Ever hear of the POA?
It's a way to play stats. Breach of the peace and Affray are now gone. You have Public Order Act, section 4 (or 4a or 5) instead. Guess what counts as violent crimes now? Guess who pumped those stats up to secure more funding. Amazing isn't it.
You realise that the states RECOGNISE the militias, right, if not, it's not a militia. If you want to join one, it's called 'The National Guard'.
OR you could maybe take a minute and remember this isn't the late 18th Century any more and you're not a bunch of people who've just led an armed overthrow of your government. Then think again about why the 2nd (and 3rd) amendment was passed. My guess is something to do with 'new leader suddenly wanting to turn it back to the British' or perhaps 'military Junta'.
Historical perspective, it's great for putting things in context.
Is that after he's let you know he's about to invade, so you can get your gun out your gun safe (you do store it safely, right? Where if he'd broken in when you weren't there it wouldn't end up as one of the 40% of the guns on the black market each year.
Maybe thats why in a 1998 study, guns were only successfully used in home defense 1.5% of the time. Oh, and your gun is 4x more likely to injure or kill a family member or neighbour than any intruder.
Why are booby traps illegal again? Oh right THIS REASON
They also have very strict laws on public transportation of guns, and concealed carry permits are based on necessity, not desire. Oh, and I recall something about ammo being harder tog et there since 07 as well....
But then again, the Swiss aren't as angry and have the belief that they're the best and no-one tell them otherwise, unlike the US.
Except they're not. Because owning such a weapon makes you in violation of the law, thus you're no longer 'law abiding'.
In case you forgot, everyone is 'law abiding' right up until they commit the crime. The day before Meth became illegal, we had law-abiding meth users. Then it became illegal and they started taking meth from those 'law abiding citizens'. How DARE they!
"I live in Mesa Arizona in a state that allows concealed carry without a license, Mesa remains below the national average in all violent crimes for cities of more than 500,000 people"
That's Maricopa County, isn't it?
So, lower violent crime MIGHT be because
it's being committed against minorities and not being reported,
it's being reported and not logged beacuse they're "immigrants"
because those who'd normally commit it are doing so as part of Joe's posse's, getting their kicks that way, and thus not counting as 'violent crimes'
It's also a bit rich to complain about Constitutionality when old joe's your Sheriff. Have his jails come up to constitutional standard yet? I mean he's only had two court rulings against him on that
You picked about the WORST place in the US to proclaim law and order rules (or are you on joe's intimidation squads? ahh, there's your reason)
Also, do you remember the whole 'Fast and Furious' debacle? Remember what the issue it was addressing (or attempting to)? Was it something like 'no checks on gun purchases' and other things that means it's the NUMBER ONE state for supplying weapons to criminals? I do believe it it.
Arizona, Full of gun-toting pussies.
An AR-15 in a gun safe is utterly useless for home protection (unless you want your assailant to give you maybe a 5 min courtesy call, so you can get it out, and loaded and have it comfortable.
As it is you might have to find another hobby than punching holes in targets with guns. Oh no.
Now I can clearly understand how the dragon-chasers felt when their hobby was ruled illegal. Shame the National Opium Association didn't speak out!
In a statement NRA spokesman said "How DARE they act before we've had a chance to intimidate lawmakers. Everyone knows that you need more guns to be safe, just look at how safe countries with guns everywhere are, like Mexico, or Guatamala, or Columbia. Ok, so more guns hasn't actually made anyone safer, but by restricting our ability to pretend to be Rambo, while enabling us to do everything we claim you can do. Oh, and it's ineffective too, because look, it's been signed for a few hours already and nothings changed!"
before saying, "and you'd better take that seriously, or I'll blow you away!"
Nonsense. A voter ID requirement is a requirement for voters to prove that they are eligible to vote, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that that may impose a small extra burden on a tiny minority of voters is incidental, and the burden is not unreasonable. It is also what all other democracies in the world require, to no ill effect.
To quote you, Nonsense
Every time I've voted int he UK I've never needed an ID. In fact, until a few years ago, UK driving licenses didn't even have photos. You just give your name and address when you walk in. You don't even need the ballot card that's sent to you in the post. Don't go saying 'all other democracies require' when they don't. Some basic research does wonders....
how about this:
Five Myths about Voter Fraud
Funnily enough, the first one is about ID laws and their ineffectiveness at doing anything except disenfranchising.
You quote: "A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only 23 people in the entire sample would be unable to vote because of an ID requirement"
Now, do you know how many fraudulent votes were cast in Maryland because of a lack of photoID checking?
Less than 23 TOTAL, not '23 out of 36,000', but total.
VoterID fraud is a non-existant problem, that is somehow 'solved' by disenfranchising 0.5% of the population?
The problem is people assume it's a big deal. In Ohio, across the 9 Million votes cast in 2002 and 2004 combined, a total of FOUR ballots cast because of VoterID fraud. If we assume Ohio had similar percentage of people without a government-issued ID, you've dienfranchised 0.5% to prevent 0.000044% VoterID fraud. Or taken the votes away from 11,250 people for every VoterID fraud case.
