And what gives you the idea that publicizing a win would in any way give away our capabilities? We catch a terrorist in line trying to board a flight and do harm. You think there's anything top secret about that? How about all the people standing around watching? Does the person get whisked away to Gitmo without raising an eyebrow?
Tune in to the show FutureWeapons to learn about the next generation in intelligent luggage screening. They don't say how it works, but they say that it can pick up guns, even broken down into parts, explosives, etc, (and they show it working).
It makes no sense to keep a lid on the fact that you just beat a terrorist at his own game. You just keep the important details out of it.
You're not giving up any right. You're choosing to ignore the Fifth Amendment and talk of your own free will. They cannot compel you to say anything. The Fifth Amendment continues to protect you. The Miranda warning doesn't cause any right to be waived, it's just letting you know that if you say anything, then you're ignoring your own rights. That's why you can stop talking at any time, or choose to not say anything (the wise choice).
Once you've said something incriminating, you can't take it back and it will be used against you. That's the "waived" part. But your rights are wholly in tact.
Glad I'm not the only one that shares this opinion (and your others above).
Yes, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. But an even larger tragedy is what we've slowly started to give up since then. The PATRIOT Act and Gitmo and these kinds of things should scare the living shit out of people, but they're seemingly oblivious. The death rate for those killed by terrorism in the United States falls somewhere between suicide by ball peen hammer and death resulting from paper cuts.
Yet, because the single tragedy is so spectacular, we say, "OK, we can live with fewer rights, to protect us from horrible terrorists." Drive the highways in NJ and you'll stop worrying about dying in a terrorist attack.
I'd love for someone to point out to me all the terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the TSA at airports in the United States since 9/11. Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!" Seems like it's more frequent to see some college student getting caught with a gun because he just wanted to prove how crappy security is.
As a conservative, it makes me shudder to think how many fellow conservatives fall in lockstep with this kind of thinking. When the Constitution is sufficiently covered with shit stains, we will be in serious trouble my friends.
Yeah, you pay for the internet bandwidth, but your ISP isn't cutting a check to the sites you happen to browse.
No, you shouldn't be forced to support things you don't want to. But, don't be surprised when your favorite blogs, websites, forums, etc. dry up and blow away because they don't want to operate at a loss for the good of the world.
I've seen the phrase "failed business model" used many times in this thread. If not for that model, a good portion of the useful content on the web wouldn't exist. Sure, a lot of it is garbage, but there's some awfully good stuff out there supported by advertising.
I'm not a fan of annoying ads. However, if they weren't effective, they wouldn't be there. It's your right to block them, of course. But don't complain when just about everything decent on the web requires a subscription fee.
A few years ago, I took a drive to Gettysburg, PA to visit the battlefields and such. I took a really neat photo of some cannons behind a split rail fence with the rolling countryside and a farm in the distance. Then I turned 90 degrees and took another shot.
Unfortunately, there was a weather front coming through that day and my photo with the cannons was bathed in sunlight but it looked all wrong because the sky was dark and overcast. However, my shot 90 degrees to the left captured the sky as primarily blue with some high, wispy clouds.
Through the magic of photo editing, I took the blue sky and put it in the shot I liked. I then liked the shot so much, I printed it out and have it hanging in my cube.
It hasn't changed my memory of the situation, and I always tell the true story to people who ask about the shot. I don't pretend that I captured something great, but I now have something great that reminds me daily of an interesting time I had.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Hate to disagree with you, but he never lied in the movie. In fact, he made a point a few times of showing how he was a man of his word ("More people will die", "I'll blow up a hospital", etc.).
If I recall correctly, he gave two completely different accounts about what happened to his face. In one, his father did it to him, and in the other, he did it to himself. I'm guessing one or both was a lie.
It was a new XPS from Dell that I got in probably October '05, so I'm guessing it was SP2, but I can't specifically recall. I'm guessing Dell started using SP2 well before that. So, obviously I missed all of the SP1 disaster.
I should point out that I'm not trying to sit here and say that there haven't been Windows disasters or that it's a vastly superior product or anything. But from a consumer perspective, it's easy to get, easy to use, and does what I need.
Someone else in the thread commented that obviously MS has a better grasp of the free market than I do, because they're in bed with Dell. Newsflash: when a better alternative comes along that Dell can market AND will make them more $$$, then MS will be out the door. Right now, MS plays hardball because it has teeth in the market. Monitor and correct antitrust issues, get a superior product on the market, and change hearts and minds, and MS *will* die. But don't expect it to happen over night.
