When somebody else tries to lock you into something, you generally have some alternative.
When the Empire tries to lock you in, you have no choice
That's one of the key points used to determine guilt in anticompetitive monopoly behavior. A little guy can get away with lots of dirty tricks that the "market leader" cannot, simply because the "market leader" already enjoys powers and advantages that the small fry do not.
Misuse of this market leadership power is criminal. And that's Micro$oft.
Just Because Bill is evil doesn't mean his browser sucks.
YES. It does.
Internet Exploiter is IMMORAL software, the tool of a criminal monopoly's anticompetitive conspiracy:
In case you don't know the history, IE was created FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY NETSCRAPE, and put an end to the possibility of cross-platform portability between the WinBloze environment and any other. It did not matter that it sucked, all that mattered was that it enjoyed the full faith and backing of the Empire. The tactics used to push IE down the throats of Internet surfers everywhere (well, at least on the M$ platform) eventually resulted in Criminal convictions for Micro$uck.
If IE treats a given piece of html differently from NetScrape, IE's functionality for that particular feature is broken. Of course, I wouldn't wait around for the Empire to fix it, just ignore it.
If a webpage somewhere does not work on NetScrape, that webpage is broken, and needs to be fixed. Of course, if it works in IE that's another good indication that it's BROKEN.
This is not a technical issue, it is a moral issue.
No one has ever given the slightest rip for the W3C html(whichever) standard, and no one is about to start now.
It's time, however, to stop the takeover of the WWW by the Evil Empire. DO NOT CODE FOR THE EVIL INTERNET EXPLOITER "BROWSER". WRITE WWW CODE FOR THE WEB'S LEGITIMATE BROWSER, NETSCRAPE.
And hope to God that someday we get something _better_!
Reliable sources point out that this has been fixed in IE6. I guess the Empire is no longer worried about anyone downloading NetScrape, and has consequently relaxed this restriction on the maximum ftp size....
All the payloads of all the chemical rockets in the world are popcorn farts compared to the kind of mass we'll have to orbit to make a _real_ space ship, like a generation ship or something else big enough to really go anywhere. Everything we've done so far has lost 95% of its mass just struggling its way up the first hundred miles or so.
Consider this:
Put a geosynchronous satellite into orbit, a BIG one, over the Equator, and drop a rope (well, you'll need a better material than hemp) down to the surface. The satellite would have to fly a bit higher than the truly geosynchronous altitude so as to generate force to hold up the rope. Once the rope reaches the ground, you anchor it and then you can put an elevator-type vehicle on it to climb the rope. Sure, that'll take power, but nothing like the energy required by a rocket, and maybe the power could be sent up from the ground over wires or conducting strips built into the rope. Such an elevator could have a chance of lifting the kind of mass we _need_ to get into orbit (and it would be a _high_ orbit at that, about 22,000 miles) to build any king of large station or spacecraft.
Make that a _nice_ Jovian moon, 'cuz lots of them are just big blobs of sulphur or other unpleasant things. A watery one, maybe Europa, and a BIG nuclear reactor to keep several square miles nice and warm.....
Fsck _that_,
I want at least a planet, or a Jovian moon.
Being a lieutenant of a super villian is _tough_ work! Look at all the dirty tricks that would have to be pulled off! All the schemes that would have to be coordinated and nursed, some of them would no doubt require 24/7 attention! What about the _risks_? It's _always_ the assistants and the underlings that do all the fighting and dying while the _big_ boss usually runs at the last second and makes good with a getaway, leaving the minions to fight off James Bond or Superman or whoever.
That kind of personal service doesn't come cheap! I want a _planet_, and a ship full of slave girls, of various flavors.....
And I'd need _ca$h_ with which to hire more henchmen!
A nytimes article over the summer stated that safety experts are baffled by new data: although bike helmet use is up, injuries to the head are also up. Some speculated that this was due to an unrealistic sense of security the helmet affords which leads to greater risk-taking while others attributed the rise in accidents to unsafe motorists.
