You're exactly right. The parent of this post needs to be modded up and it's parent modded down... way down.
I'm still trying to understand why I should donate money to a for-profit business. Why don't I just give my money to Microsoft? Or the government? Oh that's right, because I don't "give" money to a business, I "invest" money. And I expect a return on my investment, or I'll take my money elsewhere...
If you feel bad for Mandrake, get over it, and donate some money to the EFF or Debian. Or if you don't like their social contract, donate to a local LUG.
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs.
OK, no immediate problems with that (but you didn't say everything you should have -- see below).
And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
I can imagine that. I can also imagine a system based in reality...
You're a creative guy... so you come up with this "Gnomish contraption" that will turn sewage into magical potions. You just spent 10 years of your life researching and developing prototypes. You barely made ends meet because you believed in your idea and in yourself. Now you're ready to release your product to the world. You're so proud... the first day sales are through the roof! Everyone is buying "Gnomish contraptions" like they were worth their weight in gold! But what's this? You don't get any money from these sales... That's right... there were no patents available. You had no protection for your own innovations (time limited of course) to regain your investment of time (== money). Your blood, sweat, and tears were for naught; the little old lady next door copied your idea and built it for cheaper and is making money hand over fist. Isn't that competition?
So why do we have patents? Is it to protect Mr. Big Bad Corporation? No, it's to encourage innovation (wow!), because no one will innovate unless it benefits them. Yes, some people will gain their "payoff" in being a "do-gooder" and offering their product with "freely" (for a very loose example, think of the GPL). But remember, even the GPL has stipulations on how you can use the product. I might make some music and make it freely available and distributable, which makes me happy, but happiness doesn't feed my family.
If there were no restrictions whatsoever, no one would produce anything new, as there would be no incentive to do so. Why should you produce something if someone else can "steal" (but it's not stealing since there are no patents) it away from you?
Patents are designed to allow monopolization of a market for a short period, to enable a high return on investment (yes, investment) for those who do the R & D. After that, it's open season... and you'd better be innovating while you're making your monopoly profits... or when your patent expires you're out of luck (and business).
Can patents/copyrights/guns/toothpaste/etc be abused? Yes. But to try and push your opinions across by distorting reality is not going to get you far (or convince your intended audience).
That way I seem to avoid the semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild ritual.
But what you fail to realize is that if you have to buy two new hard drives a year, you're doing exactly what the manufacturer's want! Buy the drives with longer warranties and then send them back; make the manufacturer's pay for their own poor quality.
But this is exactly the problem... if a virus manages to pass as a trusted program, then Palladium merely reverts back to the system we have today (except as a consumer you have less control over your own property). Viruses can still wreak havoc, etc. Once the trust is broken by one app, the whole system collapses.
What do you think it's for, and how do current OS techniques not address that?
But isn't one of the "advantages" of Palladium that your friendly neighborhood viruses can no longer run and erase your MP3s/JPGs/etc, because they are not "trusted" code? I'm not sure how that will relate to unsigned VB scripts. It's designed to protect the consumer from themselves... and legislate what (Microsoft's, I assume) programmers could not implement properly.
Your point about current OSes addressing the techniques is defintely valid. Perhaps a Palladium developer could respond here, if their browser will allow it...
If your Sparc is as loud as my Ultra 30, then I'd have to say the Sparc is probably doing just fine. I am considering putting a rheostat on the front and rear 120mm fans because they're quite loud. Granted, they're very effective at cooling. I'm not too worried about the components overheating, though, because even the hard drives have their own heatsinks.
Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO).
I have yet to find an ad on a DVD that I couldn't skip. Either hitting the menu key, the fast forward, or next chapter gets me past it (even on my Samsung player).
As for paid programming, I'd be happy to pay for programming if it was quality material (History channel, A&E, Discovery, TLC). Give me those channels only, and without ads, and I'll pay for them. HBO's Band Of Brothers was a fantastic mini-series... which I bought on DVD. HBO's model does work, but you can't peddle sitcoms/mindless crap (although I might pay for a Seinfeld channel).
Re:Completely subjective
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I never understood the X is cheaper than Y argument.
Perhaps I'm responding to a troll here, but I will assume for the moment that you really don't understand the need for comparison.