Well actually, I *do* care about computers. I just don't want to have to mess around with a bunch of headaches to finally get to the point where I can do whatever I'm there to do in the first place.
Have you ever tried to build a MythTV box from scratch? That's the biggest pain in the balls I've ever experienced. Sure, I obviously didn't hand pick the correct hardware. But that's the point. I don't want to. Same thing for virtually every linux box I've ever built. Some went better than others. Things that have caused me headaches over the years include getting modems to work, getting video card drivers to work, getting lirc to work, and a host of other things. On the flip side, Windows boxes I've built went a lot more smoothly.
Of course, Windows isn't the answer to everything and it certainly has problems.
I write software for a living. Where I work, we don't use Vista. At work, I deal with XP, RH EL4, and Solaris 8/9. When I get home, I'm doing the simple shit. I don't care if Ubuntu gives me my e-mail in a snappier fashion, I only care that it's fast *enough*. I don't schedule my day down to the same granularity as you, I guess. I can spare a few milliseconds to wait for Thunderbird to give me my mail while it's being handicapped by Vista.
Sorry if I'm not geeky enough for this place, but if you'd step out of your mom's basement for a few minutes, you'd realize that the general public feels mostly like I do. Please spare me the "but but but but but we love computeeeeeeeeers!" routine.
When XP came out, I said, "I'm sticking to Win2K as long as a I can and never going to XP. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then I got a new PC with XP installed and realized it was pretty decent. Then I said, "I'm sticking with XP as long as I can and never going to Vista. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then, I got a PS3 and that was good enough to satisfy my mild gaming interests. Finally, I had no reason to stick with Windows. Then, I got a new laptop with Vista installed and realized, "Hey, this isn't as bad as the hype."
In my college days and for a while after, fiddling with hardware and building a working box with linux really interested me. Now, I'm tired of dealing with drivers and all the b.s. I just want an OS that lets me do what I need to do. I don't have unusual needs for hardware so I don't give a shit if Vista won't support this or that. I whipped up an order from Dell and it showed up and it works and that's that.
Vista isn't perfect and never will be. But neither is any OS from any vendor. And certainly, Vista needs some work in the short term. But, when some linux distro is robust enough to unseat Windows, it will. That's the way markets work. Until then, I just don't have the time to pretend anymore that Windows is soooooo inferior for the vast majority of users that just surf the web, read e-mail, play DVDs and other typical stuff.
That's where you an I differ, I suppose. Quite simply, I don't think that there's ever a need to carry a concealed firearm. It isn't that I believe the cops will always be around to protect me, it's that I believe that more harm than good is done by the ability to walk around with a gun in your hand (figuratively speaking). I'm more concerned about cases of road rage, or other arguments that get out of hand than I am about being mugged, because those situations happen a *lot* more frequently.
I highly recommend the book I mentioned in another post called "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. He's an academic researcher that studied crime statistics and information gained from other means like surveys and polls across many years and much of the U.S. to determine whether concealed-carry laws enacted in a place raised or lowered crime. The book is not an opinion piece. It's based on strict statistical analysis and he's very open about his data and his methods. His results clearly show that places that have "shall-issue" concealed carry laws showed a significant drop in all categories of violent crime. Additionally, he shows that there is a definitive net-gain in both lives (due to the reduction in murders), and money. His results clearly showed that increased gun ownership/carrying didn't increase the likelihood of crimes of passion like road rage. Or, at least if they did increase, it was much less than the reduction in predatory crimes, causing a net gain in lives. His projection showed that if the entire U.S. adopted liberal concealed-carry laws, it would amount to around 1,400+ less murders per year.
The book may not change your mind, but I still recommend checking it out. It's definitely an eye-opener. And in the second edition of the book, he addresses many of the questions and criticisms that came out after the first edition was released. You may find answers to some of your own.
Dupe post alert...I stupidly replied to my own grandparent post instead of the parent, so I'll just throw the reply in here as well so it's in context at least. Anyhoo...
Hold on there, Bob. I'm not suggesting people need fully automatic weapons to protect themselves. In fact, I would wager that most of the law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. would agree with that for the simple fact that they recognize that they have family and neighbors to worry about, and spraying 30 rounds at a burglar in 3 seconds isn't a great idea. However, at the same time, I don't see a problem with people being able to own weapons like that for target shooting and the like, or at the very least, semi-auto variants of those weapons.
The problem I have here in New Jersey is that the state doesn't believe that I have any right to protect myself when I'm outside my home. Carrying a discretely concealed, smaller caliber, semi-automatic pistol is not too much to ask. And I'm not opposed to a requirement for training and licensing for carrying concealed weapons. But at least give me the option. Oh, there's a concealed carry law on the books. But actual permits are nearly mythical.