I'd blame the motorists, just as I blame M$ for the Blue Screen Of Death(sm). I haven't commuted regularly for the last five years, but in the five years before that (1990-95) I saw a definite trend towards wollier and more dangerous traffic, culminiting in a couple of actual "rubs" (a Rodeo term for being brushed by a 2000lb animal) which made me seriously rethink the reasonableness of expecting to ride a bicycle in Phoenix traffic. While this _can_ be done, you're taking your life in your hands, and also trusting it to a bunch of dumbfucks who just flatly _aren't_ looking for you and who resent your presence on the public streets when they do see you. The close encounters kept me awake too many nights, and when I began to notice rather violent personaility changes in myself I decided it would be better to stop (commuting by bicycle).
This has been a good decision for my mental health (I can now laugh and shrug off just about _anything_, wheras I used to be rather 'volitaile'), but a bad one for my physical health (I've put on 50 lbs in the last 6 years, and have apparently become completely invisible to females).
I don't think I could consider riding in city traffic on a recumbant vehicle that's only 2 feet tall. There's just _too_much_ potential for that trucker to say: "But Officer, I never even _saw_ him go under my bumper, much less heared his screams as I dragged him that mile and a half". Maybe a day-glo orange vehicle with large flags and blinding strobelights at night, I dunno.
Re:Speeds which are dangerous
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
Also i rememember reading somewhere that in the Tour De France while riding downhill riders approach 100++kms and they have at that speed nothing but their skills to count on for brakes at that speeds tend to Jam.
I would call that kaka.
I have (on numerous occasions) pulled bikes down (with rim calipers) from 35-45 MPH in downhill situations, and from 25 MPH in a great hurry in traffic situations. I'd recommend the techniques detailed here (sheldonbrown.com) by Sheldon "FrontBrake" Brown.
I also don't scrimp on my brakes, using the old Campagnolo Record stuff that's hardly available anymore, and taking the time to rig them properly. Also recommended are Scott Mathauser's best brake pads. I would feel confident with these brakes at 60MPH, and I know the racers have even better equipment. Heck, at 100KPH (=62MPH) just untucking and sitting up straight will take off about 10MPH right there. They _have_ braking control on those downhills, they just don't win races by using it.
To brake a bike from 80MPH (if I were in a hurry, which a speed-trialer is NOT) I might want the nice disk brakes which I see on downhill rigs.
In my home town (small town in north oklahoma), if you're riding a bike or just walking late at night you'll be pulled over. They claim they like to keep track of people out at night - sounds rather orwelian to me.
Me, too. I think somebody oughta get a lawyer and bring harassment action against them. If they can't show that they also stop motor vehicles as well "to keep track of people at night" you've a good case for some kind of discriminatory harassment. Unless the municiplaity in question has an adult curfew (unlikely but there are stranger things in effect) they really have no cause to stop someone for merely riding a bicycle.
And what's so special about night time? Do they stop you in the daytime "to keep track of you"? And _since_when_ was it the Police's job to keep track of people, anyway?
An ACLU attorney would have a great time with this one.
Re:30 MPH _is_ particularly fast
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
I'm a fat bastard commuter cyclist. I cruise at 25mph, and regularly touch 30mph in short bursts. This is far from unusual for any halfway decent cyclist.
Maybe not among racers, but when it comes to commuter cyclists (most of whom don't know which side of the road to ride on, at least not here in Phoenix), you're very fast.
Don't you pass a _lot_ of riders at that kind of speed?
That's exactly the sort of information I want
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
Was this paced or unpaced?
That's a BIG difference!
Instantataneous peak speeds can be thrown way wild by errors in the reed switches of the computer sensors.
45 MPH _paced_ is very fast, but credible.
45 MPH (64 KPH) _unpaced_, and he said it was on a flat, isn't credible on normal equipment. Sure, we're looking at a story about radically stramlined machinery that's capable of _sustaining_ 40 MPH, but I doubt that Cycle-King was using that sort of equipment for his land-speed record.
30 MPH (42 KPH) is fast enough to win most races.
45 MPH is 50% faster and that's a huge difference.
This has been done, with decent results, but nothing dramatic enough to really catch on.
