not going to directly defend something that isn't right, unlike Kos.) His readers already DID that however.
If CBS would like to do the equivalent and give the people who have differences with what they try to pass off as news some free air time to correct them, you'd have the equivalency you are trying to make.
Why don't you politely email Charles and ask him to say something about it...though by the impression your words are giving me, I don't think you have it in you to be polite with someone who's views are different from your own.
Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky. And no one suffers from it more than him;)
That is about the best dead-on explaination of Chomsky I think I have ever read on Slashdot.
Thank you for that.
A agree about Kos as well, for the record. He's a crackpot, from this whole CBS document scandal, to the whole screw them episode he is so well known for. If a conservative did half of the crap Kos gets away with, I think most of the Slashdot audience would be showing up with torches and pitchforks.
Actually...I do have to cede a bit to you on that one. You are correct about some subsidization of the whole oil situation, whether it's called an outright subsidy or not. I think it would take quite alot more subsidization to make the alternatives desireable enough though.
Also, I am not trying to twist the argument, but there is a practicle side to fossil fuels in cars and the such, as well. It's hard to beat the distance potential of a tank full of gas. Electics and have promise, but the range is limited...and while it might cover most people's everyday commute, most people I know don't own more than one car, and they are SOL when they need to go distances, if they had electric or some other vehicle type. Biodiesel would be great, but if people changed to it in droves, the demand for it would price it into the stratosphere. I have my doubts that enough could be supplied even if we wanted to.
The technology is getting better though...I don't think we have too many years before some alternatives are going to be pretty viable. (Personally, I'd like to see more solar...ALOT of the fossil fuel consumption here in the U.S. is for generating power...not driving cars.) Alot of the kneejerk enviro's don't seem to understand that I really do want that...but I am sticking by what I said about the solution to it all before.
Thanks for a rational and reasonable response, by the way. As always, slashdot could use more discussion like that.
Actually, I'd suggest that you stop nodding your head affirmatively towards everything Al Gore tells you.
Republican's actually have a pretty good grasp on what will permanently fix the problem...the free market. When the alternative technologies mature to the point that they can compete with fossil fuels on price (as in non-subsidized)...people WILL go to them in droves. Get the crap about the big oilman conspiracy out of your head...when a new energy source shows up, those oil companies will be damn glad to sell you the next big thing. They actually LIKE making money...crazy concept, but it works.
Democrats (liberal democrats, actually...I don't want to paint them all with the same brush they way you so elegantly do with Republicans) would generally rather take the heavy handed nanny approach and tell me what the fuck I should be driving instead of letting me live my own life they way I damn well choose.
Ironically, I drive a car that gets 30 mpg highway and not an SUV. Know why? It's a fair balance of economy for me...It's not stellar miliage compared to some things...but it sure is a nice fricking car. I don't own an SUV...I never have owned an SUV. I WOULD like to find an old Jeep CJ for a weekend toy however...what a fucking pure evil republican I am. Join the evil conservatives in their quest to rid the earth of clean air and water! Cause you just KNOW that's what we are all about.
Actually - thanks for a resonable response. (They are rare here.) I don't feel attacked by ideology for once.:)
For the record, I limit myself to a drink or two in any given day - and those are rather rare. I HATE that drunken feeling that some people manage to enjoy somehow. I really don't like the mix of firearms and alcohol, either. (Thank's ATF!)
Mental illness is a reasonble argument, but it seldom sets in instantly. (Usually gradual, like Charlton Heston's Alzheimers...time for the individual to plan.) The people around a person in a mental crisis should act on that and make other arrangements for their firearms until they hopefully recover. If someone is truely crazy, they can kill people with or without firearms...there are alot more deaths in a given year from bare hands than from rifles or shotguns.
I am admitted fortunate with respect to my current living situation. I don't have any little ones (yet) in the house, so securing firearms isn't quite as dire of a situation as it is for those with families. That will be a concern when the time comes...I was raised in a house that had three rifles in it though. My parent's took great care to handle them responsibly, and I'd have to do the same.
Dogs can be a wildcard comparatively. It's got a mind of it's own. A welled trained and disciplined dog is pretty safe IMHO, but it still has a mind of it's own.
I do understand what you are saying - it's all a matter of probability. There is more to it to me than that though...to me, it's taking charge of my own fate. I trust myself not to make those mistakes, and I trust my mental stability...I don't trust everyone else to play nicely. That is just my own mentality/philosophy, which really wasn't well expressed in my response.
As far as the second quote, those aren't my rules...that is just the way the world works. If someone claims some right over you, and can enforce it, it effectively doesn't matter if it's right or wrong - that is just the way the situation is.