Not necessarily related to personal defense as we've been debating it, but the founders of the United States went out of their way to see that the citizenry would always be armed, be it to provide a citizen militia in the event of a foreign invasion, or to react in the event that an oppressive government came to power, similar to the one that they had fought to get out from under. When the government tells me that it's restricting gun ownership more and more and more and more and more, I can't help but think about that. And it's not just guns that are the issue. Personal choice and personal accountability are slowly being taken from us everywhere we turn. There are a lot of people here that are more on the liberal side and oppose both gun ownership and the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is precisely why these same people should support private gun ownership. People tend to only support the parts of the Constitution that they deem important. Well they need to think more about the other parts and why they're important too. I understand it sounds like paranoia because the government is very stable (same for Canada). But the Bill of Rights has been slowly eroding over the last 200 years. Some day we'll hit a point where the government has become unacceptable. Our founders saw to it that we'd have the tools for the situation. I hope I never see that day.
Hold on there, Bob. I'm not suggesting people need fully automatic weapons to protect themselves. In fact, I would wager that most of the law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. would agree with that for the simple fact that they recognize that they have family and neighbors to worry about, and spraying 30 rounds at a burglar in 3 seconds isn't a great idea. However, at the same time, I don't see a problem with people being able to own weapons like that for target shooting and the like, or at the very least, semi-auto variants of those weapons.
The problem I have here in New Jersey is that the state doesn't believe that I have any right to protect myself when I'm outside my home. Carrying a discretely concealed, smaller caliber, semi-automatic pistol is not too much to ask. And I'm not opposed to a requirement for training and licensing for carrying concealed weapons. But at least give me the option. Oh, there's a concealed carry law on the books. But actual permits are nearly mythical.
Not necessarily related to personal defense as we've been debating it, but the founders of the United States went out of their way to see that the citizenry would always be armed, be it to provide a citizen militia in the event of a foreign invasion, or to react in the event that an oppressive government came to power, similar to the one that they had fought to get out from under. When the government tells me that it's restricting gun ownership more and more and more and more and more, I can't help but think about that. And it's not just guns that are the issue. Personal choice and personal accountability are slowly being taken from us everywhere we turn. There are a lot of people here that are more on the liberal side and oppose both gun ownership and the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is precisely why these same people should support private gun ownership. People tend to only support the parts of the Constitution that they deem important. Well they need to think more about the other parts and why they're important too. I understand it sounds like paranoia because the government is very stable (same for Canada). But the Bill of Rights has been slowly eroding over the last 200 years. Some day we'll hit a point where the government has become unacceptable. Our founders saw to it that we'd have the tools for the situation. I hope I never see that day.
Instead of making assumptions, how about educating yourself on the issue? If you were to read some of the research relating to lawful gun ownership and crime rates, you might learn something. Take Switzerland, for instance. Very high rate of private gun ownership, and very low rate of violent crime. And how about the drop in crime rates experienced in places that adopt concealed-carry laws? And the fact that violent crime rates are highest in the parts of the US where guns laws are most restrictive.
And by the way, even if you were able to ban 100% of the guns, you'd have criminals smuggling them in and/or milling the parts in metal shops here. Guns are not complicated instruments. A high-school metal shop student could make a working gun in short order. Not that I'd want to fire it, but that's not the point.
It's ludicrous argue that guns should be banned because they are not a necessary part of modern society. Neither are swimming pools, playgrounds, skateboards, etc., etc., etc. But people don't call for them to be banned because they haven't been brainwashed into thinking that they're inherently dangerous. Even though pools kill far more children each year than accidental shootings do.
And finally, guns don't provide safety or the illusion of such. They provide a means to defend oneself from an assailant. Just like when I hold a wrench, it doesn't provide me with the illusion that I'm a mechanic, but it lets me do a few simple tasks that I'm qualified to do. I don't think that because I own a gun that I'm qualified to be a soldier or a SWAT team member, but when confronted by an assailant who will ultimately decide to kill me, having a gun will at least give me a chance. Handing over my belongings and cowering like a pussy will end me without a fight.
I don't subscribe to your nanny-state mentality. I can't comment on Canada, but in the US, it seems like every week the federal and state governments are telling us that there's something else that we can't do because we're imcompetent. Your assertion that non-military people are not quailfied to handle assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons is pure and utter b.s. I've been using firearms my entire life and I'm fully capable of making that decision for myself.
Guns *are* inherently dangerous - but so is gas, electricity, and many other things we have in our homes. The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the dangers.
