Nothing wrong with guns on planes. For many decades commercial airlines allowed people to carry their hunting rifles and such aboard, with little to no security issues.
The hijackers wouldn't have even tried it... even if they had guns, they would have not had as many people as the citizens.
Notice these things always happen in places where guns are banned-- one teacher who was armed could have stopped columbine. In fact, if the sheriff had gone in, rather than staying outside letting it happen, columbine could have been stopped.
You guys who think more guns cause more crime are the morons-- every study I've ever heard of shows the reverse is true.
AS states adopt concealed carry laws, the crime rate goes down. The more guns in an area in the hands of private citizens, the lower the crime rate.
Cops, who do carry guns, only show up after the fact, and are thus useless in preventing crime, unless they happen to be there by chance.
Think about it for a second! Every citizen in this country can get their hands on guns, but you don't see shootouts on the freeways....
"Right wing nuts" (Eg: people who believe in HUMAN RIGHTS) are not the ones creating the situation where those few people who are criminals can have easy pickings--leading to more crime.
Self defense is a basic human right. When you argue to take it away, you are arguing against human rights, and ultimately, if you bann guns totally like you left wing idiots did in Britian, you have skyrocketing crime! Not less.
Somalia. With the exception of British occupation, and the dictator they left in charge when they pulled out, the country has a thousand year tradition of peaceful anarchism. Iceland had it as well, though they lasted about 500 years.
After the somalis thru out their dictator, they have been at peace-- with the exception of UN forces who came in to try and force a government on them.
If you actually knew anything about the UN you would realize it is a socialist organization-- hell their "Declration of human rights" doesn't recognize any! Our Bill of Rights is stronger (And still it is violated.)
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.
There are countries in the world with a thousand year tradition of no government, and peace. Well, the british were able to conquer them and left a despotic dictator when they left, but they overthrew him and have lived in peace since then....
Unfortunatel,y such countries are often invaded by countries like the US who see the lack of government (And thus the liberty that comes with it) as a threat to the world socialist government we want to create with the UN.
Bottom line-- either you support human rights or you don't. Clearly, you don't Anonymous Coward.
BTW-- its always funny when an AC calls a named poster a "wimp". HA!
Where do you socialists get the idea that companies only want to sell to the rich? Haven't you noticed the dozens of cellphone companies working to drive down prices as fast as they can? Notice how poor people have cellphones now?
This is all DESPITE a crushing burden of regulation by the FCC.
The FCC only DAMAGES the economy and the pocket books of poor people. The FCC makes it more expensive for everybody, and expesially more expensive for poor people to get access to telephones. You need to read up on some basic economics.
Without the FCC (And the many decades of government created telephone monopoly) the poorest would have gotten telephones at much lower cost decades sooner.
Government is the source of-- not the solution to-- all of societies problems.
Yep. ITs time for you people who claim to be in support of human rights (including the first ammendment) to put your money where your mouth is.
When they do this, are you going to cooperate with them? Doing so, you endorse not only taxation of your private communication, but also back doors to it-- because the FBI needs to be able to listen in at any time without a warrent, don't ya know?
Its a clear choice-- do you stand up for the bill of rights and the rest of theconstitution, or are you going to roll over and endorse further despotism in this country?
And are you going to continue to vote for the liberal socialists who will enact such legislation? Or the republican socialists who do? Or will you just say nothing about it and whine?
The democrats endorsed and passed the DMCA, but they don't seem to have lost the slashdot crowds vote. Which puts the slashdot crowd clearly on their side and in opposition to freedom, liberty and the constitution.
Do not tolerate FCC Regulation of your first ammendment rights.
Its time for you to take a stand and use technology to fight tyranny!
PCs generally do not provide the power for the Firewire bus that the specification calls for.
This is why the PC iPod was delayed. I heard this from an Apple employee who was speaking off the record.
Of course, pointing out this fact makes me a "troll" in the eyes of the moderators here.
Fucking idiots.
Anyway, a very large number of the PCs out there with firewire do not provide power over firewire as the spec requires... the ipod gets its power from the firewire port on the Mac side, and they couldn't count on that for the Windows ipod.
Apple supports older hardware. You can run Panther and the latest version of iTuns on older hardware. You just can't run the current version of iTunes on an old version of the operating system because it makes use of the Safari web rendering stuff that didn't exist in the older version of OSX.
