I blame the idiots that pass laws just to try to score a few public relations points...
An anti-spam law would NOT fall into this category.
Nobody _really_ hates speed limits, we just disagree on the numbers. Most bust them up at one time or another, despite vigorous enforcement. You can't, however, call them ineffective. Without speed limits, American freeways would look like the Daytona 500.
With the exception of the law-enforcement agecies which are now profiting from it, everyone is either neutral or bitterly opposed to marijuana prohibition. Marijuana use usually happens in private, making it difficult to enforce prohibition against it.
Similarly, sodomy laws are a joke, because the conduct is quite private, and the parties involved are unlikely to report it.
Clearly, laws against behavior which is undertaken in private, particularly by many, consenting, people, and perceived as harmless by the rest are counterproductive, in that they do not stop the "crime" and they _do_ undermine the authority of law. Prostitution statutes fall into this category.
OTOH, nobody objects to laws against murder or sexual abuse of children, because 1) these activities are obviously harmful to their victims and 2) only a tiny minority feels that this is acceptable behavior. Everyone _hates_ spam (except the miniscule fraction who are committing it), it's a completely public activity, and nonconsensual on the part of the recipient and the relays in the middle. Laws against spam (unless totally botched in their construction) would be extremely popular. Everyone would help the law enforcement agencies in the execution of these laws.
And harsh penalties would be appropriate. That spammer isn't sending out _one_ toner ad, he's sending out a million.
And this would be super-effective under a modern powerboat with a propeller (a small boat with a _fast_ propeller is far more effective than an aircraft carrier or oil tanker with huge, slow propellers), nevermind keelhauling spammers underneath a _sailboat_ with nothing underneath to chop the spammer up into - well - SPAM(r).
(It's been noted before, but worth repeating, that SPAM(r) is a registered trademark of the Hormel Co., who have a good enough sense of humor and reality to not object to its use to refer to unsolicited commercial email. They request only that the term "spam" be used for email, and not be confused with their lunchmeat trademark: "SPAM".)
with a satellite Internet link (a quite expensive means of connection, but the only thing available in the middle of the ocean). Anyone sending me spam is _clearly_ trespassing on my chattels (_my_ expensive bandwidth and _my_ mail server).
Now we're back to Keelhauling as an appropriate penalty....
Let's say you come up with a purely technological solution to the spam problem. You'd promptly be sued by the spammers for interfering with their "right" to spam you.
The first thing we need is legislation somehow excluding spam from the first ammendment, otherwise it is basically _illegal_ to stop it!
The Magna Carta clauses quoted above have the same problem. They allow unrestricted trade "by the customary means", so all a spammer has to do is prove that email is a "customary means" of communicating with people (not a great reach at all) and then he's _protected_ by this stuff.
First, we must OUTLAW SPAM. Then we'll have the legal right to simply unplug it at its source, whenever it's found. This right does not now exist, ask any ISP who's been sued for unplugging a spammer
There _is_ precedent for this. Many jurisdictions place severe restrictions on, or prohibit entirely, advertizements and business signs alongside roads and highways, freedon of speech notwithstanding. My neighboring Scottsdale AZ, for example, has municipal ordinances prohibiting business signs beyond specific dimensions and over specific heights. These forbid, among MANY other things, the trademark large yellow illuminated arches of a particular fast-food franchise chain. They were forced to resort to other architecture in Scottsdale.
and the taxes get heavier, so expect the 'no tariffs' clause of that rule to be the part that has wartime exceptions. Also, with sizeable fractions of the noble folk and the able-bodied in general off fighting at war, the prohibitions against (unofficial) trespass would probably get stronger, to protect citizens' property in their absence.
and it wold not have any trouble getting through the legislatures here in the US if they weren't all _bought_and_paid_for_ but the commercial intrests who support "the rights" of advertizers to invade out brains at every opportunity.
As far as I can tell, it's obvious that the lameness filter is shoving in spaces all over the place that don't belong there. Remove all the spaces first, then you should have the real file. Then you're ready to uuencode or Base-64 or whatever's next.
and this is much easier if you have them in your TiVo or VHS box. Example: the Dead or Alive 3 / Xbox blurb with catfight action so graphic that the dweebs in the commercial are reduced to staring and drooling, with serious effort required to articulate intellectual concepts such as: "Heh. She kicks _high_". There're some fairly rad shots if you run through it in slo-mo. Of course, I'm postponing my purchase of an Xbox until hacks get a Linux Kernel running on it, but it's nice to know that there are interesting games available for it's native mode.