That's overstated. A gun isn't going to shoot anyone until it's loaded, pointed at someone, and fired. While it's sitting on the table (even loaded), it's no danger to anyone. I know this is such a cliche now, but it really is true: Guns don't kill people, people do. Can a gun be used to kill someone? Absolutely. I'm sitting here looking around my desk and I believe I could kill someone with the following items: scissors, telephone, pens, several heavy books, PC (including the peripherals), stapler, and a coil of spare cat-5. None of those things are inherently dangerous until I decide to pick them up and do harm to another. Guns should be respected and owners should do their part to make sure they are properly able to keep, use, and maintain them safely, but I cannot agree that they are inherently dangerous.
I do think your overall point is valid, and I believe that the answer is "yes, the benefits outweigh the dangers", but as I said, I just take issue with the idea that guns are inherently dangerous. All of those items on my desk are dangerous in the hands of someone that wants my wallet more than I do or who feels like they need to do me in because I walked down the wrong alley.
Damn man, you're my hero. This is exactly the kind of statistics that people need to made aware of so they can make informed decisions. The media and anti-gun zealots have tempered the fears of generations of people that think that guns are inherently dangerous.
I'm just about through John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and the results are more striking than what I expected when I started it. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread how guns are more of a problem in urban areas versus more rural areas. Ironically, Lott's study shows that urban areas benefit most from more liberal gun laws, as there is a direct correlation between gun ownership (more specifically the liberalness of a state's concealed-carry laws) and a drop in crime. If I recall correctly, the murder rate is something like 127% higher in states with the most strict gun laws, versus the states with liberal concealed-carry laws.
While I don't want guns in the hands of violent criminals or people with mental illness or people who are both, at the same time Lott has shown that the net gains of having looser gun regulations are statistically significant.
Most interesting is where he mentions in one chapter that as of the time he finished his original study he didn't even own a gun because his wife refused to have one in the house. She wouldn't even let their kids play with water pistols. As of the conclusion of his study, they now have a gun in the house.
All that said, aside from the Second Amendment (my feelings on it should be easily inferred), I think the issue of self defense is important. I don't believe the Second Amendment needs to necessarily include the idea of personal defense. My belief is that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right of nature. It shouldn't need to be written on a piece of parchment. We have laws to punish criminals, but what recourse does a law-abiding person have to avoid becoming a statistic in the first place if not by having the option of lawfully arming themselves when they feel that they need to? As much respect as I have for them, even working at maximum efficiency, the police can really only hope to figure out whodunit a vast majority of the time. Why should victims be sacrificed in the name of "community safety" when the perceived gains of tighter gun laws are not even the truth of the matter?
Even aside from that, I take "Federal Contractors" to include "Defense Contractors", i.e. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc., etc. These are huge companies that together make up a large chunk of the IT hiring pool. So not even considering the rollout to all companies with > 50 employees later this year, it's still a lot of jobs that will be affected prior to that.
In the long term, Google could end up in the driver's seat of China's information flow.
I see what you're saying, but replace "China's" with "The U.S.'s" (or other mostly-free country of choice) and people would start soiling themselves. It's just the idea of a big corporation controlling information flow. I'm not questioning Google's motives, per se. Just the idea that the flow of information can be steered by a single big company. I understand China is a different story and it would be a start, but I would hope for a lot more in this area.
Not exactly, because if Google goes in the shitter tomorrow, they're still billionaires. They've chosen to keep the $1 salary for this year, but have been cashing on stock since the IPO in 2004. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. But if they wanted to make a gesture to the employees, then they could have held all that stock. I don't fault a damn thing they did (I would have done the same thing) and I honestly believe they care about the company and their employees, but classfying a $1 salary as a philanthropic gesture while cashing out on over a three billion dollars in stock between them is pushing it a bit.
I had these same thoughts when I started pursuing my CS degree in 1998 (switching from another major myself). There were all kinds of people in it for the money (as the bubble was filling) who had no real interest or aptitude. I had interest, aptitude, *and* was in it for the money. I hit the market late in 2000. As the internet bubble started to burst shortly thereafter, I kept telling myself that it would all even out and people would start washing out of the field. I'm kind of surprised to hear that its basically the same as it was then. I just wonder if that's the way things have always been (and always will be). It's hard to believe after the job market tightened up(in the eastern U.S anyway) the same sort of pattern exists. Though the market seems to be improving now, so that will only feed the cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this: I'll give them New Jersey (yes, I have the authority) and I'll take my chances with the sea level. When can we hammer out the deal?