This is not unusual and not a problem.
OS X works on a much wider range of hardware than Apple promised it would and officially supports.
For instance, I have it running on an old beige G3 thats really old.
You're right-- we would have gone to internet broadcast of TV a good 20 years ago! Of course, there would also be two-three cable companies serving your house, and you'd have about 5 thousand channels to choose from.... but they would be much higher quality than you're getting now.
The idea that without government, there would be no progress is absurd. Government is an impediment to progress. Crowded airwaves would have spured earlier development of cable TV. And businesses share resources all the time.
There is no frequency "commons"... its just another example of the government nationalizing a resource (As all socialist governments do) for the "benefit of the people" and then using it to benefit the politburo exclusively.
Once the government is involved, you're right, the free market cannot fix it.
But you're wrong-- the FCC cannot fix it either. When the government gets involved, it invariably screws things up.
The degree to which it screws it up is directly proportional to how screwed up it is.
IF the FCC were even more involved, we'd be stuck with over the air broadcasts and NO cable service in this country.
Just look at what they did to the phone service-- phone service was a totally regulated services and it advanced not at all, during the time that TV service, which was less regulated, advanced. It wasn't until the phone service was deregulated that we even got touch pad dialing!
When there's a problem, first look at government. Usually its the cause of it. IF the government is totally uninvolved, then look at the market and see if a player is distorting it.
Government can NEVER improve any situation. NEVER. Its economically impossible-- it always does more damage than the value of any improvements it makes.
Actually, the postal service was nationalized to prevent people from passing anti-government leaflets thru the mail.
Seriously. The purpose was to prevent criticism of the government.
Eventually, they dropped that, but the postal service still violates the right to free speech, because it prevents any other private service from providing for speech in the form of first class mail.
My logic is consistent. Your assumption that your government is not corrupt is the errro.
A packet is a form of speech. Regulating it is unconstitutional.
Amazing that on slashdot you find so many anti-rights people. Your first assumption seems to be that whatever the government wants to do is ok (yep, you've been successfully indoctrinated in those government schools!) rather than to think for yourself and take your individual life as being paramount.
Only racists invoke godwins law. (Seriously. The law is based on the assumption that the holocaust was a non-existant, non-historical event, and thus is not relevant in any discussion.)
Invoking godwins law is proof positive you're a racist... though I figure most people who do so don't realize they are racists.
And since the stupid masses elect universally stupid polititians...
The only pro-human rights form of government is one where the politicians have as little power as possible.
Hell, democracy itself is a violation of human rights, and the constituion was an attempt to prevent it from becoming the dictatorship of the lowest common denominator.
But now that the constituion is universally ignored by both political parties... we are getting what we deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing wrong with guns on planes. For many decades commercial airlines allowed people to carry their hunting rifles and such aboard, with little to no security issues.
The hijackers wouldn't have even tried it... even if they had guns, they would have not had as many people as the citizens.
Notice these things always happen in places where guns are banned-- one teacher who was armed could have stopped columbine. In fact, if the sheriff had gone in, rather than staying outside letting it happen, columbine could have been stopped.
You guys who think more guns cause more crime are the morons-- every study I've ever heard of shows the reverse is true.
AS states adopt concealed carry laws, the crime rate goes down. The more guns in an area in the hands of private citizens, the lower the crime rate.
Cops, who do carry guns, only show up after the fact, and are thus useless in preventing crime, unless they happen to be there by chance.
Think about it for a second! Every citizen in this country can get their hands on guns, but you don't see shootouts on the freeways....
"Right wing nuts" (Eg: people who believe in HUMAN RIGHTS) are not the ones creating the situation where those few people who are criminals can have easy pickings--leading to more crime.
Self defense is a basic human right. When you argue to take it away, you are arguing against human rights, and ultimately, if you bann guns totally like you left wing idiots did in Britian, you have skyrocketing crime! Not less.
Look at what's happened in britian.
Somalia. With the exception of British occupation, and the dictator they left in charge when they pulled out, the country has a thousand year tradition of peaceful anarchism. Iceland had it as well, though they lasted about 500 years.
After the somalis thru out their dictator, they have been at peace-- with the exception of UN forces who came in to try and force a government on them.