F1 nothing special in "America"
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
Really one of the reasons "Americans" (I'd call us Yanks, but that's found to be offensive in several corners) are pretty clueless about the international classes is because we have such a plentiful array of our own. Set a USAC (Indy 500) car, a formula A (SCCA) car, and an international F1 car next to each other, and you have to get rather close (closer than a TV camera usually gets) to tell the difference. I'm sure there are other types as well that look much the same. There are _many_ SCCA classes which vary mostly in maximum engine and wheel sizes, USAC has recently split into two factions, and to top it all off, Americans put a lot of attention into "Stock Cars" (the only part that's from a production vehicle is the sheet metal) which further dilutes our interest in anything with open wheels (call a NASCAR fan a "Yankee" and he may open fire). There are only so many entertainment dollars to go around, we can't go to see _everything_!
And, really, all this discussion of automobiles should be moderated "off-topic"
Frankly, I do not believe this.
What were you using to measure that speed?
Describe the machine you used to do this.
If you can really go that fast, you _should_ get involved in serious competitive racing.
30 MPH _is_ particularly fast
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
Uh, 30MPH is hardly "everyday sort of speed". Unless there're downhills involved, this is fast enough to win most traditional-format bicycle races, and is way too fast for a sidewalk situation where there are pedestrians present. Of course, on a street, mixing with motor vehicles, 30MPH is no big deal (and could hardly result in a citation, either). More likely the guy was dinged for 30KPH (a more common 18MPH or so), through pedestrian traffic, hardly what we Yanks call "reasonable and prudent" (I _know_, I've done it).
...guns are designed to kill, which in some cases can be usefull (pest control), but usually is illegal (murder). And because of this design, it is very easy to kill: it's the ultimate 'point'n'click interface'.
You, too, have that backward! Here are numbers, and references to original (non-NRA) publications that paint _exactly_ the opposite situation:
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Detail &ID=25
Guns are _usually_ used for pest control, much more seldom for murder. The illegal uses are the only ones that manage to make it onto your TV, because the people in charge of the signals broadcast to that TV (all of whom have armed bodygards to keep _them_ safe) don't believe you should own a gun, and want the public to shun armed citizens as a concept, just as they'll now ask you to shun strong cryptography.
And if you think the "point 'n click" interface of a firearm is "very easy" to use, I suggest that you go down to your local gunstore/range, rent a gun, buy a box of ammo and a couple of targets and _try_ to connect with something at about 20 yards. It's NOT all that simple.
Why do you assume that more guns = less crime? Show me a study that demonstrates this!! It has NOT been proven at all. Please prove this is not a fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby.
Oh, yes, it certainly _has_ been demonstrated, many times. It's also been well proven that strict gun control laws = _more_ crime:
(Note ALL my links are gonna get mangled by the lameness filter, and you'll have to remove the spaces that it will insert)
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=De ta il&ID=78
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=De ta il&ID=40
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Deta il &ID=6
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=De ta il&ID=18
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Deta il &ID=25
That's just the beginning.
And yeah, I know, that's the NRA so you won't believe _them_, even though the references are complete enough to track them to their original sources _outside_ the NRA. At least one of these researchers, Gary Kleck, was a liberal Democrat, working for an anti-gun group at the time he did the research, using _their_ data. This too-embarassing data, in the hands of anti-gun organizations, has since apparently fallen off the face of the planet. But Kleck's study, and his conclusions, remain.
Needless to say, his bosses were disappointed. Being a true scientist, however, he let the _facts_ get in the way of his emotions on the subject, and now his research is major postor material for the NRA.
There's gobs of less-scientific, anecdotal evidence to suggest that guns have major defensive utility in the hands of law-abiding citizens:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen.asp
The liberal mainstream press chooses to ignore all this data. Really! But it's nontheless out there.
Tell me, what legitimate use does a handgun have, other than to kill people? Handguns are not
good for hunting or target shooting because the barrel is too short and they are not accurate at anything other than short distances.
Try "defense of one's life & property", which is really far more frequent than killing people. As to hunting and target shooting, handguns are commonly used for both of those:
http://www.nraila.org/Faqs.asp?FormMode=Call&Lin kT ype=Section&Section=24
Yeah, that's the NRA, too. They know _plenty_ about using handguns for hunting and (competitive) target shooting. Where do _you_ get the idea that they're useless for these things? Have you ever actually _fired_ a gun?