And what gives you the idea that publicizing a win would in any way give away our capabilities? We catch a terrorist in line trying to board a flight and do harm. You think there's anything top secret about that? How about all the people standing around watching? Does the person get whisked away to Gitmo without raising an eyebrow?
Tune in to the show FutureWeapons to learn about the next generation in intelligent luggage screening. They don't say how it works, but they say that it can pick up guns, even broken down into parts, explosives, etc, (and they show it working).
It makes no sense to keep a lid on the fact that you just beat a terrorist at his own game. You just keep the important details out of it.
You're not giving up any right. You're choosing to ignore the Fifth Amendment and talk of your own free will. They cannot compel you to say anything. The Fifth Amendment continues to protect you. The Miranda warning doesn't cause any right to be waived, it's just letting you know that if you say anything, then you're ignoring your own rights. That's why you can stop talking at any time, or choose to not say anything (the wise choice).
Once you've said something incriminating, you can't take it back and it will be used against you. That's the "waived" part. But your rights are wholly in tact.
Glad I'm not the only one that shares this opinion (and your others above).
Yes, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. But an even larger tragedy is what we've slowly started to give up since then. The PATRIOT Act and Gitmo and these kinds of things should scare the living shit out of people, but they're seemingly oblivious. The death rate for those killed by terrorism in the United States falls somewhere between suicide by ball peen hammer and death resulting from paper cuts.
Yet, because the single tragedy is so spectacular, we say, "OK, we can live with fewer rights, to protect us from horrible terrorists." Drive the highways in NJ and you'll stop worrying about dying in a terrorist attack.
I'd love for someone to point out to me all the terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the TSA at airports in the United States since 9/11. Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!" Seems like it's more frequent to see some college student getting caught with a gun because he just wanted to prove how crappy security is.
As a conservative, it makes me shudder to think how many fellow conservatives fall in lockstep with this kind of thinking. When the Constitution is sufficiently covered with shit stains, we will be in serious trouble my friends.
It's more like them installing a new windshield in your car and then throwing a rock through it as you drive off the premises.
Yeah, you pay for the internet bandwidth, but your ISP isn't cutting a check to the sites you happen to browse.
No, you shouldn't be forced to support things you don't want to. But, don't be surprised when your favorite blogs, websites, forums, etc. dry up and blow away because they don't want to operate at a loss for the good of the world.
I've seen the phrase "failed business model" used many times in this thread. If not for that model, a good portion of the useful content on the web wouldn't exist. Sure, a lot of it is garbage, but there's some awfully good stuff out there supported by advertising.
I'm not a fan of annoying ads. However, if they weren't effective, they wouldn't be there. It's your right to block them, of course. But don't complain when just about everything decent on the web requires a subscription fee.
A few years ago, I took a drive to Gettysburg, PA to visit the battlefields and such. I took a really neat photo of some cannons behind a split rail fence with the rolling countryside and a farm in the distance. Then I turned 90 degrees and took another shot.
Unfortunately, there was a weather front coming through that day and my photo with the cannons was bathed in sunlight but it looked all wrong because the sky was dark and overcast. However, my shot 90 degrees to the left captured the sky as primarily blue with some high, wispy clouds.
Through the magic of photo editing, I took the blue sky and put it in the shot I liked. I then liked the shot so much, I printed it out and have it hanging in my cube.
It hasn't changed my memory of the situation, and I always tell the true story to people who ask about the shot. I don't pretend that I captured something great, but I now have something great that reminds me daily of an interesting time I had.
Hate to disagree with you, but he never lied in the movie. In fact, he made a point a few times of showing how he was a man of his word ("More people will die", "I'll blow up a hospital", etc.).
If I recall correctly, he gave two completely different accounts about what happened to his face. In one, his father did it to him, and in the other, he did it to himself. I'm guessing one or both was a lie.
It was a new XPS from Dell that I got in probably October '05, so I'm guessing it was SP2, but I can't specifically recall. I'm guessing Dell started using SP2 well before that. So, obviously I missed all of the SP1 disaster.
I should point out that I'm not trying to sit here and say that there haven't been Windows disasters or that it's a vastly superior product or anything. But from a consumer perspective, it's easy to get, easy to use, and does what I need.
Someone else in the thread commented that obviously MS has a better grasp of the free market than I do, because they're in bed with Dell. Newsflash: when a better alternative comes along that Dell can market AND will make them more $$$, then MS will be out the door. Right now, MS plays hardball because it has teeth in the market. Monitor and correct antitrust issues, get a superior product on the market, and change hearts and minds, and MS *will* die. But don't expect it to happen over night.
