Let's start with the phone companies divesting themselves of the government-subsidized networks, and then we'll get started on an equitable and free apportionment of resources.
But as long as the telcos can get the law to say whatever they want it to, us poor citizens are going to get short shrift.
Only problem with that is, you're still thinking like a customer. You are a product, sitting there in a package ready for your ISP to sell to an advertiser.
My experience may not be representative, but I find I'm much better at concrete problem solving (even involving complicated math) than just solving an abstract differential equation.
I didn't even have a good understanding of what Diff EQ was for until I took a good controls class. Then again, that probably had more to do with the teachers and the student than with the material itself... : )
Weird. When I graduated (from PSHS...PESH sucks! : ) I seem to remember that everyone who got above some threshhold on the SAT got an automatic acceptance to one of the State schools. I know that I breezed into UT with a National Merit scholarship, and my grades in school were nothing to write home about.
I graduated in '92, so things have likely changed...I'm just surprised that A&M didn't want him.
I think Darwin has something to say about smart people who are not smart enough to find a partner of the opposite sex.
Clearly, I'm not sure what the problem is. My wife is 100% supportive of my geekery. She's not what I'd call a geek herself, but she definitely has techno-nerd tendencies.
Your mileage obviously may vary. I know exactly how fortunate I am.
Yes, there was a big separation of powers thing during the Great Depression. (As a side note, the decision caused William Boeing to turn his back on the company he founded, because he was so disgusted with the decision.) The airlines and the mfrs were separated by statute. However, there are a number of organizations that lease aircraft to airlines, especially smaller airlines.
I'm not sure that's true. If you look back at the best engineering, it's usually the projects that are the most insulated from politics. I think that's not a coincidence.
"and other assault weapons well in the lead over any rifle traditionally designed for hunting animals."
How do you figure? There are any number of semi-automatic hunting rifles that fire the same (and larger!) cartridges at the same rates. Heck, there are a lot that will even accept the same magazines.
I base mine on the knowledge that the Founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, and wanted to place checks on the government that they were creating so that it would not be able to become tyrannical. I think they'd be apalled at what their legacy has become.
I suspect that they would be just fine with anything man-portable.
"The discussion was on whether categories of firearms are sufficiently different that we might make a legal distinction in how they are treated."
"The right to bear arms...shall not be infringed".
Arms. That's rifles, pistols, and light automatic weapons. Did light automatic weapons exist in the 1780's? No. So what? They are the state of the art in small arms, and are clearly (to me) within the intent of the Founders.
Unfortunately, more people agree with you than with me. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some sort of list, or bill, of the rights that we couldn't vote to take away from each other?
Yeah. That would be nice.
" However gun crime on the whole is absolutely relevent to the discussion of whether and how the populace should be armed. "
Yes. And "assault weapons" (and long guns in general) are fairly rare in gun crime.
Why does including a gun somehow make it more crime-y? It's wrong to kill people. It's not more or less wrong to kill people with a gun, or with a pointy stick.
The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution is not there to protect the rights of deer hunters. It is there because an armed populace is the last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is an important part of the American body politic. It's terrible when people go on killing rampages. It's also not relevant to the discussion of whether the populace should be armed or not.
Incidentally, in my opinion, the discussion about whether or not the populace should be armed or not was resolved to my satisfaction more than 200 years ago, and it's been downhill since then.
If I have decided to murder somebody, the presence or absence of a bayonet lug is not going to dissuade me. The only reason for the assault weapons ban was to begin an incremental removal of 2nd Amendment rights.
It's the same thing as this stupid "partial birth abortion" ban, from the other side of the political spectrum. Equally wrong-headed, equally pointless, similarly designed to remove our rights and increase government intrusion and regulation.
So, by your argument, we should be regulating deer rifles, not "assault weapons", because deer rifles are more deadly.
My argument is not that one or another type of rifle is more or less suited for one or another task. My argument is that the furor over assault weapons is a manufactured hysteria. One can change an assault weapon into a perfectly legal one by changing the furniture on the weapon, which has little or nothing to do with its deadliness. and much to do with its scariness.
Again: The most dangerous component of a firearm is the person wielding it.
From a design perspective, killing a person is not very different from killing a deer.
So, apart from the fact that some guns look scarier than others, their dangerousness has much more to do with the shooter (and the cartridge) than with the furniture on the weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Great.
Let's start with the phone companies divesting themselves of the government-subsidized networks, and then we'll get started on an equitable and free apportionment of resources.
But as long as the telcos can get the law to say whatever they want it to, us poor citizens are going to get short shrift.
Only problem with that is, you're still thinking like a customer. You are a product, sitting there in a package ready for your ISP to sell to an advertiser.
My experience may not be representative, but I find I'm much better at concrete problem solving (even involving complicated math) than just solving an abstract differential equation.