Uh, is it OK to time-shift a commercial? Or are they copyrighted, too?
Also, I write a bit of fanfic now and then and it's nice to have an extensive collection of Star Trek tapes for reference material. This would be unnecessary if Viacom/Paramount would see fit to post enough detail on startrek.com to make it a useful reference, but they don't, and they don't allow others to, either, so I find myself resorting to my tapes to look up some bit of dialog or other trivia.
I'm sure there are others who do this. A _lot_ of you appear to be real afficionados of stuff like Buffy, B5 & Dr.Who, and it's not as if we're going to market these tapes (with or without commercials) on eBay.
Heck, if you even want to read the credits at the end of a show anymore you have to capture them and play them back, with plenty of pause. Some of us actually _care_ who the episode author and the guest stars are!
PVRs allow you to delete the commercials? Kewl. It's not as if we haven't seen them ALL.
The only spammer I would trust is a spammer that would never send me spam because I never intentionally informed said spammer than I wanted to receive email from him, in which case, it wouldn't be spam.
Damn... I think I just logically determined that spammers serve no useful purpose in this world.
No, you've only proven that there's no such thing as a "trusted" spammer, no matter what sort of "authentication" they care to attach to their spam. The matter of their having no useful purpose in the world is accepted as self-evident without need for proof.
I am pleased by this development, though, as I agree with the prevailing logic that these stamps will have to be readily identifiable and therefore filterable.
WTH, it might be as easily as just filtering for the "" tag at the beginning of the mail (it would have to be html for things like "positioning" of the (no-doubt) graphic stamp to work) and rejecting it on that basis. Who _has_ to send me html email anyway? I can notify my friends that I _won't_ accept html mail, and instruct them as to how to turn it off.
And really these guys _are_ rather far gone. If you read the cited thread from crackmonkey (don't try it with Outrage, as there are several examples of "begin ") here's a guy who asks where he can apt-get Outrage Expression, so he can research this for himself!
http://crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/200 2q 1/025891.html (watch that space the lameness filter put in there!)
IIRC, Nick at one time had code in his webpage (crackmonkey.org) which would exploit a Java function that could write _any_ file on a WinBloze(9x) system. He used this "feature" to whack numerous (M$ using) visitors' registries, effectively killing their computers. He doesn't appear to be terribly fascinated by verbal communication with M$ lusers, preferring a more physical approach.
Complaints (all from M$ lusers) caused his DNS provider to _compel_ him to remove this code. Non-M$ users were unaffected, just as we are unaffected by his present mail header innovations*.
Simply, he's a somewhat militant Free Software advocate, and such stunts are (IMO, I can't speak for the man) an amusing way of retaliating against what I've seen described right here on/. as "A Microsoft World(tm)".
Of course you're free to label this "immature", but there are several of us (well, maybe not moderating on/. anymore) who can no longer muster any sentiment towards the Empire other than open hostility. Telling us that it's futile to fight against an Evil Empire which continues to exist only because it enjoys a 90% market share only identifies you as one of its advocates, or, at least, tolerants.
I applaud Mr. Moffitt's ingenuity in continuing to find innovative ways to fsck Micro$uck "software" and its lusers, most of whom seem to feel that it's the _rest_ of the world's responsibility to use Micro$uck "OS"en so as to be able to communicate with _them_. Mr. Moffitt's position appears to me to be that there is little or nothing coming from the M$ world (regardless of its size) that is worth listening to, and I find myself in agreement with this.
* Innovation(tm), n: something my software can handle properly which yours can't.
NO, I WON'T! M$ does _NOT_ (yet) own the world!
You may say that I'm in denial, but I will reply that this is Slashdot, and you're a troll.
Until you can run Windows on this hardware, thise(sic) will only be a nieche(sic) market.
It's my understanding that Macs have, or have available, an Intel emulation layer which is capable of running Winbloze. Of course, you must still buy these Winbloze from the Empire (the regular, ordinary distribution, nothing special about it). Apple regards this as an asset, not a threat.
Believe it or not, there are those of us who neither run, nor want, Micro$uck Winbloze. Really. This discussion is focused on the possibility of running Aqua (the Mac OSX GUI layer) on non Apple-proprietary hardware. The operabillity of Linux and Darwin on such machinery is not an issue. Winbloze is not a factor. Obviously anyone who _wants_ to run Winbloze (without digressing into the debate over the intelligence of that) is going to prefer the Intel architecture to which Winbloze is targeted.