I am one of those guys who walks into the Circle K in the center of Phoenix with a pistol strapped to my hip. It'd be a decisive factor in an armed robbery attempt, as well as several other types of crime. There's no demon in that pistol that's gonna make me go crazy and start shooting people with it. I don't know where that idea comes from. It's a device, a machine. I'm no more likely to open fire for no reason than I am to go mowing down pedestrians with my van (an instrument capable, I must point out, of a _far_ greater level of destruction than my pistol)! No one has to ban vans to keep me from going on a rampage with mine. Why do liberals assume they must ban guns to keep people from misusing them?
I've liked this idea for a while, now. I'm not even going to wrap it in tags, only I think New Jersey might be better than FL. I'm open to discussion as to just _where_ to put them.
Think about it. The Israelies are our largest foreign-aid client. We _give_ them $10e9 of American tax money annually, mostly in the form of top-grade military equipment but other things as well, including I'm sure cash. They _need_ this kind of support to survive in the corner of the world that is the absolutely MOST hostile to Jews. Fsck that. Let 'em pick up their temple, their wailing wall, anything else they can dig up and move 'em all to, say, New Jersey. Let 'em be U.S. citizens and pay us taxe$ instead of receiving them. They'd be out of the way of the Arabs and that would cool the whole situation down, we could protect them MUCH better, and they could contribute to our economy instead of being dependant on our charity.
Really, since the American congress has apparently determined to sponsor the existance of a Zionist state on the planet, why not put in a safe place, where they can pull their weight?
Slashdot Mirror
MS is damned if they do, damned if they don't
NO. M$ is just damned, period. They're past being able to redeem themselves by their actions, particularly in the area of Internet browsers.
OK, they could _withdraw_ Internet Exploiter from the market. That would end the sins of IE.
The Empire itself would reamin Evil.
THAT'S IT!!!
When somebody else tries to lock you into something, you generally have some alternative.
When the Empire tries to lock you in, you have no choice
That's one of the key points used to determine guilt in anticompetitive monopoly behavior. A little guy can get away with lots of dirty tricks that the "market leader" cannot, simply because the "market leader" already enjoys powers and advantages that the small fry do not.
Misuse of this market leadership power is criminal. And that's Micro$oft.
If 95% or so of people use IE, then doesn't IE become the standard....?
NO . IE remains immoral, and beneath redemption. The great unwashed 95% majority remain ignorant.
Just Because Bill is evil doesn't mean his browser sucks.
YES. It does.
Internet Exploiter is IMMORAL software, the tool of a criminal monopoly's anticompetitive conspiracy:
In case you don't know the history, IE was created FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY NETSCRAPE, and put an end to the possibility of cross-platform portability between the WinBloze environment and any other. It did not matter that it sucked, all that mattered was that it enjoyed the full faith and backing of the Empire. The tactics used to push IE down the throats of Internet surfers everywhere (well, at least on the M$ platform) eventually resulted in Criminal convictions for Micro$uck.
Jim Barksdale's testimony before the US District court
Jim Gosling's testimony before the US District court
The court's eventual findings of fact which vindicated both of these men
If IE treats a given piece of html differently from NetScrape, IE's functionality for that particular feature is broken. Of course, I wouldn't wait around for the Empire to fix it, just ignore it.
If a webpage somewhere does not work on NetScrape, that webpage is broken, and needs to be fixed. Of course, if it works in IE that's another good indication that it's BROKEN.
This is not a technical issue, it is a moral issue.
No one has ever given the slightest rip for the W3C html(whichever) standard, and no one is about to start now.
It's time, however, to stop the takeover of the WWW by the Evil Empire. DO NOT CODE FOR THE EVIL INTERNET EXPLOITER "BROWSER". WRITE WWW CODE FOR THE WEB'S LEGITIMATE BROWSER, NETSCRAPE.
And hope to God that someday we get something _better_!
Reliable sources point out that this has been fixed in IE6. I guess the Empire is no longer worried about anyone downloading NetScrape, and has consequently relaxed this restriction on the maximum ftp size....