In REALITY, most of the Voter Fraud that goes on, wouldn't be stopped by VoterID requirements anyway. So, if stopping Voter Fraud was the objective, then you've got to find another method, because this one won't do a thing.
It's available on torrent.
We're using the canadian pirate party's CaPT torrent tracker.
Magnet is magnet:?xt=urn:btih:79ADFF2965C672CC66F2AD54D67857BD3BAEEC61&dn=NoSafeHarbor_eBooks-USPirateParty&tr=http%3a//www.pirateparty.ca/tracker/announce.php
OR the torrent file is http://bit.ly/x5gtHe
Keep track of @nosafeharbor for more info
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of RR trackers are scene based. If you've got access to a scene dump to make the torrent in the first place, you don't then need to use the torrents to get more stuff also available on the dump.Besides which, it eats into your e-peen 'ratio'
It already is almost dead due to stupid users
on
BitTorrent Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
It's my experience (from 6+ years of doing frontline support, plus a few years as a p2p researcher) that most people have bad settings for their clients. They 'tweak' them to try and make things better, but in reality only make things worse.
Actually, it's worse. Remember, the initial seeder doesn't download, so that's at least one upload without a download. So while the average across the torrent is 1:1, in reality, the peers/users on it will be less than 1, with the initial seeder removed.
Also, can we stop calling them 'private trackers' - there's NOTHING private about them. They're LESS private than public/open trackers. They're Registration Required trackers, or Reg-wall trackers.
Of course, you also get to hide the bird house until after someones bought it? If someone asks to see it first and you say 'no' and they walk away, is that a lost sale (and thus a '$20,000 loss')? How about if they go look at one someone else has bought from you ('sharing') and decided they don't like it. That's cost you a sale, and is that a loss? Oh, and it's your RIGHT to stop anyone showing anyone else it, using the law as and when needed, because your LOSS is so significant?
Thats the state of play we're dealing with here.
Most of the 'loss' claims, are estimates, based on what they projected they'd get, vs. what they actually got.
In other words, "It's not that I valued my own work too highly, but that piracy meant I couldn't make the money from it I felt I should".
Slashdot Mirror
Ever hear of the POA? It's a way to play stats. Breach of the peace and Affray are now gone. You have Public Order Act, section 4 (or 4a or 5) instead. Guess what counts as violent crimes now? Guess who pumped those stats up to secure more funding. Amazing isn't it.
Yes, It's called The National Guard. Every state has one
You realise that the states RECOGNISE the militias, right, if not, it's not a militia. If you want to join one, it's called 'The National Guard'. OR you could maybe take a minute and remember this isn't the late 18th Century any more and you're not a bunch of people who've just led an armed overthrow of your government. Then think again about why the 2nd (and 3rd) amendment was passed. My guess is something to do with 'new leader suddenly wanting to turn it back to the British' or perhaps 'military Junta'.
Historical perspective, it's great for putting things in context.
Is that after he's let you know he's about to invade, so you can get your gun out your gun safe (you do store it safely, right? Where if he'd broken in when you weren't there it wouldn't end up as one of the 40% of the guns on the black market each year.
Maybe thats why in a 1998 study, guns were only successfully used in home defense 1.5% of the time. Oh, and your gun is 4x more likely to injure or kill a family member or neighbour than any intruder.
Why are booby traps illegal again? Oh right THIS REASON
They also have very strict laws on public transportation of guns, and concealed carry permits are based on necessity, not desire. Oh, and I recall something about ammo being harder tog et there since 07 as well.... But then again, the Swiss aren't as angry and have the belief that they're the best and no-one tell them otherwise, unlike the US.
Except they're not. Because owning such a weapon makes you in violation of the law, thus you're no longer 'law abiding'.
In case you forgot, everyone is 'law abiding' right up until they commit the crime. The day before Meth became illegal, we had law-abiding meth users. Then it became illegal and they started taking meth from those 'law abiding citizens'. How DARE they!
That's Maricopa County, isn't it? So, lower violent crime MIGHT be because
It's also a bit rich to complain about Constitutionality when old joe's your Sheriff. Have his jails come up to constitutional standard yet? I mean he's only had two court rulings against him on that
You picked about the WORST place in the US to proclaim law and order rules (or are you on joe's intimidation squads? ahh, there's your reason) Also, do you remember the whole 'Fast and Furious' debacle? Remember what the issue it was addressing (or attempting to)? Was it something like 'no checks on gun purchases' and other things that means it's the NUMBER ONE state for supplying weapons to criminals? I do believe it it.
Arizona, Full of gun-toting pussies.
"WE ARE AFRAID OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS! That is what this new law is effectively stating."
Funny, I thought the need to own guns for 'protection' and 'just in case', and ESPECIALLY Concealed Carry was explicitly stating.
An AR-15 in a gun safe is utterly useless for home protection (unless you want your assailant to give you maybe a 5 min courtesy call, so you can get it out, and loaded and have it comfortable. As it is you might have to find another hobby than punching holes in targets with guns. Oh no. Now I can clearly understand how the dragon-chasers felt when their hobby was ruled illegal. Shame the National Opium Association didn't speak out!