Well actually, I *do* care about computers. I just don't want to have to mess around with a bunch of headaches to finally get to the point where I can do whatever I'm there to do in the first place.
Have you ever tried to build a MythTV box from scratch? That's the biggest pain in the balls I've ever experienced. Sure, I obviously didn't hand pick the correct hardware. But that's the point. I don't want to. Same thing for virtually every linux box I've ever built. Some went better than others. Things that have caused me headaches over the years include getting modems to work, getting video card drivers to work, getting lirc to work, and a host of other things. On the flip side, Windows boxes I've built went a lot more smoothly.
Of course, Windows isn't the answer to everything and it certainly has problems.
I write software for a living. Where I work, we don't use Vista. At work, I deal with XP, RH EL4, and Solaris 8/9. When I get home, I'm doing the simple shit. I don't care if Ubuntu gives me my e-mail in a snappier fashion, I only care that it's fast *enough*. I don't schedule my day down to the same granularity as you, I guess. I can spare a few milliseconds to wait for Thunderbird to give me my mail while it's being handicapped by Vista.
Sorry if I'm not geeky enough for this place, but if you'd step out of your mom's basement for a few minutes, you'd realize that the general public feels mostly like I do. Please spare me the "but but but but but we love computeeeeeeeeers!" routine.
When XP came out, I said, "I'm sticking to Win2K as long as a I can and never going to XP. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then I got a new PC with XP installed and realized it was pretty decent. Then I said, "I'm sticking with XP as long as I can and never going to Vista. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then, I got a PS3 and that was good enough to satisfy my mild gaming interests. Finally, I had no reason to stick with Windows. Then, I got a new laptop with Vista installed and realized, "Hey, this isn't as bad as the hype."
In my college days and for a while after, fiddling with hardware and building a working box with linux really interested me. Now, I'm tired of dealing with drivers and all the b.s. I just want an OS that lets me do what I need to do. I don't have unusual needs for hardware so I don't give a shit if Vista won't support this or that. I whipped up an order from Dell and it showed up and it works and that's that.
Vista isn't perfect and never will be. But neither is any OS from any vendor. And certainly, Vista needs some work in the short term. But, when some linux distro is robust enough to unseat Windows, it will. That's the way markets work. Until then, I just don't have the time to pretend anymore that Windows is soooooo inferior for the vast majority of users that just surf the web, read e-mail, play DVDs and other typical stuff.
Better get a roll of duct tape and some plastic too.
That's where you an I differ, I suppose. Quite simply, I don't think that there's ever a need to carry a concealed firearm. It isn't that I believe the cops will always be around to protect me, it's that I believe that more harm than good is done by the ability to walk around with a gun in your hand (figuratively speaking). I'm more concerned about cases of road rage, or other arguments that get out of hand than I am about being mugged, because those situations happen a *lot* more frequently.
I highly recommend the book I mentioned in another post called "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. He's an academic researcher that studied crime statistics and information gained from other means like surveys and polls across many years and much of the U.S. to determine whether concealed-carry laws enacted in a place raised or lowered crime. The book is not an opinion piece. It's based on strict statistical analysis and he's very open about his data and his methods. His results clearly show that places that have "shall-issue" concealed carry laws showed a significant drop in all categories of violent crime. Additionally, he shows that there is a definitive net-gain in both lives (due to the reduction in murders), and money. His results clearly showed that increased gun ownership/carrying didn't increase the likelihood of crimes of passion like road rage. Or, at least if they did increase, it was much less than the reduction in predatory crimes, causing a net gain in lives. His projection showed that if the entire U.S. adopted liberal concealed-carry laws, it would amount to around 1,400+ less murders per year.
The book may not change your mind, but I still recommend checking it out. It's definitely an eye-opener. And in the second edition of the book, he addresses many of the questions and criticisms that came out after the first edition was released. You may find answers to some of your own.
Jesus, I'm stupid. I give up.
Dupe post alert...I stupidly replied to my own grandparent post instead of the parent, so I'll just throw the reply in here as well so it's in context at least. Anyhoo...
Hold on there, Bob. I'm not suggesting people need fully automatic weapons to protect themselves. In fact, I would wager that most of the law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. would agree with that for the simple fact that they recognize that they have family and neighbors to worry about, and spraying 30 rounds at a burglar in 3 seconds isn't a great idea. However, at the same time, I don't see a problem with people being able to own weapons like that for target shooting and the like, or at the very least, semi-auto variants of those weapons.
The problem I have here in New Jersey is that the state doesn't believe that I have any right to protect myself when I'm outside my home. Carrying a discretely concealed, smaller caliber, semi-automatic pistol is not too much to ask. And I'm not opposed to a requirement for training and licensing for carrying concealed weapons. But at least give me the option. Oh, there's a concealed carry law on the books. But actual permits are nearly mythical.