Microsoft is in business to make money, and so is RedHat. Hopefully that's not a surprise. They are actually competitors, and in order to compete, and to generate revenues, they need customers to purchase their product. This is done by demonstrating to the customer that their product is better than their competitor's -- remember that customers don't have "perfect information" so advertising/marketing/education is needed. If customers already knew which product was best, then there would be no need to try and persuade customers (the merits of the product would have already done this).
Now, let's assume you're a business owner and you want to computerize your office. You're smart enough to realize that no solution will be perfect, but you still need something (if you never did anything because you couldn't find the "perfect" solution you'd go out of business pretty quickly). So what happens is you compare all of the products available to you, and you will decide, as best you can, on the "best" solution. Often cost is the primary factor, which is why Microsoft/RedHat/Sun want you to think their solution has the highest cost/benefit ratio.
There can be no one perfect solution.
While true, this answer solves nothing. If you're going to pound a square peg in a round hole, wouldn't you rather it be the cheapest/fastest/etc peg? If you can find the one round (perfect) peg, then you're ahead of the game...
People are tired of searching and hunting through folders and heirarchies full of oddly named files and temp folders that can confuse Joe User.
Yet these are the same people who cannot remember their file/folder names because they don't name them descriptively in the first place. It's nearly impossible to save the user from themselves; a new file system paradigm is a good try, but I'm not convinced it will work.
Users who happy sloppy/disorganized desks will have their electronic files in similar disarray. Learning to use the search is one great advantage of an electronic office... if only we could "grep" our piles of papers on our desk for that one document...
I really don't think you can use your indivdual experience as a barometer for the world at large.
Yet this is how most individuals do view, and respond, to world events. If people could just understand that their experience(s) is/are not the end-all, be-all solutions to the world's problems, I think we'd all be better off. Square peg in a round hole...
BTW, current US government leaders, I'm looking at you.
By doubling the word length to 64-bits, you can reduce the clock rate of the chip, and will still be able to perform more instructions per second than your top-of-the-range Athlon/Pentiums.
Huh? I'm no processor guru, but that just doesn't make sense. My UltraSparc @ 300 Mhz is not as fast as a 600 Mhz Intel offering (granted, bragging rights are increased to offset this deficit). Increased "bits" lets you use larger data sets and the like, not lower speed. You can only do one thing at a time... you make the assumption that everything a computer does requires very large numbers (greater than 2^32).
In fact, there is really no point in having all applications running in 64-bit mode. Full 64-bit mode involves a significant overhead (memory and disk size) with often no benefit. Some applications really can benefit from being in 64-bit mode, and that is the purpose of this porting effort.
I should note, though, that I am very pleased to discover that IP traffic is now tracked using 64-bit integers! Yay! No more resetting of my IP traffic counters after they hit 4 GB...
64-bit isn't a bad thing, but for home users it won't bring much. For computer enthusiasts, though, it will bring (hopefully) features which are typically reserved for higher-end systems... increased memory throughput, increased speed for database/technical applications, etc. Your games won't go faster, though, until color is rendered in 64 (or hopefully 128) bit, and even then the speed increase will likely be small.
You create a character with six vital statistics, a spell/skill book, and a bunch of empty slots for inventory. You put armor and weapons in your inventory slots. You walk your blocky 100-triangle avatar out in a third-person view, you click on a monster to target it, and you hit a key to start auto-attacking it. You sit there twiddling your thumbs until either it dies or you die.
I played Gemstone III for quite a long time as a rogue. Attacking could take a variety of paths, but my usual methodology was hide (as best I could depending on terrain) and then when the enemy was in a particular position, go full offensive and jump out and ambush their leg. Hopefully I didn't miss or they'd be all over me. If I hit, they'd fall to the ground, and I'd do the same, ambushing their head or neck (for a more effective and critical attack). It would even show you the rolls of the dice if you wanted. It was a great game, and I enjoyed playing it for quite some time. However, eventually I tired of paying the monthy fees and decided to cancel my subscription. I still miss it to this day. Supposedly the DragonRealms game from Simutronics was even more advanced than Gemstone III, but I never got into that. It's a text-based game, though, so if you don't have an imagination, you should probably look elsewhere.
I found Gemstone III much more fulfilling than Everquest. GS3 was magnitudes beyond EQ. After it became a pay service (it used to be free if you were on AOL), the loser-newbie level dropped like a rock. I found most people who played the game were there to be part of the larger community. It really was a lot of fun.