Really, this is a BIG deal.
o gy /space_elevator_001226.html
All the payloads of all the chemical rockets in the world are popcorn farts compared to the kind of mass we'll have to orbit to make a _real_ space ship, like a generation ship or something else big enough to really go anywhere. Everything we've done so far has lost 95% of its mass just struggling its way up the first hundred miles or so.
Consider this:
Put a geosynchronous satellite into orbit, a BIG one, over the Equator, and drop a rope (well, you'll need a better material than hemp) down to the surface. The satellite would have to fly a bit higher than the truly geosynchronous altitude so as to generate force to hold up the rope. Once the rope reaches the ground, you anchor it and then you can put an elevator-type vehicle on it to climb the rope. Sure, that'll take power, but nothing like the energy required by a rocket, and maybe the power could be sent up from the ground over wires or conducting strips built into the rope. Such an elevator could have a chance of lifting the kind of mass we _need_ to get into orbit (and it would be a _high_ orbit at that, about 22,000 miles) to build any king of large station or spacecraft.
http://members.aol.com/beanstalkr/project/
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technol
Make that a _nice_ Jovian moon, 'cuz lots of them are just big blobs of sulphur or other unpleasant things. A watery one, maybe Europa, and a BIG nuclear reactor to keep several square miles nice and warm.....
Fsck _that_,
I want at least a planet, or a Jovian moon.
Being a lieutenant of a super villian is _tough_ work! Look at all the dirty tricks that would have to be pulled off! All the schemes that would have to be coordinated and nursed, some of them would no doubt require 24/7 attention! What about the _risks_? It's _always_ the assistants and the underlings that do all the fighting and dying while the _big_ boss usually runs at the last second and makes good with a getaway, leaving the minions to fight off James Bond or Superman or whoever.
That kind of personal service doesn't come cheap! I want a _planet_, and a ship full of slave girls, of various flavors.....
And I'd need _ca$h_ with which to hire more henchmen!
A nytimes article over the summer stated that safety experts are baffled by new data: although bike helmet use is up, injuries to the head are also up. Some speculated that this was due to an unrealistic sense of security the helmet affords which leads to greater risk-taking while others attributed the rise in accidents to unsafe motorists.
I'd blame the motorists, just as I blame M$ for the Blue Screen Of Death(sm). I haven't commuted regularly for the last five years, but in the five years before that (1990-95) I saw a definite trend towards wollier and more dangerous traffic, culminiting in a couple of actual "rubs" (a Rodeo term for being brushed by a 2000lb animal) which made me seriously rethink the reasonableness of expecting to ride a bicycle in Phoenix traffic. While this _can_ be done, you're taking your life in your hands, and also trusting it to a bunch of dumbfucks who just flatly _aren't_ looking for you and who resent your presence on the public streets when they do see you. The close encounters kept me awake too many nights, and when I began to notice rather violent personaility changes in myself I decided it would be better to stop (commuting by bicycle).
This has been a good decision for my mental health (I can now laugh and shrug off just about _anything_, wheras I used to be rather 'volitaile'), but a bad one for my physical health (I've put on 50 lbs in the last 6 years, and have apparently become completely invisible to females).
I don't think I could consider riding in city traffic on a recumbant vehicle that's only 2 feet tall. There's just _too_much_ potential for that trucker to say: "But Officer, I never even _saw_ him go under my bumper, much less heared his screams as I dragged him that mile and a half". Maybe a day-glo orange vehicle with large flags and blinding strobelights at night, I dunno.
Also i rememember reading somewhere that in the Tour De France while riding downhill riders approach 100++kms and they have at that speed nothing but their skills to count on for brakes at that speeds tend to Jam.
I would call that kaka.
I have (on numerous occasions) pulled bikes down (with rim calipers) from 35-45 MPH in downhill situations, and from 25 MPH in a great hurry in traffic situations. I'd recommend the techniques detailed here (sheldonbrown.com) by Sheldon "FrontBrake" Brown.