That's why I am hardheaded on defense (personal and national)...in my mind, if reasonable people don't maintain the lead in the ability to project force, unreasonable people will be glad to take that crown and use it. People have very differing definitions of unreasonable sometimes, but you get the idea.
Ok...enough philosophy spewing from me today. It feels funny.
The poster said just to get insurance for "home defense". Insurance doesn't bring back the dead or heal the injured. Maybe you don't believe that responsible people ever deploy a firearm in a defensive situation, but it's not unheard of. It happens...I have personally met people who it has happened to - and I hope every day of my life that I don't ever HAVE to draw a firearm on another human being. (And unlike the movies, the only time you draw one in a bad situation should be when you are prepared to use it if you have to.)
Home invasions happen. You know by what I wrote, that they really don't happen around where I live - so why the troll? That also isn't all that happens out there in the real world. Unfortunately, no matter how much you may insist upon it, not everyone is going to be nice.
Now...I have to ask you. What do YOU know about responsibly handled guns? You don't sound like someone who has ever handled one, let alone someone who'd know how to handle one responsibly. That could just be my perception, but judging by the tone of your response, it's a sound guess. WAY too many people don't seem to know or understand how a person is supposed to behave with a firearm. I think they watch too many actions movies and follow it up with "Bowling for Columbine". Yeah....now that'll give you a balanced perspective. Feh.
As for Bruce Schneier - the security of my Unix box is different some my personal safety. If someone compromises by Unix box, I don't die. I wonder what he says about the Unix machines controlling military weapons systems, or medical equipment and their security - I'd wager he gets alot less willing to compromise. Sure...it's not likely that someone will hack into this missile system here...
I'll leave you with two of my favorite quotes on the matter:
"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."
And
"An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject."
I'd expect more of the freedom-minded people on Slashdot to understand that last one, but the wonderful indoctrination that gets doled out in the institutions of higher learning these days runs pretty deep, IMHO.
If we went to war in Iraq for oil, then why isn't THAT lowering the price? Why are the Saudi's manipulating the price of oil? Because we went to war in Iraq?
You aren't making any sense.
If we wanted to invade for oil, Venezuela is what the target would be. If our leaders are all a bunch of oil men bent on oiling us all to death, don't you think they'd know that too?
Gas prices drop after labor day weekend? Now theres a shocker. Umm...not.
What you don't get, is that quote is actually quite humorous. Some people call them the elite...the funny part is, is those people aren't elite. They even know it themselves. Sure...they are wealthy - but wealthy != elite.
You want elite? Look into what Kerry and Edwards are worth, or George Soros for that matter. Quite alot of Hollywood and darn near all of the musicians as well. I recall reading an article detailing the net worth of politicians, and actually the democrats were wealthier by quite a good margin.
I disagree with you on that one. It doesn't make it balanced...it only makes it diverse. If it was balanced, pudge (and some likeminded folks) would be posting as often as Michael and pals. Journals don't count...lets talk front page exposure.
I honestly don't think anything short of a personnel shakeup will bring Slashdot into any real semblance of balance. It's just not in most of their personalities, judging by what they write and the things they do. (Granted, that's IMHO.)
My prediction: This politics section is going to be dominated by articles with a left slant, just like the rest of the site. Why? Because it's from the same editors who have been doing just that all along. I am interested to see how the readers react, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I see it differently. This is Reuters playing with a kind of reverse psychology.
They don't quote anyone calling it a 'war on intellectual property theft'...THEY call it that. Primarily because they know what the reaction to that headline will be to the people it affects.
Reuters called it a war in their headline...not the government. They called it that without a quote or source to back it up. That is damned poor journalism, IMHO.
I think we disagree on which side is trying to manipulate...unfortunately, it's working all too well.
Please read the article and see it for what it is: The U.S. never said "we are declaring war on intellectual property theft". Reuters did - and Slashdot, being paragon of journalistic integrity, goes right along with it.
This is the kind of thing that makes people complain of media bias. That journalist likes knows very well that it will get reactions just like yours. There is not one qoute in the article to back it up...no representative of the government said that...they just want you to think that one did, and offer no proof to support it. (Now granted - if someone DID say that, they SHOULD be quoted and I WOULD take issue with that.)
Just take a look at what the whole thread has become. It's mostly people bashing the U.S. for something the U.S. didn't even say and taking it even one step further and likening it to a war on drugs that they don't agree with. (Not even going to argue the drug issue here as it's not material to the discussion, IMHO.) The groupthink here is just truely a sight to behold...I really hope some people can see through this and better learn to question how they read the media for it.