If you want to call gaming an addiction, why would the pushers (Sony) want to discourage that? More addicted users == more profit. Addicts would never accept the fact that you're trying to separate them from their "drug" -- they'll just go and find a new one.
It seems "newbie" and "hardcore" servers would be a better solution to combat clashes between newbies and addicts.
What does the first half of your sentence have to do with the second half? Are you trying to say that because you're 31 the rest of your comment (and prior comments) are more important? Do you want to brag about having good vision?
Anyways, I have an LCD running at 1280 x 1024, and the default font size (100% in Mozilla, Medium in IE) is just fine under Windows 2000. It's still a bit too small to benefit from 2000's built-in anti-aliasing, but the text is very clear. Gnome 2 looks fantastic, though, using the same sizes after turning on sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Granted, my LCD is running via DVI, so perhaps my experience is a bit different than the norm.
Also, you may not have noticed, but you no longer need a "monster graphics card" to run monitors at very high resolutions.
I've always felt that any post that starts with a line like that deserves to get modded into oblivion, just on principle. If you're going to say something you think will be controversial, just say it; don't spend time trying to impress us with how brave you are for speaking your mind.
Exactly... and it's the same idea when people explain how/what/why they think X, and then, at the end, say "...but I don't know."
Well if you don't know, what the hell were you just talking about? Were you just pulling my leg? Why should I even bother to listen to you or your opinion. At least give the illusion that you know and believe what you're saying -- if you can't do that, save your breath, speech causes entropy to increase.
Hopefully the end of the court case means no one will need to ask it again.
In case you didn't realize it, this is Slashdot.org. Not only will this question be asked again and the same (incorrect) answers given again, the story will be reposted by each editor. This will give you more than enough opportunity to accumulate karma points by posting the same comment. Really, you should be happy...
Come lawsuit time, you (depending on how much spam you registered) get a chance to cash in on all the spam they sent you.
You'd better be damn sure you could (a) prove a specific spammer was involved and (b) collect damages. Why? Because if you thought you'd get paid for spam, you'd sign up for all the spam you could. Your ISP's (your partner in this game) costs skyrocket, and now making some extra cash off spammers seems a lot less feasible. Even if you get a judgement against the spammer, there's no guarantee it will cover the costs to accept all that spam.
I predict that "popup-ads" during TV shows whould just drive more and more people away from broadcast TV and to watching either premium channels, renting movies, or (horrors) reading books. Broadcast TV will be shooting itself in the foot.
I can just imagine the last few holdouts to this oversaturation... News channels. But when they shift it will be incredibly rediculous:
"Let's go to Marty via XYZ satellite uplink and ABC professional cameras..."
"I'm standing here in front of the Pacific Ocean with my DEF microphone, wearing my GHI cold weather gear. Looks like it's going to be a cold one this weekend, and the wind will pick up tonight. Weather instruments provided by UVW. Back to you Joe."
17-year old gang banger who gets shot by the owner of a liquor store
Then...
[which is] improper use of a firearm
So self defense isn't a valid use for a firearm? And if it isn't, what else are handguns for? If it is, then why should I cry for this "17-year old gang banger?"
It seems to me that if you point a loaded gun at me, your asking to be shot. You obviously don't respect the gun or the person you're pointing at.
Forgive me for forgetting my tag, it was getting dry cleaned.
While many people will argue that greenhouse gases are bad, and humans are the worst polluters in nature, they often gloss over (or ignore) the fact that a large volcanic eruption will put a large amount of CO2 into the air (not to mention other toxic gases), and put enough ash into the air to block out the sun (which mankind has "yearned to do since the beginning of time" - CMB). Global temperatures will drop by a few degrees F in a year which is far more damaging that a one degree increase every few years.
Yes, humans should limit, to the best of their abilities, the output of greenhouse gases. But don't forget that nature can do just as much damage too. We should be preparing for both contingencies.
If we pollute ourselves out of existence, is that really that bad? What would Darwin think?
Slashdot Mirror
And that's just one example.
So you have others?
"super coolness"
That sounds like a Microsoft marketing term used to target MTV viewers. "Windows Media Player: Get lost in it's super coolness and DRM."
MandrakeSoft is a business.
You're exactly right. The parent of this post needs to be modded up and it's parent modded down... way down.
I'm still trying to understand why I should donate money to a for-profit business. Why don't I just give my money to Microsoft? Or the government? Oh that's right, because I don't "give" money to a business, I "invest" money. And I expect a return on my investment, or I'll take my money elsewhere...