I also don't scrimp on my brakes, using the old Campagnolo Record stuff that's hardly available anymore, and taking the time to rig them properly. Also recommended are Scott Mathauser's best brake pads. I would feel confident with these brakes at 60MPH, and I know the racers have even better equipment. Heck, at 100KPH (=62MPH) just untucking and sitting up straight will take off about 10MPH right there. They _have_ braking control on those downhills, they just don't win races by using it. To brake a bike from 80MPH (if I were in a hurry, which a speed-trialer is NOT) I might want the nice disk brakes which I see on downhill rigs.
Plus its common knowledge that only the Italians and the British know how to build a sports car with "soul" :)
Go tell that to Caroll Shelby.
In my home town (small town in north oklahoma), if you're riding a bike or just walking late at night you'll be pulled over. They claim they like to keep track of people out at night - sounds rather orwelian to me.
Me, too. I think somebody oughta get a lawyer and bring harassment action against them. If they can't show that they also stop motor vehicles as well "to keep track of people at night" you've a good case for some kind of discriminatory harassment. Unless the municiplaity in question has an adult curfew (unlikely but there are stranger things in effect) they really have no cause to stop someone for merely riding a bicycle.
And what's so special about night time? Do they stop you in the daytime "to keep track of you"? And _since_when_ was it the Police's job to keep track of people, anyway?
An ACLU attorney would have a great time with this one.
I'm a fat bastard commuter cyclist. I cruise at 25mph, and regularly touch 30mph in short bursts. This is far from unusual for any halfway decent cyclist.
Maybe not among racers, but when it comes to commuter cyclists (most of whom don't know which side of the road to ride on, at least not here in Phoenix), you're very fast.
Don't you pass a _lot_ of riders at that kind of speed?
Was this paced or unpaced?
That's a BIG difference!
Instantataneous peak speeds can be thrown way wild by errors in the reed switches of the computer sensors.
45 MPH _paced_ is very fast, but credible.
45 MPH (64 KPH) _unpaced_, and he said it was on a flat, isn't credible on normal equipment. Sure, we're looking at a story about radically stramlined machinery that's capable of _sustaining_ 40 MPH, but I doubt that Cycle-King was using that sort of equipment for his land-speed record.
30 MPH (42 KPH) is fast enough to win most races.
45 MPH is 50% faster and that's a huge difference.
This has been done, with decent results, but nothing dramatic enough to really catch on.
Really one of the reasons "Americans" (I'd call us Yanks, but that's found to be offensive in several corners) are pretty clueless about the international classes is because we have such a plentiful array of our own. Set a USAC (Indy 500) car, a formula A (SCCA) car, and an international F1 car next to each other, and you have to get rather close (closer than a TV camera usually gets) to tell the difference. I'm sure there are other types as well that look much the same. There are _many_ SCCA classes which vary mostly in maximum engine and wheel sizes, USAC has recently split into two factions, and to top it all off, Americans put a lot of attention into "Stock Cars" (the only part that's from a production vehicle is the sheet metal) which further dilutes our interest in anything with open wheels (call a NASCAR fan a "Yankee" and he may open fire). There are only so many entertainment dollars to go around, we can't go to see _everything_!
And, really, all this discussion of automobiles should be moderated "off-topic"
Frankly, I do not believe this.
What were you using to measure that speed?
Describe the machine you used to do this.
If you can really go that fast, you _should_ get involved in serious competitive racing.
Uh, 30MPH is hardly "everyday sort of speed". Unless there're downhills involved, this is fast enough to win most traditional-format bicycle races, and is way too fast for a sidewalk situation where there are pedestrians present. Of course, on a street, mixing with motor vehicles, 30MPH is no big deal (and could hardly result in a citation, either). More likely the guy was dinged for 30KPH (a more common 18MPH or so), through pedestrian traffic, hardly what we Yanks call "reasonable and prudent" (I _know_, I've done it).
Uh. Otherwise it seems OK
...guns are designed to kill, which in some cases can be usefull (pest control), but usually is illegal (murder). And because of this design, it is very easy to kill: it's the ultimate 'point'n'click interface'.
l &ID=25
You, too, have that backward!
Here are numbers, and references to original (non-NRA) publications that paint _exactly_ the opposite situation:
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Detai
Guns are _usually_ used for pest control, much more seldom for murder. The illegal uses are the only ones that manage to make it onto your TV, because the people in charge of the signals broadcast to that TV (all of whom have armed bodygards to keep _them_ safe) don't believe you should own a gun, and want the public to shun armed citizens as a concept, just as they'll now ask you to shun strong cryptography.