Not necessarily related to personal defense as we've been debating it, but the founders of the United States went out of their way to see that the citizenry would always be armed, be it to provide a citizen militia in the event of a foreign invasion, or to react in the event that an oppressive government came to power, similar to the one that they had fought to get out from under. When the government tells me that it's restricting gun ownership more and more and more and more and more, I can't help but think about that. And it's not just guns that are the issue. Personal choice and personal accountability are slowly being taken from us everywhere we turn. There are a lot of people here that are more on the liberal side and oppose both gun ownership and the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is precisely why these same people should support private gun ownership. People tend to only support the parts of the Constitution that they deem important. Well they need to think more about the other parts and why they're important too. I understand it sounds like paranoia because the government is very stable (same for Canada). But the Bill of Rights has been slowly eroding over the last 200 years. Some day we'll hit a point where the government has become unacceptable. Our founders saw to it that we'd have the tools for the situation. I hope I never see that day.
Hold on there, Bob. I'm not suggesting people need fully automatic weapons to protect themselves. In fact, I would wager that most of the law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. would agree with that for the simple fact that they recognize that they have family and neighbors to worry about, and spraying 30 rounds at a burglar in 3 seconds isn't a great idea. However, at the same time, I don't see a problem with people being able to own weapons like that for target shooting and the like, or at the very least, semi-auto variants of those weapons.
The problem I have here in New Jersey is that the state doesn't believe that I have any right to protect myself when I'm outside my home. Carrying a discretely concealed, smaller caliber, semi-automatic pistol is not too much to ask. And I'm not opposed to a requirement for training and licensing for carrying concealed weapons. But at least give me the option. Oh, there's a concealed carry law on the books. But actual permits are nearly mythical.
Not necessarily related to personal defense as we've been debating it, but the founders of the United States went out of their way to see that the citizenry would always be armed, be it to provide a citizen militia in the event of a foreign invasion, or to react in the event that an oppressive government came to power, similar to the one that they had fought to get out from under. When the government tells me that it's restricting gun ownership more and more and more and more and more, I can't help but think about that. And it's not just guns that are the issue. Personal choice and personal accountability are slowly being taken from us everywhere we turn. There are a lot of people here that are more on the liberal side and oppose both gun ownership and the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is precisely why these same people should support private gun ownership. People tend to only support the parts of the Constitution that they deem important. Well they need to think more about the other parts and why they're important too. I understand it sounds like paranoia because the government is very stable (same for Canada). But the Bill of Rights has been slowly eroding over the last 200 years. Some day we'll hit a point where the government has become unacceptable. Our founders saw to it that we'd have the tools for the situation. I hope I never see that day.
Instead of making assumptions, how about educating yourself on the issue? If you were to read some of the research relating to lawful gun ownership and crime rates, you might learn something. Take Switzerland, for instance. Very high rate of private gun ownership, and very low rate of violent crime. And how about the drop in crime rates experienced in places that adopt concealed-carry laws? And the fact that violent crime rates are highest in the parts of the US where guns laws are most restrictive.
And by the way, even if you were able to ban 100% of the guns, you'd have criminals smuggling them in and/or milling the parts in metal shops here. Guns are not complicated instruments. A high-school metal shop student could make a working gun in short order. Not that I'd want to fire it, but that's not the point.
It's ludicrous argue that guns should be banned because they are not a necessary part of modern society. Neither are swimming pools, playgrounds, skateboards, etc., etc., etc. But people don't call for them to be banned because they haven't been brainwashed into thinking that they're inherently dangerous. Even though pools kill far more children each year than accidental shootings do.
And finally, guns don't provide safety or the illusion of such. They provide a means to defend oneself from an assailant. Just like when I hold a wrench, it doesn't provide me with the illusion that I'm a mechanic, but it lets me do a few simple tasks that I'm qualified to do. I don't think that because I own a gun that I'm qualified to be a soldier or a SWAT team member, but when confronted by an assailant who will ultimately decide to kill me, having a gun will at least give me a chance. Handing over my belongings and cowering like a pussy will end me without a fight.
I don't subscribe to your nanny-state mentality. I can't comment on Canada, but in the US, it seems like every week the federal and state governments are telling us that there's something else that we can't do because we're imcompetent. Your assertion that non-military people are not quailfied to handle assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons is pure and utter b.s. I've been using firearms my entire life and I'm fully capable of making that decision for myself.