If you feel bad for Mandrake, get over it, and donate some money to the EFF or Debian. Or if you don't like their social contract, donate to a local LUG.
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs.
OK, no immediate problems with that (but you didn't say everything you should have -- see below).
And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
I can imagine that. I can also imagine a system based in reality...
You're a creative guy... so you come up with this "Gnomish contraption" that will turn sewage into magical potions. You just spent 10 years of your life researching and developing prototypes. You barely made ends meet because you believed in your idea and in yourself. Now you're ready to release your product to the world.
You're so proud... the first day sales are through the roof! Everyone is buying "Gnomish contraptions" like they were worth their weight in gold! But what's this? You don't get any money from these sales...
That's right... there were no patents available. You had no protection for your own innovations (time limited of course) to regain your investment of time (== money). Your blood, sweat, and tears were for naught; the little old lady next door copied your idea and built it for cheaper and is making money hand over fist. Isn't that competition?
So why do we have patents? Is it to protect Mr. Big Bad Corporation? No, it's to encourage innovation (wow!), because no one will innovate unless it benefits them. Yes, some people will gain their "payoff" in being a "do-gooder" and offering their product with "freely" (for a very loose example, think of the GPL). But remember, even the GPL has stipulations on how you can use the product. I might make some music and make it freely available and distributable, which makes me happy, but happiness doesn't feed my family.
If there were no restrictions whatsoever, no one would produce anything new, as there would be no incentive to do so. Why should you produce something if someone else can "steal" (but it's not stealing since there are no patents) it away from you?
Patents are designed to allow monopolization of a market for a short period, to enable a high return on investment (yes, investment) for those who do the R & D. After that, it's open season... and you'd better be innovating while you're making your monopoly profits... or when your patent expires you're out of luck (and business).
Can patents/copyrights/guns/toothpaste/etc be abused? Yes. But to try and push your opinions across by distorting reality is not going to get you far (or convince your intended audience).
That way I seem to avoid the semi-annual crash/replace/rebuild ritual.
But what you fail to realize is that if you have to buy two new hard drives a year, you're doing exactly what the manufacturer's want! Buy the drives with longer warranties and then send them back; make the manufacturer's pay for their own poor quality.
But this is exactly the problem... if a virus manages to pass as a trusted program, then Palladium merely reverts back to the system we have today (except as a consumer you have less control over your own property). Viruses can still wreak havoc, etc. Once the trust is broken by one app, the whole system collapses.
What do you think it's for, and how do current OS techniques not address that?
But isn't one of the "advantages" of Palladium that your friendly neighborhood viruses can no longer run and erase your MP3s/JPGs/etc, because they are not "trusted" code? I'm not sure how that will relate to unsigned VB scripts. It's designed to protect the consumer from themselves... and legislate what (Microsoft's, I assume) programmers could not implement properly.
Your point about current OSes addressing the techniques is defintely valid. Perhaps a Palladium developer could respond here, if their browser will allow it...
This isn't about sniffing the SSH traffic, it's about sniffing the memory of the machine, which can well contain the key.
So a possible (temporary) solution would be to add more RAM? Maybe I can write that off as a business expense...
I wonder if a sufficient density of photons would collapse into a black hole.
If they can, my guess is you need a lot of em... so let's not waste any more time and get to work!
So we can create our own Big Bangs? But if you create it, do you get to be omniscient in that universe (and thus revered as a god).
If your Sparc is as loud as my Ultra 30, then I'd have to say the Sparc is probably doing just fine. I am considering putting a rheostat on the front and rear 120mm fans because they're quite loud. Granted, they're very effective at cooling. I'm not too worried about the components overheating, though, because even the hard drives have their own heatsinks.
Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO).
I have yet to find an ad on a DVD that I couldn't skip. Either hitting the menu key, the fast forward, or next chapter gets me past it (even on my Samsung player).
As for paid programming, I'd be happy to pay for programming if it was quality material (History channel, A&E, Discovery, TLC). Give me those channels only, and without ads, and I'll pay for them. HBO's Band Of Brothers was a fantastic mini-series... which I bought on DVD. HBO's model does work, but you can't peddle sitcoms/mindless crap (although I might pay for a Seinfeld channel).
I never understood the X is cheaper than Y argument.
Perhaps I'm responding to a troll here, but I will assume for the moment that you really don't understand the need for comparison.