Well...if someone says that in the capacity of a government representative, then that individual should be quoted, AND is fair game as far as I am concerned.
Without a quote and a source, this is nothing but Reuter's behaving irresponsibly.
The flamewar about "why are we declaring war on everything!?" that abounds in this thread is rediculous to me. People are being completely ignorant...this is the kind of thing (though apparently too subtle for some) that makes people scream about a media bias. I hate to seem like I am being oversensitive about it, but the reader reaction in the thread is speaking for itself.
I don't see anyone but Al-Reuters calling it a 'declaration of war'. The headline alone is going to cause a flame war.
Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy.
Well...you made a statement that can't be proven wrong. It's slick, but misleading. Relative to the other branches of science, environmental sciences are very immature. For the record, what would qualify a branch of science as mature to you? That can't really be quantified in a meaningful way...it's all relative.
We've been dealing with mathematics, for a few thousand years now. We've been dealing with physics for at least several centuries. Metallurgy and chemistry goes back quite a long way as well. We've been studying the C02 levels in the atmosphere for a few decades at most...particularly since we have satellites to give us a better view of it.
Because not opposing the leadership surely means you just aren't thinking!
He's making a point with logic instead of reacting emotionally. That is quite alot more scientific than much of the knee jerk environmentalism I've seen here so far, IMHO.
1. Will fans pony up the big bucks for a Sirius satellite radio receiver and pay the monthly fee just to hear Stern? Remember, unlike XM satellite radio, Sirius is still quite rare as pre-installed on new cars.
I'd consider this one the very big wildcard here...in my experience from back in college through now, there aren't alot of people willing to pay 10+ bucks a month to listen to Stern. Most of the people I knew who listened to him regularly, did so in college where we all subsided on Ramen and Mac & Cheese. Sorry Howard, but Ramen trumps low humor any day when you are hungry.
I do know some post-college folks who listened to him as well, but the most regular listener that comes to mind didn't even have cable TV...and the second big fan bought an expensive car and lived with a few roommates in a crappy apartment. These aren't people looking for another 10+ dollar expenditure every month just to listen to Stern's crap. They like it if it's free...but beyond that - they'll get on with their lives and find something else.
I don't think there is anything Stern could do with the newfound ability to spew uncensored words that he can't do now. Now they just bleep it, but honestly...like you don't know what he's saying anyways? Please. Sure...it'll be shocking...pretty much like before, sans beeps...that isn't going to generate much buzz for him. I think it's at least likely that he just shot himself in the foot, hard.
Well...that is my humble speculation anyways. I don't have a crystal ball, but it's my humble guess.
Yes, quarantine. And why not for the Japs, too? And Kentukians?
Nice strawman. Now if you disagree with his idea, try actually refuting it instead of twisting it in hopes of trivializing it.
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
Well...the president next year will likely have deserved them. Not sure if it'll be Bush or Kerry though...certainly not Nader, IMHO.
* Note to the disfunctional moderators out there: This is what I pass off as humor.
Ironically enough, you just responded to it with a strawman...since we are breaking out the debate rules. ;)
Do you think that the inclusion of an ad hominem attack rules out all chance that the post and several others in the thread refute alot of what the Salon author has to say?
I don't think the author is doing anything with an objective mindset. He's another partisan hack, IMHO...some of his "opinion" pieces are probably as offensive to me as you said you find LGF.
The thing that bothers me, is that his opinion also permeates the articles that are labeled as "news and politics" rather than "opinion"...it's not as overt, but he drives for the exact same points, just without the insults.
For that matter, there are quite a few ad hominems in them, if that does indeed qualify as a discrediting factor.
For what it's worth, I might write Charles about the article you pointed out myself yet. I do have an account there, though I am a lurker. He is awfully busy with the recent media coverage and other matters by the sound of it, but it's worth a shot. I certainly don't think it's likely going to ban me over it.
and for the record...not as solid as you think...
Give it a shot. See how quick you get banned for 'not seeing the problem'.
Really, give it a shot. Let me know how it goes. Three people posted it in the thread, yet...
No...I challenged you to try it. POLITELY I might add, which appears as though it would be the greater challenge of the two. It is my opinion, based on this conversation so far, that you wouldn't be capable of writing Charles an email without insulting him, his site, or his views, and asking that he try to keep the intellectual highground on this point. (You know...the teacher was only cutting the kids ears...not cutting them off. That's MUCH better.)
It's kind of amusing that you point to three posters who set the record straight. If Charles was banning people for 'not seeing the problem', don't you think he'd also be removing posts? Yet there they are...interesting that. Especially interesting if you read Kos's behavior in the link I provided earlier. You are projecting.