Guns *are* inherently dangerous - but so is gas, electricity, and many other things we have in our homes. The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the dangers. That's overstated. A gun isn't going to shoot anyone until it's loaded, pointed at someone, and fired. While it's sitting on the table (even loaded), it's no danger to anyone. I know this is such a cliche now, but it really is true: Guns don't kill people, people do. Can a gun be used to kill someone? Absolutely. I'm sitting here looking around my desk and I believe I could kill someone with the following items: scissors, telephone, pens, several heavy books, PC (including the peripherals), stapler, and a coil of spare cat-5. None of those things are inherently dangerous until I decide to pick them up and do harm to another. Guns should be respected and owners should do their part to make sure they are properly able to keep, use, and maintain them safely, but I cannot agree that they are inherently dangerous.
I do think your overall point is valid, and I believe that the answer is "yes, the benefits outweigh the dangers", but as I said, I just take issue with the idea that guns are inherently dangerous. All of those items on my desk are dangerous in the hands of someone that wants my wallet more than I do or who feels like they need to do me in because I walked down the wrong alley.
Damn man, you're my hero. This is exactly the kind of statistics that people need to made aware of so they can make informed decisions. The media and anti-gun zealots have tempered the fears of generations of people that think that guns are inherently dangerous.
I'm just about through John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and the results are more striking than what I expected when I started it. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread how guns are more of a problem in urban areas versus more rural areas. Ironically, Lott's study shows that urban areas benefit most from more liberal gun laws, as there is a direct correlation between gun ownership (more specifically the liberalness of a state's concealed-carry laws) and a drop in crime. If I recall correctly, the murder rate is something like 127% higher in states with the most strict gun laws, versus the states with liberal concealed-carry laws.
While I don't want guns in the hands of violent criminals or people with mental illness or people who are both, at the same time Lott has shown that the net gains of having looser gun regulations are statistically significant.
Most interesting is where he mentions in one chapter that as of the time he finished his original study he didn't even own a gun because his wife refused to have one in the house. She wouldn't even let their kids play with water pistols. As of the conclusion of his study, they now have a gun in the house.
All that said, aside from the Second Amendment (my feelings on it should be easily inferred), I think the issue of self defense is important. I don't believe the Second Amendment needs to necessarily include the idea of personal defense. My belief is that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right of nature. It shouldn't need to be written on a piece of parchment. We have laws to punish criminals, but what recourse does a law-abiding person have to avoid becoming a statistic in the first place if not by having the option of lawfully arming themselves when they feel that they need to? As much respect as I have for them, even working at maximum efficiency, the police can really only hope to figure out whodunit a vast majority of the time. Why should victims be sacrificed in the name of "community safety" when the perceived gains of tighter gun laws are not even the truth of the matter?
Even aside from that, I take "Federal Contractors" to include "Defense Contractors", i.e. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc., etc. These are huge companies that together make up a large chunk of the IT hiring pool. So not even considering the rollout to all companies with > 50 employees later this year, it's still a lot of jobs that will be affected prior to that.
In the long term, Google could end up in the driver's seat of China's information flow.
I see what you're saying, but replace "China's" with "The U.S.'s" (or other mostly-free country of choice) and people would start soiling themselves. It's just the idea of a big corporation controlling information flow. I'm not questioning Google's motives, per se. Just the idea that the flow of information can be steered by a single big company. I understand China is a different story and it would be a start, but I would hope for a lot more in this area.
MythTV is going on right now. It's constantly running somewhere...maybe everywhere. I just checked...it's recording something for me now.
Not exactly, because if Google goes in the shitter tomorrow, they're still billionaires. They've chosen to keep the $1 salary for this year, but have been cashing on stock since the IPO in 2004. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. But if they wanted to make a gesture to the employees, then they could have held all that stock. I don't fault a damn thing they did (I would have done the same thing) and I honestly believe they care about the company and their employees, but classfying a $1 salary as a philanthropic gesture while cashing out on over a three billion dollars in stock between them is pushing it a bit.
I had these same thoughts when I started pursuing my CS degree in 1998 (switching from another major myself). There were all kinds of people in it for the money (as the bubble was filling) who had no real interest or aptitude. I had interest, aptitude, *and* was in it for the money. I hit the market late in 2000. As the internet bubble started to burst shortly thereafter, I kept telling myself that it would all even out and people would start washing out of the field. I'm kind of surprised to hear that its basically the same as it was then. I just wonder if that's the way things have always been (and always will be). It's hard to believe after the job market tightened up(in the eastern U.S anyway) the same sort of pattern exists. Though the market seems to be improving now, so that will only feed the cycle.