If, however, you want a Mac and OSX, or generic PPC hardware and OSX, you can run Winbloze on either of those, already.
i thought an angry husband of one of his concubines would have take care of him first.
Apparently he had better security than would allow that, even when he was only a governor. Forget trying to get a shot at him after he bacame president.
Reset button? WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING RESET BU
on
2.4, The Kernel of Pain
·
· Score: 3, Funny
As a matter of fact, my latest Linux box is coming together in an ancient IBM 5160 (PC/XT) case with no reset button. I remember when this came out (actually its predecessor the 5150 PC) and it was remarkable in its day for the same lack of a reset button, which was de rigeur for personal computers in a day when CP/M had reduced the battery of data-entry switches called a "front panel" to a single reset switch.
IBM must be pretty confident, the reviewers figured, to leave the reset button out (Apple subsequently did the same on the Mac)(Did the Apple ][ have a reset button?). Bill Gates and DoS proved them (IBM) merely arrogant, and the 286-based PC/AT a couple of years later (5170? I know not the model number) had a reset button.
Now, twenty years later, I've removed the reset switch I eventually added to the 5160 cabinet for the sake of DoS. I'll need it no more.
and the restructuring of the licensing fees of FFLs, and about a hundred other things like the "assault weapons" ban (more precisely a "large" magazine ban) which have done irrepairable damage to Americans' freedom to keep and bear arms.
You Brits may not think that RKBA is important, but we still do.
I mention Arkansas merely for the unfortunate association between it and the land development scams of our former first "lady". That was NOT meant as an impugement (is that a real word?) of an otherwise fine state. (Well, Arkansas could perhaps be criticized for providing a less-than-stellar president, but that's a value judgement, and you were justified in getting rid of him by any means necessary. And Arkansas had to live through eight years of skirt-lifting, stranger-to-the-truth presidency just like the rest of the nation. Fair is fair.)
Microsoft is just making sure that whatever competition they have out there is fair.
Are you listening to yourself??
If you believe that the Empire promotes, or will even tolerate, fair competition on technical merit in the desktop OS market (or any other market they enter), I have some _great_ land available in Arkansas. Also a super bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
M$ is _the_ modern master of unfair business practice, more or less defining the term. I just can't feel sorry for them, even if someone arguably steps near their name. _I_ have no trouble distinguishng Lindows from Winbloze, just as I have no difficulty distinguishing KDE from CDE. When the Empire "borrows" some *NIX feature (like, say, TCP/IP) from BSD, we're supposed to just say "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" and just go on. As soon as somebody tries to make an emulator that would actually _compete_ with Winbloze, whoa, that's a trademark infringement!!
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil.
Yes it does, that's one of my major qualifications nowdays for evil.
I could claim that Americans use guns to protect their homes, but most often guns are used to kill people.
Which claim are you making? It sounds like you accept the media's lies about the matter, when the most scientific data available (Gary Kleck among plenty of others) indicates that the use of firearms for defense of life and home _overwhelms_ the use of firearms for crime.
Is this because we always hear about it when somebody is murdered, but rarely hear about it when somebody repels a burgler by threatening with a gun?
Bingo! The leftist media in America is quick to bury a story about someone thwarting a muggung or a home invasion with their gun, but a kid bringing a firearm to High School is Front Page News and Lead Story at 6PM for multiple days, _then_ we have to listen to the whole Colmmbine thing all over again!
A homeowner running off a burgler with a handgun _maybe_ gets 4 lines on page thirty-nine and is thereafter forgotten (assuming he lives in an area where his ownership of this gun is "permitted", and can even report the incident. In NYC, this could NOT get reported!), but the kid who took a.22 to school and shot his ex-girlfriend will be Front Page(tm) forever.
If you won't look at any of _my_ data, just because it's been gathered by the NRA (from _independant_, and sometimes even overtly hostile sources), why should I bother with anti-gun propaganda published by a leftist publicity agency (BBC) of a socalist government (UK)?
It cuts both ways.
To all WinBloze(r) lusers
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Slashdot Mirror
I blame the idiots that pass laws just to try to score a few public relations points...
An anti-spam law would NOT fall into this category.
Nobody _really_ hates speed limits, we just disagree on the numbers. Most bust them up at one time or another, despite vigorous enforcement. You can't, however, call them ineffective. Without speed limits, American freeways would look like the Daytona 500.