In a statement NRA spokesman said "How DARE they act before we've had a chance to intimidate lawmakers. Everyone knows that you need more guns to be safe, just look at how safe countries with guns everywhere are, like Mexico, or Guatamala, or Columbia. Ok, so more guns hasn't actually made anyone safer, but by restricting our ability to pretend to be Rambo, while enabling us to do everything we claim you can do. Oh, and it's ineffective too, because look, it's been signed for a few hours already and nothings changed!" before saying, "and you'd better take that seriously, or I'll blow you away!"
p>Why not a national ID system? Why not any kind of biometric systems? Why nothing but a picture?
A National ID system you say? you mean like REAL ID?
As for biometrics, what do you think a picture is?
Nonsense. A voter ID requirement is a requirement for voters to prove that they are eligible to vote, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that that may impose a small extra burden on a tiny minority of voters is incidental, and the burden is not unreasonable. It is also what all other democracies in the world require, to no ill effect.
To quote you, Nonsense
Every time I've voted int he UK I've never needed an ID. In fact, until a few years ago, UK driving licenses didn't even have photos. You just give your name and address when you walk in. You don't even need the ballot card that's sent to you in the post.
Don't go saying 'all other democracies require' when they don't. Some basic research does wonders....
how about this: Five Myths about Voter Fraud Funnily enough, the first one is about ID laws and their ineffectiveness at doing anything except disenfranchising.
You quote: "A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only 23 people in the entire sample would be unable to vote because of an ID requirement" Now, do you know how many fraudulent votes were cast in Maryland because of a lack of photoID checking? Less than 23 TOTAL, not '23 out of 36,000', but total. VoterID fraud is a non-existant problem, that is somehow 'solved' by disenfranchising 0.5% of the population? The problem is people assume it's a big deal. In Ohio, across the 9 Million votes cast in 2002 and 2004 combined, a total of FOUR ballots cast because of VoterID fraud. If we assume Ohio had similar percentage of people without a government-issued ID, you've dienfranchised 0.5% to prevent 0.000044% VoterID fraud. Or taken the votes away from 11,250 people for every VoterID fraud case. In REALITY, most of the Voter Fraud that goes on, wouldn't be stopped by VoterID requirements anyway. So, if stopping Voter Fraud was the objective, then you've got to find another method, because this one won't do a thing.
You know the author of that piece isn't American, right? He's actually Swedish. There's an 'about the authors' section at the end.
Thank you for this. That's actually the EXACT point of my first piece in the book, "Breaking the Two Party Two-Step"
I'm not a dick like that. I't's my submission to slashdot. Thus I've got a vested interest in making sure y'all get the book!
It's been slashdotted offline!!! There's download links on the twitter feed! https://twitter.com/#!/NoSafeHarbor
It's available on torrent. We're using the canadian pirate party's CaPT torrent tracker. Magnet is magnet:?xt=urn:btih:79ADFF2965C672CC66F2AD54D67857BD3BAEEC61&dn=NoSafeHarbor_eBooks-USPirateParty&tr=http%3a//www.pirateparty.ca/tracker/announce.php OR the torrent file is http://bit.ly/x5gtHe Keep track of @nosafeharbor for more info
DANGIT! We're gong to get the site back up ASAP! Meantime - Torrent - http://bit.ly/x5gtHe TXT - http://bit.ly/xrPGl5 ODT - http://bit.ly/zC6TE1 RTF - http://bit.ly/xHI7MO PDF - http://bit.ly/xVI0t1 MOBI - http://bit.ly/wtYRQQ EPUB - http://bit.ly/zt99zw
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of RR trackers are scene based. If you've got access to a scene dump to make the torrent in the first place, you don't then need to use the torrents to get more stuff also available on the dump.Besides which, it eats into your e-peen 'ratio'
It's my experience (from 6+ years of doing frontline support, plus a few years as a p2p researcher) that most people have bad settings for their clients. They 'tweak' them to try and make things better, but in reality only make things worse.
Actually, it's worse. Remember, the initial seeder doesn't download, so that's at least one upload without a download. So while the average across the torrent is 1:1, in reality, the peers/users on it will be less than 1, with the initial seeder removed. Also, can we stop calling them 'private trackers' - there's NOTHING private about them. They're LESS private than public/open trackers. They're Registration Required trackers, or Reg-wall trackers.
Of course, you also get to hide the bird house until after someones bought it? If someone asks to see it first and you say 'no' and they walk away, is that a lost sale (and thus a '$20,000 loss')? How about if they go look at one someone else has bought from you ('sharing') and decided they don't like it. That's cost you a sale, and is that a loss? Oh, and it's your RIGHT to stop anyone showing anyone else it, using the law as and when needed, because your LOSS is so significant? Thats the state of play we're dealing with here. Most of the 'loss' claims, are estimates, based on what they projected they'd get, vs. what they actually got. In other words, "It's not that I valued my own work too highly, but that piracy meant I couldn't make the money from it I felt I should".
I meant "100x under SAFE limit"
I need to check the preview a little more closely next time