Microsoft is in business to make money, and so is RedHat. Hopefully that's not a surprise. They are actually competitors, and in order to compete, and to generate revenues, they need customers to purchase their product. This is done by demonstrating to the customer that their product is better than their competitor's -- remember that customers don't have "perfect information" so advertising/marketing/education is needed. If customers already knew which product was best, then there would be no need to try and persuade customers (the merits of the product would have already done this).
Now, let's assume you're a business owner and you want to computerize your office. You're smart enough to realize that no solution will be perfect, but you still need something (if you never did anything because you couldn't find the "perfect" solution you'd go out of business pretty quickly). So what happens is you compare all of the products available to you, and you will decide, as best you can, on the "best" solution. Often cost is the primary factor, which is why Microsoft/RedHat/Sun want you to think their solution has the highest cost/benefit ratio.
There can be no one perfect solution.
While true, this answer solves nothing. If you're going to pound a square peg in a round hole, wouldn't you rather it be the cheapest/fastest/etc peg? If you can find the one round (perfect) peg, then you're ahead of the game...
People are tired of searching and hunting through folders and heirarchies full of oddly named files and temp folders that can confuse Joe User.
Yet these are the same people who cannot remember their file/folder names because they don't name them descriptively in the first place. It's nearly impossible to save the user from themselves; a new file system paradigm is a good try, but I'm not convinced it will work.
Users who happy sloppy/disorganized desks will have their electronic files in similar disarray. Learning to use the search is one great advantage of an electronic office... if only we could "grep" our piles of papers on our desk for that one document...
Just change your preferences to deny messages from anyone who is not in your address book. Problem solved.
I really don't think you can use your indivdual experience as a barometer for the world at large.
Yet this is how most individuals do view, and respond, to world events. If people could just understand that their experience(s) is/are not the end-all, be-all solutions to the world's problems, I think we'd all be better off. Square peg in a round hole...
BTW, current US government leaders, I'm looking at you.
By doubling the word length to 64-bits, you can reduce the clock rate of the chip, and will still be able to perform more instructions per second than your top-of-the-range Athlon/Pentiums.
Huh? I'm no processor guru, but that just doesn't make sense. My UltraSparc @ 300 Mhz is not as fast as a 600 Mhz Intel offering (granted, bragging rights are increased to offset this deficit). Increased "bits" lets you use larger data sets and the like, not lower speed. You can only do one thing at a time... you make the assumption that everything a computer does requires very large numbers (greater than 2^32).
From Debian's Sparc Page:
In fact, there is really no point in having all applications running in 64-bit mode. Full 64-bit mode involves a significant overhead (memory and disk size) with often no benefit. Some applications really can benefit from being in 64-bit mode, and that is the purpose of this porting effort.
I should note, though, that I am very pleased to discover that IP traffic is now tracked using 64-bit integers! Yay! No more resetting of my IP traffic counters after they hit 4 GB...
64-bit isn't a bad thing, but for home users it won't bring much. For computer enthusiasts, though, it will bring (hopefully) features which are typically reserved for higher-end systems... increased memory throughput, increased speed for database/technical applications, etc. Your games won't go faster, though, until color is rendered in 64 (or hopefully 128) bit, and even then the speed increase will likely be small.
You create a character with six vital statistics, a spell/skill book, and a bunch of empty slots for inventory. You put armor and weapons in your inventory slots. You walk your blocky 100-triangle avatar out in a third-person view, you click on a monster to target it, and you hit a key to start auto-attacking it. You sit there twiddling your thumbs until either it dies or you die.
I played Gemstone III for quite a long time as a rogue. Attacking could take a variety of paths, but my usual methodology was hide (as best I could depending on terrain) and then when the enemy was in a particular position, go full offensive and jump out and ambush their leg. Hopefully I didn't miss or they'd be all over me. If I hit, they'd fall to the ground, and I'd do the same, ambushing their head or neck (for a more effective and critical attack). It would even show you the rolls of the dice if you wanted. It was a great game, and I enjoyed playing it for quite some time. However, eventually I tired of paying the monthy fees and decided to cancel my subscription. I still miss it to this day. Supposedly the DragonRealms game from Simutronics was even more advanced than Gemstone III, but I never got into that. It's a text-based game, though, so if you don't have an imagination, you should probably look elsewhere.