With the exception of the law-enforcement agecies which are now profiting from it, everyone is either neutral or bitterly opposed to marijuana prohibition. Marijuana use usually happens in private, making it difficult to enforce prohibition against it.
Similarly, sodomy laws are a joke, because the conduct is quite private, and the parties involved are unlikely to report it.
Clearly, laws against behavior which is undertaken in private, particularly by many, consenting, people, and perceived as harmless by the rest are counterproductive, in that they do not stop the "crime" and they _do_ undermine the authority of law. Prostitution statutes fall into this category.
OTOH, nobody objects to laws against murder or sexual abuse of children, because 1) these activities are obviously harmful to their victims and 2) only a tiny minority feels that this is acceptable behavior. Everyone _hates_ spam (except the miniscule fraction who are committing it), it's a completely public activity, and nonconsensual on the part of the recipient and the relays in the middle. Laws against spam (unless totally botched in their construction) would be extremely popular. Everyone would help the law enforcement agencies in the execution of these laws.
And harsh penalties would be appropriate. That spammer isn't sending out _one_ toner ad, he's sending out a million.
especially if they could televise it....
And this would be super-effective under a modern powerboat with a propeller (a small boat with a _fast_ propeller is far more effective than an aircraft carrier or oil tanker with huge, slow propellers), nevermind keelhauling spammers underneath a _sailboat_ with nothing underneath to chop the spammer up into - well - SPAM(r).
(It's been noted before, but worth repeating, that SPAM(r) is a registered trademark of the Hormel Co., who have a good enough sense of humor and reality to not object to its use to refer to unsolicited commercial email. They request only that the term "spam" be used for email, and not be confused with their lunchmeat trademark: "SPAM".)
with a satellite Internet link (a quite expensive means of connection, but the only thing available in the middle of the ocean). Anyone sending me spam is _clearly_ trespassing on my chattels (_my_ expensive bandwidth and _my_ mail server).
Now we're back to Keelhauling as an appropriate penalty....
Let's say you come up with a purely technological solution to the spam problem. You'd promptly be sued by the spammers for interfering with their "right" to spam you.
The first thing we need is legislation somehow excluding spam from the first ammendment, otherwise it is basically _illegal_ to stop it!
The Magna Carta clauses quoted above have the same problem. They allow unrestricted trade "by the customary means", so all a spammer has to do is prove that email is a "customary means" of communicating with people (not a great reach at all) and then he's _protected_ by this stuff.
First, we must OUTLAW SPAM. Then we'll have the legal right to simply unplug it at its source, whenever it's found. This right does not now exist, ask any ISP who's been sued for unplugging a spammer
There _is_ precedent for this. Many jurisdictions place severe restrictions on, or prohibit entirely, advertizements and business signs alongside roads and highways, freedon of speech notwithstanding. My neighboring Scottsdale AZ, for example, has municipal ordinances prohibiting business signs beyond specific dimensions and over specific heights. These forbid, among MANY other things, the trademark large yellow illuminated arches of a particular fast-food franchise chain. They were forced to resort to other architecture in Scottsdale.
and the taxes get heavier, so expect the 'no tariffs' clause of that rule to be the part that has wartime exceptions. Also, with sizeable fractions of the noble folk and the able-bodied in general off fighting at war, the prohibitions against (unofficial) trespass would probably get stronger, to protect citizens' property in their absence.
and it wold not have any trouble getting through the legislatures here in the US if they weren't all _bought_and_paid_for_ but the commercial intrests who support "the rights" of advertizers to invade out brains at every opportunity.
That oughta do it ina one-liner.
As far as I can tell, that doesn't work.
As far as I can tell, it's obvious that the lameness filter is shoving in spaces all over the place that don't belong there. Remove all the spaces first, then you should have the real file. Then you're ready to uuencode or Base-64 or whatever's next.
and this is much easier if you have them in your TiVo or VHS box. Example: the Dead or Alive 3 / Xbox blurb with catfight action so graphic that the dweebs in the commercial are reduced to staring and drooling, with serious effort required to articulate intellectual concepts such as: "Heh. She kicks _high_". There're some fairly rad shots if you run through it in slo-mo. Of course, I'm postponing my purchase of an Xbox until hacks get a Linux Kernel running on it, but it's nice to know that there are interesting games available for it's native mode.