If you actually knew anything about the UN you would realize it is a socialist organization-- hell their "Declration of human rights" doesn't recognize any! Our Bill of Rights is stronger (And still it is violated.)
You should read the bill of rights sometime. Save you some emberassment. (or are you too dense to be embarassed by that comment?)
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.
There are countries in the world with a thousand year tradition of no government, and peace. Well, the british were able to conquer them and left a despotic dictator when they left, but they overthrew him and have lived in peace since then....
Unfortunatel,y such countries are often invaded by countries like the US who see the lack of government (And thus the liberty that comes with it) as a threat to the world socialist government we want to create with the UN.
Bottom line-- either you support human rights or you don't. Clearly, you don't Anonymous Coward.
BTW-- its always funny when an AC calls a named poster a "wimp". HA!
No, the reason they regulate it is to control it.
Where do you socialists get the idea that companies only want to sell to the rich? Haven't you noticed the dozens of cellphone companies working to drive down prices as fast as they can? Notice how poor people have cellphones now?
This is all DESPITE a crushing burden of regulation by the FCC.
The FCC only DAMAGES the economy and the pocket books of poor people. The FCC makes it more expensive for everybody, and expesially more expensive for poor people to get access to telephones. You need to read up on some basic economics.
Without the FCC (And the many decades of government created telephone monopoly) the poorest would have gotten telephones at much lower cost decades sooner.
Government is the source of-- not the solution to-- all of societies problems.
Yep. ITs time for you people who claim to be in support of human rights (including the first ammendment) to put your money where your mouth is.
When they do this, are you going to cooperate with them? Doing so, you endorse not only taxation of your private communication, but also back doors to it-- because the FBI needs to be able to listen in at any time without a warrent, don't ya know?
Its a clear choice-- do you stand up for the bill of rights and the rest of theconstitution, or are you going to roll over and endorse further despotism in this country?
And are you going to continue to vote for the liberal socialists who will enact such legislation? Or the republican socialists who do? Or will you just say nothing about it and whine?
The democrats endorsed and passed the DMCA, but they don't seem to have lost the slashdot crowds vote. Which puts the slashdot crowd clearly on their side and in opposition to freedom, liberty and the constitution.
Do not tolerate FCC Regulation of your first ammendment rights.
Its time for you to take a stand and use technology to fight tyranny!
Hey idiot-- pc firewire ports do not provide powerr. The first generation ipods counted on getting power when plugged into firewire.
you guys are such fucking idiots its not even funny.
You are so ignorant, and yet so proud of your ignorance.
Jesus, its no wonder you are all unemployed.
except that the ipod gets power from firewire, you fucking idiot.
You guys are so stupid... and what's more, you're PROUD of being stupid.
No,. the posters flaming me are idiots.
The difference is that on PCs the firewire port does not provide power... on many of them.
And so, since the iPod needs power to turn on and sync when you plug it into a PC, apple had to find some solution to that problem.
AS usual, ignorant PC users flame peopel for pointing out the thruth because they are too (willfully!) ignorant to recognize their own ignorance.
No, can't be a problem with PC hardweare manufacturers! No way!
But it is.
You guys have been buying crap without any discrimination about quality for so long, you don't even realize its crap.
That's true, but since PC buyers will buy anything, they have bought millions of PCs with "1394 ports" that do not provide power as the spec requires.
Don't blame me, blame the fools who bought crappy PCs.
I love how all the ignorant PC people assume I was making shit up, when in fact, you're jsut ignorant of the problem.
Yes.
PCs generally do not provide the power for the Firewire bus that the specification calls for.
This is why the PC iPod was delayed. I heard this from an Apple employee who was speaking off the record.
Of course, pointing out this fact makes me a "troll" in the eyes of the moderators here.
Fucking idiots.
Anyway, a very large number of the PCs out there with firewire do not provide power over firewire as the spec requires... the ipod gets its power from the firewire port on the Mac side, and they couldn't count on that for the Windows ipod.
Misrepresentation.
Apple supports older hardware. You can run Panther and the latest version of iTuns on older hardware. You just can't run the current version of iTunes on an old version of the operating system because it makes use of the Safari web rendering stuff that didn't exist in the older version of OSX.
This is not unusual and not a problem.
OS X works on a much wider range of hardware than Apple promised it would and officially supports.