I found Gemstone III much more fulfilling than Everquest. GS3 was magnitudes beyond EQ. After it became a pay service (it used to be free if you were on AOL), the loser-newbie level dropped like a rock. I found most people who played the game were there to be part of the larger community. It really was a lot of fun.
This is a tactic to discourage addiction.
If you want to call gaming an addiction, why would the pushers (Sony) want to discourage that? More addicted users == more profit. Addicts would never accept the fact that you're trying to separate them from their "drug" -- they'll just go and find a new one.
It seems "newbie" and "hardcore" servers would be a better solution to combat clashes between newbies and addicts.
I'm 31 and have better than 20/20 eyes.
What does the first half of your sentence have to do with the second half? Are you trying to say that because you're 31 the rest of your comment (and prior comments) are more important? Do you want to brag about having good vision?
Anyways, I have an LCD running at 1280 x 1024, and the default font size (100% in Mozilla, Medium in IE) is just fine under Windows 2000. It's still a bit too small to benefit from 2000's built-in anti-aliasing, but the text is very clear. Gnome 2 looks fantastic, though, using the same sizes after turning on sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Granted, my LCD is running via DVI, so perhaps my experience is a bit different than the norm.
Also, you may not have noticed, but you no longer need a "monster graphics card" to run monitors at very high resolutions.
I wear shoes and require corrective lenses.
I've always felt that any post that starts with a line like that deserves to get modded into oblivion, just on principle. If you're going to say something you think will be controversial, just say it; don't spend time trying to impress us with how brave you are for speaking your mind.
Exactly... and it's the same idea when people explain how/what/why they think X, and then, at the end, say "...but I don't know."
Well if you don't know, what the hell were you just talking about? Were you just pulling my leg? Why should I even bother to listen to you or your opinion. At least give the illusion that you know and believe what you're saying -- if you can't do that, save your breath, speech causes entropy to increase.
Hopefully the end of the court case means no one will need to ask it again.
In case you didn't realize it, this is Slashdot.org. Not only will this question be asked again and the same (incorrect) answers given again, the story will be reposted by each editor. This will give you more than enough opportunity to accumulate karma points by posting the same comment. Really, you should be happy...
In Soviet Russia...
Marine: Here in America we don't tolerate that kind of crap, Sir!
Come lawsuit time, you (depending on how much spam you registered) get a chance to cash in on all the spam they sent you.
You'd better be damn sure you could (a) prove a specific spammer was involved and (b) collect damages. Why? Because if you thought you'd get paid for spam, you'd sign up for all the spam you could. Your ISP's (your partner in this game) costs skyrocket, and now making some extra cash off spammers seems a lot less feasible. Even if you get a judgement against the spammer, there's no guarantee it will cover the costs to accept all that spam.
I predict that "popup-ads" during TV shows whould just drive more and more people away from broadcast TV and to watching either premium channels, renting movies, or (horrors) reading books. Broadcast TV will be shooting itself in the foot.
I can just imagine the last few holdouts to this oversaturation... News channels. But when they shift it will be incredibly rediculous:
"Let's go to Marty via XYZ satellite uplink and ABC professional cameras..."
"I'm standing here in front of the Pacific Ocean with my DEF microphone, wearing my GHI cold weather gear. Looks like it's going to be a cold one this weekend, and the wind will pick up tonight. Weather instruments provided by UVW. Back to you Joe."
17-year old gang banger who gets shot by the owner of a liquor store
Then...
[which is] improper use of a firearm
So self defense isn't a valid use for a firearm? And if it isn't, what else are handguns for? If it is, then why should I cry for this "17-year old gang banger?"
It seems to me that if you point a loaded gun at me, your asking to be shot. You obviously don't respect the gun or the person you're pointing at.
Forgive me for forgetting my tag, it was getting dry cleaned.
While many people will argue that greenhouse gases are bad, and humans are the worst polluters in nature, they often gloss over (or ignore) the fact that a large volcanic eruption will put a large amount of CO2 into the air (not to mention other toxic gases), and put enough ash into the air to block out the sun (which mankind has "yearned to do since the beginning of time" - CMB). Global temperatures will drop by a few degrees F in a year which is far more damaging that a one degree increase every few years.
Yes, humans should limit, to the best of their abilities, the output of greenhouse gases. But don't forget that nature can do just as much damage too. We should be preparing for both contingencies.
If we pollute ourselves out of existence, is that really that bad? What would Darwin think?