Uh, is it OK to time-shift a commercial? Or are they copyrighted, too?
Also, I write a bit of fanfic now and then and it's nice to have an extensive collection of Star Trek tapes for reference material. This would be unnecessary if Viacom/Paramount would see fit to post enough detail on startrek.com to make it a useful reference, but they don't, and they don't allow others to, either, so I find myself resorting to my tapes to look up some bit of dialog or other trivia.
I'm sure there are others who do this. A _lot_ of you appear to be real afficionados of stuff like Buffy, B5 & Dr.Who, and it's not as if we're going to market these tapes (with or without commercials) on eBay.
Heck, if you even want to read the credits at the end of a show anymore you have to capture them and play them back, with plenty of pause. Some of us actually _care_ who the episode author and the guest stars are!
PVRs allow you to delete the commercials? Kewl. It's not as if we haven't seen them ALL.
The only spammer I would trust is a spammer that would never send me spam because I never intentionally informed said spammer than I wanted to receive email from him, in which case, it wouldn't be spam.
Damn... I think I just logically determined that spammers serve no useful purpose in this world.
No, you've only proven that there's no such thing as a "trusted" spammer, no matter what sort of "authentication" they care to attach to their spam. The matter of their having no useful purpose in the world is accepted as self-evident without need for proof.
I am pleased by this development, though, as I agree with the prevailing logic that these stamps will have to be readily identifiable and therefore filterable.
WTH, it might be as easily as just filtering for the "" tag at the beginning of the mail (it would have to be html for things like "positioning" of the (no-doubt) graphic stamp to work) and rejecting it on that basis. Who _has_ to send me html email anyway? I can notify my friends that I _won't_ accept html mail, and instruct them as to how to turn it off.
Of what use are stairs in the disposal of junkmail?
Now, the kids will have to fight the parents for time on the television
No, the PS2/Linux system makes 1024x768 XVGA output which you won't display on a (normal) TV.
Nonetheless, my comment on Sony's release runs along the lines of: "WOO HOO!!!"
And really these guys _are_ rather far gone. If you read the cited thread from crackmonkey (don't try it with Outrage, as there are several examples of "begin ") here's a guy who asks where he can apt-get Outrage Expression, so he can research this for himself!
0 2q 1/025891.html (watch that space the lameness filter put in there!)
http://crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/20
IIRC, Nick at one time had code in his webpage (crackmonkey.org) which would exploit a Java function that could write _any_ file on a WinBloze(9x) system. He used this "feature" to whack numerous (M$ using) visitors' registries, effectively killing their computers. He doesn't appear to be terribly fascinated by verbal communication with M$ lusers, preferring a more physical approach.
/. as "A Microsoft World(tm)".
/. anymore) who can no longer muster any sentiment towards the Empire other than open hostility. Telling us that it's futile to fight against an Evil Empire which continues to exist only because it enjoys a 90% market share only identifies you as one of its advocates, or, at least, tolerants.
Complaints (all from M$ lusers) caused his DNS provider to _compel_ him to remove this code. Non-M$ users were unaffected, just as we are unaffected by his present mail header innovations*.
Simply, he's a somewhat militant Free Software advocate, and such stunts are (IMO, I can't speak for the man) an amusing way of retaliating against what I've seen described right here on
Of course you're free to label this "immature", but there are several of us (well, maybe not moderating on
I applaud Mr. Moffitt's ingenuity in continuing to find innovative ways to fsck Micro$uck "software" and its lusers, most of whom seem to feel that it's the _rest_ of the world's responsibility to use Micro$uck "OS"en so as to be able to communicate with _them_. Mr. Moffitt's position appears to me to be that there is little or nothing coming from the M$ world (regardless of its size) that is worth listening to, and I find myself in agreement with this.
* Innovation(tm), n: something my software can handle properly which yours can't.
Lets face it, its a Microsoft world.
NO, I WON'T! M$ does _NOT_ (yet) own the world!
You may say that I'm in denial, but I will reply that this is Slashdot, and you're a troll.
Until you can run Windows on this hardware, thise(sic) will only be a nieche(sic) market.
It's my understanding that Macs have, or have available, an Intel emulation layer which is capable of running Winbloze. Of course, you must still buy these Winbloze from the Empire (the regular, ordinary distribution, nothing special about it). Apple regards this as an asset, not a threat.