One very important point for you. Websites don't make people hate. The decision to hate or not to hate is up to the individual.
LGF does often carry some interesting information...LGS is the site that first convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that the CBS memo was a fake. Not by 'spreading hate'...by providing information. If that information makes you automatically prone to hate, maybe you'd better get some help.
Its purpose is to point out how unworthy of life (extremist) Muslims are.
Perhaps their lives would improve if they stopped giving the civilized world quite so much to point at in this regard.
Why doesn't Charles fix it?
Granted, it would be great if he did. (I am not going to directly defend something that isn't right, unlike Kos.) His readers already DID that however.
If CBS would like to do the equivalent and give the people who have differences with what they try to pass off as news some free air time to correct them, you'd have the equivalency you are trying to make.
Why don't you politely email Charles and ask him to say something about it...though by the impression your words are giving me, I don't think you have it in you to be polite with someone who's views are different from your own.
Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky. And no one suffers from it more than him ;)
That is about the best dead-on explaination of Chomsky I think I have ever read on Slashdot.
Thank you for that.
A agree about Kos as well, for the record. He's a crackpot, from this whole CBS document scandal, to the whole screw them episode he is so well known for. If a conservative did half of the crap Kos gets away with, I think most of the Slashdot audience would be showing up with torches and pitchforks.
Oh well...at least they mean well.
Actually...I do have to cede a bit to you on that one. You are correct about some subsidization of the whole oil situation, whether it's called an outright subsidy or not. I think it would take quite alot more subsidization to make the alternatives desireable enough though.
Also, I am not trying to twist the argument, but there is a practicle side to fossil fuels in cars and the such, as well. It's hard to beat the distance potential of a tank full of gas. Electics and have promise, but the range is limited...and while it might cover most people's everyday commute, most people I know don't own more than one car, and they are SOL when they need to go distances, if they had electric or some other vehicle type. Biodiesel would be great, but if people changed to it in droves, the demand for it would price it into the stratosphere. I have my doubts that enough could be supplied even if we wanted to.
The technology is getting better though...I don't think we have too many years before some alternatives are going to be pretty viable. (Personally, I'd like to see more solar...ALOT of the fossil fuel consumption here in the U.S. is for generating power...not driving cars.) Alot of the kneejerk enviro's don't seem to understand that I really do want that...but I am sticking by what I said about the solution to it all before.
Thanks for a rational and reasonable response, by the way. As always, slashdot could use more discussion like that.
Actually, I'd suggest that you stop nodding your head affirmatively towards everything Al Gore tells you.
Republican's actually have a pretty good grasp on what will permanently fix the problem...the free market. When the alternative technologies mature to the point that they can compete with fossil fuels on price (as in non-subsidized)...people WILL go to them in droves. Get the crap about the big oilman conspiracy out of your head...when a new energy source shows up, those oil companies will be damn glad to sell you the next big thing. They actually LIKE making money...crazy concept, but it works.
Democrats (liberal democrats, actually...I don't want to paint them all with the same brush they way you so elegantly do with Republicans) would generally rather take the heavy handed nanny approach and tell me what the fuck I should be driving instead of letting me live my own life they way I damn well choose.
Ironically, I drive a car that gets 30 mpg highway and not an SUV. Know why? It's a fair balance of economy for me...It's not stellar miliage compared to some things...but it sure is a nice fricking car. I don't own an SUV...I never have owned an SUV. I WOULD like to find an old Jeep CJ for a weekend toy however...what a fucking pure evil republican I am. Join the evil conservatives in their quest to rid the earth of clean air and water! Cause you just KNOW that's what we are all about.
Actually - thanks for a resonable response. (They are rare here.) I don't feel attacked by ideology for once. :)
For the record, I limit myself to a drink or two in any given day - and those are rather rare. I HATE that drunken feeling that some people manage to enjoy somehow. I really don't like the mix of firearms and alcohol, either. (Thank's ATF!)
Mental illness is a reasonble argument, but it seldom sets in instantly. (Usually gradual, like Charlton Heston's Alzheimers...time for the individual to plan.) The people around a person in a mental crisis should act on that and make other arrangements for their firearms until they hopefully recover. If someone is truely crazy, they can kill people with or without firearms...there are alot more deaths in a given year from bare hands than from rifles or shotguns.
I am admitted fortunate with respect to my current living situation. I don't have any little ones (yet) in the house, so securing firearms isn't quite as dire of a situation as it is for those with families. That will be a concern when the time comes...I was raised in a house that had three rifles in it though. My parent's took great care to handle them responsibly, and I'd have to do the same.