I didn't even have a good understanding of what Diff EQ was for until I took a good controls class. Then again, that probably had more to do with the teachers and the student than with the material itself... : )
Weird. When I graduated (from PSHS...PESH sucks! : ) I seem to remember that everyone who got above some threshhold on the SAT got an automatic acceptance to one of the State schools. I know that I breezed into UT with a National Merit scholarship, and my grades in school were nothing to write home about.
I graduated in '92, so things have likely changed...I'm just surprised that A&M didn't want him.
Stupid Aggies. : )
Anybody who takes that population and bolts it to a normal distribution is not fit to teach a math class anywhere.
I know it happens all the time, but I'm just sayin'...
Wow, you didn't see the fishhook? It was the size of a small moon...
Verbs are cool.
"it's about letting the people who when it inevitably happens"
Er, what?
I think Darwin has something to say about smart people who are not smart enough to find a partner of the opposite sex.
Clearly, I'm not sure what the problem is. My wife is 100% supportive of my geekery. She's not what I'd call a geek herself, but she definitely has techno-nerd tendencies.
Your mileage obviously may vary. I know exactly how fortunate I am.
Just so long as you won't mind when that psychological evaluation becomes an ideological evaluation.
Because it will. Depend on it.
Are you familiar with the notion of a "University", comprised of many "colleges" of different disciplines? It's all the rage.
Yes, there was a big separation of powers thing during the Great Depression. (As a side note, the decision caused William Boeing to turn his back on the company he founded, because he was so disgusted with the decision.) The airlines and the mfrs were separated by statute. However, there are a number of organizations that lease aircraft to airlines, especially smaller airlines.
Anyhow. It's not uncommon.
So the solution to eroding liberties is to erode more liberties, to become safer.
Yeah. That'll work.
They are.
I'm not sure that's true. If you look back at the best engineering, it's usually the projects that are the most insulated from politics. I think that's not a coincidence.
Ever hear of the Superconducting Supercollider?
"and other assault weapons well in the lead over any rifle traditionally designed for hunting animals."
How do you figure? There are any number of semi-automatic hunting rifles that fire the same (and larger!) cartridges at the same rates. Heck, there are a lot that will even accept the same magazines.
This distinction is purely a cosmetic one.
On what do you base your assertion?
I base mine on the knowledge that the Founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, and wanted to place checks on the government that they were creating so that it would not be able to become tyrannical. I think they'd be apalled at what their legacy has become.
I suspect that they would be just fine with anything man-portable.
"The discussion was on whether categories of firearms are sufficiently different that we might make a legal distinction in how they are treated."
"The right to bear arms...shall not be infringed".
Arms. That's rifles, pistols, and light automatic weapons. Did light automatic weapons exist in the 1780's? No. So what? They are the state of the art in small arms, and are clearly (to me) within the intent of the Founders.
Unfortunately, more people agree with you than with me. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some sort of list, or bill, of the rights that we couldn't vote to take away from each other?
Yeah. That would be nice.
" However gun crime on the whole is absolutely relevent to the discussion of whether and how the populace should be armed. "
Yes. And "assault weapons" (and long guns in general) are fairly rare in gun crime.
Why does including a gun somehow make it more crime-y? It's wrong to kill people. It's not more or less wrong to kill people with a gun, or with a pointy stick.
Again. All discussion of weapon furniture is completely irrelevant to the principle at hand, which is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
Which is not, repeat, not, about hunters.
Let's back up a step.
The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution is not there to protect the rights of deer hunters. It is there because an armed populace is the last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is an important part of the American body politic. It's terrible when people go on killing rampages. It's also not relevant to the discussion of whether the populace should be armed or not.
Incidentally, in my opinion, the discussion about whether or not the populace should be armed or not was resolved to my satisfaction more than 200 years ago, and it's been downhill since then.
If I have decided to murder somebody, the presence or absence of a bayonet lug is not going to dissuade me. The only reason for the assault weapons ban was to begin an incremental removal of 2nd Amendment rights.
It's the same thing as this stupid "partial birth abortion" ban, from the other side of the political spectrum. Equally wrong-headed, equally pointless, similarly designed to remove our rights and increase government intrusion and regulation.
So, by your argument, we should be regulating deer rifles, not "assault weapons", because deer rifles are more deadly.
My argument is not that one or another type of rifle is more or less suited for one or another task. My argument is that the furor over assault weapons is a manufactured hysteria. One can change an assault weapon into a perfectly legal one by changing the furniture on the weapon, which has little or nothing to do with its deadliness. and much to do with its scariness.
Again: The most dangerous component of a firearm is the person wielding it.
From a design perspective, killing a person is not very different from killing a deer.
So, apart from the fact that some guns look scarier than others, their dangerousness has much more to do with the shooter (and the cartridge) than with the furniture on the weapon.
I wonder if it's possible that training techniques have changed since Vietnam. Let's think about this really, really hard, shall we?