Believe it or not, there are those of us who neither run, nor want, Micro$uck Winbloze. Really. This discussion is focused on the possibility of running Aqua (the Mac OSX GUI layer) on non Apple-proprietary hardware. The operabillity of Linux and Darwin on such machinery is not an issue. Winbloze is not a factor. Obviously anyone who _wants_ to run Winbloze (without digressing into the debate over the intelligence of that) is going to prefer the Intel architecture to which Winbloze is targeted.
If, however, you want a Mac and OSX, or generic PPC hardware and OSX, you can run Winbloze on either of those, already.
i thought an angry husband of one of his concubines would have take care of him first.
Apparently he had better security than would allow that, even when he was only a governor. Forget trying to get a shot at him after he bacame president.
As a matter of fact, my latest Linux box is coming together in an ancient IBM 5160 (PC/XT) case with no reset button. I remember when this came out (actually its predecessor the 5150 PC) and it was remarkable in its day for the same lack of a reset button, which was de rigeur for personal computers in a day when CP/M had reduced the battery of data-entry switches called a "front panel" to a single reset switch.
IBM must be pretty confident, the reviewers figured, to leave the reset button out (Apple subsequently did the same on the Mac)(Did the Apple ][ have a reset button?). Bill Gates and DoS proved them (IBM) merely arrogant, and the 286-based PC/AT a couple of years later (5170? I know not the model number) had a reset button.
Now, twenty years later, I've removed the reset switch I eventually added to the 5160 cabinet for the sake of DoS. I'll need it no more.
Right.
An M$ tool is _never_ the right tool for a job.
Any job.
and the restructuring of the licensing fees of FFLs, and about a hundred other things like the "assault weapons" ban (more precisely a "large" magazine ban) which have done irrepairable damage to Americans' freedom to keep and bear arms.
You Brits may not think that RKBA is important, but we still do.
I mention Arkansas merely for the unfortunate association between it and the land development scams of our former first "lady". That was NOT meant as an impugement (is that a real word?) of an otherwise fine state. (Well, Arkansas could perhaps be criticized for providing a less-than-stellar president, but that's a value judgement, and you were justified in getting rid of him by any means necessary. And Arkansas had to live through eight years of skirt-lifting, stranger-to-the-truth presidency just like the rest of the nation. Fair is fair.)
Microsoft is just making sure that whatever competition they have out there is fair.
Are you listening to yourself??
If you believe that the Empire promotes, or will even tolerate, fair competition on technical merit in the desktop OS market (or any other market they enter), I have some _great_ land available in Arkansas. Also a super bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
M$ is _the_ modern master of unfair business practice, more or less defining the term. I just can't feel sorry for them, even if someone arguably steps near their name. _I_ have no trouble distinguishng Lindows from Winbloze, just as I have no difficulty distinguishing KDE from CDE. When the Empire "borrows" some *NIX feature (like, say, TCP/IP) from BSD, we're supposed to just say "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" and just go on. As soon as somebody tries to make an emulator that would actually _compete_ with Winbloze, whoa, that's a trademark infringement!!
Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil.
Yes it does, that's one of my major qualifications nowdays for evil.
I could claim that Americans use guns to protect their homes, but most often guns are used to kill people.
.22 to school and shot his ex-girlfriend will be Front Page(tm) forever.
Which claim are you making? It sounds like you accept the media's lies about the matter, when the most scientific data available (Gary Kleck among plenty of others) indicates that the use of firearms for defense of life and home _overwhelms_ the use of firearms for crime.
Is this because we always hear about it when somebody is murdered, but rarely hear about it when somebody repels a burgler by threatening with a gun?
Bingo! The leftist media in America is quick to bury a story about someone thwarting a muggung or a home invasion with their gun, but a kid bringing a firearm to High School is Front Page News and Lead Story at 6PM for multiple days, _then_ we have to listen to the whole Colmmbine thing all over again!
A homeowner running off a burgler with a handgun _maybe_ gets 4 lines on page thirty-nine and is thereafter forgotten (assuming he lives in an area where his ownership of this gun is "permitted", and can even report the incident. In NYC, this could NOT get reported!), but the kid who took a
So why should I pay any attention to that?
If you won't look at any of _my_ data, just because it's been gathered by the NRA (from _independant_, and sometimes even overtly hostile sources), why should I bother with anti-gun propaganda published by a leftist publicity agency (BBC) of a socalist government (UK)?
It cuts both ways.
Welcome to SlashDot.
Fsck windows!
Now go away.