For instance, I have it running on an old beige G3 thats really old.
Uh, there are two different versions of the iPod. This is necessary because Windows Firewire ports are usually non-standard.
Expecting a Mac iPod to work with Windows is silly.... might as well try to install windows on your macintosh without emulation and then be surprised.
There is no story here.
God, you are being ironic and you're too stupid to realize it!
That's funny! Really funny!
You are so blineded by your ideology that you can't see the obvious.
Conservatives and liberals are both socialists.
And Big business is not evil. Nor is government going to protect you from big business.
The fundamental error you make is in assuming that people should be enslaved.
The government does not have power over the people, the people should have power over the government. Or, to put it another way:
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
--Thomas Jefferson
You're right-- we would have gone to internet broadcast of TV a good 20 years ago! Of course, there would also be two-three cable companies serving your house, and you'd have about 5 thousand channels to choose from.... but they would be much higher quality than you're getting now.
The idea that without government, there would be no progress is absurd. Government is an impediment to progress. Crowded airwaves would have spured earlier development of cable TV. And businesses share resources all the time.
There is no frequency "commons"... its just another example of the government nationalizing a resource (As all socialist governments do) for the "benefit of the people" and then using it to benefit the politburo exclusively.
Once the government is involved, you're right, the free market cannot fix it.
But you're wrong-- the FCC cannot fix it either. When the government gets involved, it invariably screws things up.
The degree to which it screws it up is directly proportional to how screwed up it is.
IF the FCC were even more involved, we'd be stuck with over the air broadcasts and NO cable service in this country.
Just look at what they did to the phone service-- phone service was a totally regulated services and it advanced not at all, during the time that TV service, which was less regulated, advanced. It wasn't until the phone service was deregulated that we even got touch pad dialing!
When there's a problem, first look at government. Usually its the cause of it. IF the government is totally uninvolved, then look at the market and see if a player is distorting it.
Government can NEVER improve any situation. NEVER. Its economically impossible-- it always does more damage than the value of any improvements it makes.
Actually, the postal service was nationalized to prevent people from passing anti-government leaflets thru the mail.
Seriously. The purpose was to prevent criticism of the government.
Eventually, they dropped that, but the postal service still violates the right to free speech, because it prevents any other private service from providing for speech in the form of first class mail.
My logic is consistent. Your assumption that your government is not corrupt is the errro.
A packet is a form of speech. Regulating it is unconstitutional.
Amazing that on slashdot you find so many anti-rights people. Your first assumption seems to be that whatever the government wants to do is ok (yep, you've been successfully indoctrinated in those government schools!) rather than to think for yourself and take your individual life as being paramount.
This is quite sad.
A meaningless statement. They aren't regulating the technolgoy, the are regulating who can use it and how they can use it.
That is, literally, regulating speech when what you're talking about is regulating who can send packets where and when.
Patckets are not technology, packets are speech.
Yes, I actually believe in human rights, unlike you, who sees everyone enslaved to the government as a good thing.
Only racists invoke godwins law. (Seriously. The law is based on the assumption that the holocaust was a non-existant, non-historical event, and thus is not relevant in any discussion.)
Invoking godwins law is proof positive you're a racist... though I figure most people who do so don't realize they are racists.
That will be the day I stop using it.
I am always perplexed at people who want the gestapo to know where they are all the time.
Remember, the germans were not inhernetly fascist people. They just didn't relize what was going on.
And if you think the cops are going to prevent a crime, arriving 30 minutes after it happens, you're not thinking.
WTF? Warrents are required whether its regulated or not.
And you get better quality of service if its UNREGULATED.
I'm confused how you can have never heard of capitalism.
The first ammendment applies to states as well.
So, since we have free speech, regulating speech over VOIP is a violation of the constitution for either states or the FCC.
Its flat out illegal / unconstitutional.
Not that anyone cares about the constitution anymore... if you aren't trying to violate the first, you're trying to violate the second, these days.
And since the stupid masses elect universally stupid polititians...
The only pro-human rights form of government is one where the politicians have as little power as possible.
Hell, democracy itself is a violation of human rights, and the constituion was an attempt to prevent it from becoming the dictatorship of the lowest common denominator.
But now that the constituion is universally ignored by both political parties... we are getting what we deserve.