Dogs can be a wildcard comparatively. It's got a mind of it's own. A welled trained and disciplined dog is pretty safe IMHO, but it still has a mind of it's own.
I do understand what you are saying - it's all a matter of probability. There is more to it to me than that though...to me, it's taking charge of my own fate. I trust myself not to make those mistakes, and I trust my mental stability...I don't trust everyone else to play nicely. That is just my own mentality/philosophy, which really wasn't well expressed in my response.
As far as the second quote, those aren't my rules...that is just the way the world works. If someone claims some right over you, and can enforce it, it effectively doesn't matter if it's right or wrong - that is just the way the situation is.
That's why I am hardheaded on defense (personal and national)...in my mind, if reasonable people don't maintain the lead in the ability to project force, unreasonable people will be glad to take that crown and use it. People have very differing definitions of unreasonable sometimes, but you get the idea.
Ok...enough philosophy spewing from me today. It feels funny.
Read what I was responding to.
The poster said just to get insurance for "home defense". Insurance doesn't bring back the dead or heal the injured. Maybe you don't believe that responsible people ever deploy a firearm in a defensive situation, but it's not unheard of. It happens...I have personally met people who it has happened to - and I hope every day of my life that I don't ever HAVE to draw a firearm on another human being. (And unlike the movies, the only time you draw one in a bad situation should be when you are prepared to use it if you have to.)
Home invasions happen. You know by what I wrote, that they really don't happen around where I live - so why the troll? That also isn't all that happens out there in the real world. Unfortunately, no matter how much you may insist upon it, not everyone is going to be nice.
Now...I have to ask you. What do YOU know about responsibly handled guns? You don't sound like someone who has ever handled one, let alone someone who'd know how to handle one responsibly. That could just be my perception, but judging by the tone of your response, it's a sound guess. WAY too many people don't seem to know or understand how a person is supposed to behave with a firearm. I think they watch too many actions movies and follow it up with "Bowling for Columbine". Yeah....now that'll give you a balanced perspective. Feh.
As for Bruce Schneier - the security of my Unix box is different some my personal safety. If someone compromises by Unix box, I don't die. I wonder what he says about the Unix machines controlling military weapons systems, or medical equipment and their security - I'd wager he gets alot less willing to compromise. Sure...it's not likely that someone will hack into this missile system here...
I'll leave you with two of my favorite quotes on the matter:
"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."
And
"An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject."
I'd expect more of the freedom-minded people on Slashdot to understand that last one, but the wonderful indoctrination that gets doled out in the institutions of higher learning these days runs pretty deep, IMHO.
Yeah...that'll bring back your family after a botched home invasion.
I live in an area where ALOT of people own firearms. That kind of thing doesn't happen here much...you'd have to be farking crazy.
Check out a reputable, local gun shop and invest in some training on how to handle it responsibly. The NRA is pretty big on that kind of thing.
And with links to commondreams and the world socialist website, and indymedia you know that just stinks of credibility.
If I'd have to try to explain why that is, there is really no point in arguing with you. Mr. Anonymous Coward - you aren't a rational human being.
If we went to war in Iraq for oil, then why isn't THAT lowering the price? Why are the Saudi's manipulating the price of oil? Because we went to war in Iraq?
You aren't making any sense.
If we wanted to invade for oil, Venezuela is what the target would be. If our leaders are all a bunch of oil men bent on oiling us all to death, don't you think they'd know that too?
Gas prices drop after labor day weekend? Now theres a shocker. Umm...not.
How does one deal with the chaffing when wearing a tinfoil hat all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.
Nevermind...will write more later. Art Bell is on.
What you don't get, is that quote is actually quite humorous. Some people call them the elite...the funny part is, is those people aren't elite. They even know it themselves. Sure...they are wealthy - but wealthy != elite.
You want elite? Look into what Kerry and Edwards are worth, or George Soros for that matter. Quite alot of Hollywood and darn near all of the musicians as well. I recall reading an article detailing the net worth of politicians, and actually the democrats were wealthier by quite a good margin.
I disagree with you on that one. It doesn't make it balanced...it only makes it diverse. If it was balanced, pudge (and some likeminded folks) would be posting as often as Michael and pals. Journals don't count...lets talk front page exposure.
I honestly don't think anything short of a personnel shakeup will bring Slashdot into any real semblance of balance. It's just not in most of their personalities, judging by what they write and the things they do. (Granted, that's IMHO.)
My prediction: This politics section is going to be dominated by articles with a left slant, just like the rest of the site. Why? Because it's from the same editors who have been doing just that all along. I am interested to see how the readers react, though.