And if you think the "point 'n click" interface of a firearm is "very easy" to use, I suggest that you go down to your local gunstore/range, rent a gun, buy a box of ammo and a couple of targets and _try_ to connect with something at about 20 yards. It's NOT all that simple.
Why do you assume that more guns = less crime?
e ta il&ID=78
e ta il&ID=40
a il &ID=6
e ta il&ID=18
a il &ID=25
n kT ype=Section&Section=24
Show me a study that demonstrates this!! It has NOT been proven at all. Please prove this is not a fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby.
Oh, yes, it certainly _has_ been demonstrated, many times. It's also been well proven that strict gun control laws = _more_ crime:
(Note ALL my links are gonna get mangled by the lameness filter, and you'll have to remove the spaces that it will insert)
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=D
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=D
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Det
http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=D
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Det
That's just the beginning.
And yeah, I know, that's the NRA so you won't believe _them_, even though the references are complete enough to track them to their original sources _outside_ the NRA. At least one of these researchers, Gary Kleck, was a liberal Democrat, working for an anti-gun group at the time he did the research, using _their_ data. This too-embarassing data, in the hands of anti-gun organizations, has since apparently fallen off the face of the planet. But Kleck's study, and his conclusions, remain.
Needless to say, his bosses were disappointed. Being a true scientist, however, he let the _facts_ get in the way of his emotions on the subject, and now his research is major postor material for the NRA.
There's gobs of less-scientific, anecdotal evidence to suggest that guns have major defensive utility in the hands of law-abiding citizens:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen.asp
The liberal mainstream press chooses to ignore all this data. Really! But it's nontheless out there.
Tell me, what legitimate use does a handgun have, other than to kill people? Handguns are not
good for hunting or target shooting because the barrel is too short and they are not accurate at anything other than short distances.
Try "defense of one's life & property", which is really far more frequent than killing people. As to hunting and target shooting, handguns are commonly used for both of those:
http://www.nraila.org/Faqs.asp?FormMode=Call&Li
Yeah, that's the NRA, too. They know _plenty_ about using handguns for hunting and (competitive) target shooting. Where do _you_ get the idea that they're useless for these things? Have you ever actually _fired_ a gun?
I am one of those guys who walks into the Circle K in the center of Phoenix with a pistol strapped to my hip. It'd be a decisive factor in an armed robbery attempt, as well as several other types of crime. There's no demon in that pistol that's gonna make me go crazy and start shooting people with it. I don't know where that idea comes from. It's a device, a machine. I'm no more likely to open fire for no reason than I am to go mowing down pedestrians with my van (an instrument capable, I must point out, of a _far_ greater level of destruction than my pistol)! No one has to ban vans to keep me from going on a rampage with mine. Why do liberals assume they must ban guns to keep people from misusing them?
And Osami Bin Laden is going to be a good boy and send his email using a code that the CIA/NSA/FBI has a backdoor into.
No, your're _not_ in America, are you?
I've liked this idea for a while, now. I'm not even going to wrap it in tags, only I think New Jersey might be better than FL. I'm open to discussion as to just _where_ to put them.
Think about it. The Israelies are our largest foreign-aid client. We _give_ them $10e9 of American tax money annually, mostly in the form of top-grade military equipment but other things as well, including I'm sure cash. They _need_ this kind of support to survive in the corner of the world that is the absolutely MOST hostile to Jews. Fsck that. Let 'em pick up their temple, their wailing wall, anything else they can dig up and move 'em all to, say, New Jersey. Let 'em be U.S. citizens and pay us taxe$ instead of receiving them. They'd be out of the way of the Arabs and that would cool the whole situation down, we could protect them MUCH better, and they could contribute to our economy instead of being dependant on our charity.
Really, since the American congress has apparently determined to sponsor the existance of a Zionist state on the planet, why not put in a safe place, where they can pull their weight?
oOps. I guess you're not.
I see - you _told_ Hertz, and that's their reply.
Nevermind.
Though it _would_ be nice to see Hertz sue these guys.....