I was just pointing out that many people (myself included) feel that the taxes we spend on defense are much better spent than money going to "social security" programs. The Balkans were just a convenient example of how defense is more valuable than social programs.
Narf... There's no good economic reason for you not to pay sales tax on something bought online... If you don't want to pay sales taxes, petition your local government to abolish them...
And bush's tax cut was very much not the correct decision to help our economy.
And what grounds do you have for saying that other than someone on TV told you so?
I hope you mean by 'a socially-beneficial way' getting the poor jobs... Because unless they're somehow employed in such a way as to bring in a steady income, you're not solving the problem.
I'm rather confused by your mention of diversity, however... If I'm fertilizing a corn field, I want corn... Your metaphor could use some work.
A better plant metaphor would be watching to see what plants grow best and using them to seed your next crop. ie: Successful businesses/individuals should be encouraged, not punished by having more of their income taken from them.
Except that we pay significantly less taxes than most EU member nations... What social security is there without physical security? I doubt the people living in Kosovo for instance would've been so happy about a great dental plan while militants were kicking in the doors and executing them. Governments should build roads and provide defense, not support their citizens with social programs...
Hrmph, that's because you didn't include the RFC standard tags. I'd argue that radio (especially talk radio) is pretty diverse... There's too much of it out there for even a station solely devoted to playing it to cover. As far as television... Well, when I still watched television (got rid of DirecTV two months ago) all I watched was History, Cartoon Network, and occassionally sci-fi... So yeah, TV sucks. Read a book.:P
The only way someone will control the flow of media information in the US is if everyone in the US wants to listen to their flavour of media. A good example of this is the former dominance of CNN/ABC/CBS when it came to news... and how people are ceasing to watch them and instead watch Fox News in droves because Fox provides the kind of news they want to see. And yet, some people prefer to listen to the older news casts still. As the person you're replying to pointed out, there will never be one opinion in charge of all the media because it will be too easy for someone who caters to another viewpoint to move in and take market share.
If it doesn't pass, Radio will lose all diversity, Newspapers will only print boring wire stories, and television news will only be about ratings!
And if the Republicans win, school children will starve and millions will die from poisoned water supplies!
Seriously, reread your statement and listen to how sensational you sound. Due to deregulation of broadcasting in the past, radio GAINED diversity. If companies were allowed to own more stations in a market, they could more easily tailor those stations to different niches of the market... Instead of being forced to stick with what's extremely popular. If a company owns three stations in a market, at least one will have to be for Pop/Top40, one will most likely be country (depending on the area of the country), and one will probably be news/talk. If they were allowed many more stations they could branch out to have stations for other genres (techo, folk, metal, etc), seperate talk and news, sports, etc... And if they didn't offer information or a viewpoint that people wanted to hear then *GASP* they'd listen to some other company's station! Listeners don't care about WHO owns the station, just whether or not the station offers what they want to hear.
For instance, I listen mostly to a local news/talk station. But starting at 7PM locally, they play a show called 'Southern Sports Tonight'. I listen to this station to hear political talk and news... Not a bunch of Rednecks discuss college football. So I change the channel. If the company that owns this station (And a local pop, local easy listening, local country, and local ESPN Radio station) were allowed to have more stations, it could have a station dedicated solely to talk radio. They keep having to change their lineup because their listenership can't always agree on what they want to listen to. Bruce Williams was dropped for a late night libertarian show, Ken Hamblin was replaced with Southern Sports Tonight, an hour of Bill O'Reilly was cut off to allow an hour more of Sean Hannity. The 6PM news hour was axed because they had too much talk radio to play. One extra station would allow all these things to stay on the lineup and allow consumers a choice as to what they listen to instead of being stuck with the current selection.
Most Newspapers I read nowadays stick mainly to Associated Press articles with some articles of local interest and editorials thrown in. HOW exactly would that change?
And television isn't about ratings already? Is Laci Peterson and that dumb intern who got kidnapped in Washington really all that newsworthy compared to the hundreds of similar cases every day? Ratings are just a measure of who's watching... If no one's watching your show, WHY ARE YOU ON THE AIR!?:P
If Rupert Murdoch is legally allowed to take over all the media, he WILL.
As opposed to AOL/Time Warner controlling everything? How is Fox different from any other huge media conglomerate except that it's not dominated by left leaning opinions?
The new FCC regulations would only of allowed someone to control every market if the consumers in those markets wanted it to be that way. As long as there's a market for a differing viewpoint (Which CNN's numbers, while dwindling, show there is) no one entity would have control over the flow of all information.
The new FCC regulations simply got rid of a stupid system of propping up competition by making sure a successful organization that provided the content people WANTED couldn't buy out an unsuccessful competitor.
In the end what does it matter who owns what station? If the media outlet doesn't provide the information that people want, they'll go somewhere else (as is evident by the aforementioned dwindling CNN viewership). The government shouldn't be mucking about regulating the market, let the market forces regulate the market.
That's funny, in Louisiana the Dead are all registered Democrats. Wonder what's so different about the Afterlife where you live that everyone would vote Republican. Maybe I should move to your state before I die if that means I get to hang out with a bunch of Conservatives once I kick the bucket.;)
Refer to my previous comment where I mentioned their lousy bargaining position with Microsoft. Microsoft OEM licenses forbid selling PCs with no OS. Dell gets around this by mailing a FreeDOS diskette with a machine, and now HP is sidestepping it with the Mandrake Disk offer. The question is, if a user is buying a machine with no OS, why would they buy it from a big name instead of building it themselves cheaper, and why would a big name want to support it not knowing what the user will have installed on it. How many flavours of Linux are there? BSDs? Plan9? BeOS? Ancient operating systems that have no business being on the PC except that a Geek owns it? How can a big name hope to support all those configurations? Simple answer: They don't. They expect that if you're going to roll your own OS solution you'll also roll your own hardware solution. If you want OS-less PCs to avoid the "Microsoft tax" there are vendors out there who specialize in that. Tier One vendors specialize in selling you a preconfigured solution that they can support.
Oh yes, it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the decreased cost and complexity of supporting only one platform... Or the atrocious bargaining position they're trapped in with Microsoft... Or the frickin lack of consumer demand for Linux computers. It's all a grand conspiracy by The Man to keep Open Source down.
Dell does sell Linux preinstalls, actually. And these companies realize that someone who has the know-how to use Linux in their enterprise also has the know-how to not use their solutions in the first place. What would HP/Dell/Gateway gain with a major push of Linux other than a pain in the neck?
I'm all for supporting Linux, but expecting computer manufacturers to push Linux as hard as Windows because "it's the right thing to do" is ludicrous. "The right thing to do" is what your customers want; and their major customers want Windows solutions, not Linux.
Hmm... Maybe because this compiler is something they plan to sell (from what I can tell it's a closed source binary-only download) and return a profit on.
If you really think that all IBM has contributed is some legacy drivers to Linux, I'm guessing you're either out of touch or I've severely misunderstood IBM's involvement. Look at the SCO lawsuit for a good example of many of the IBM developed/owned technologies that are now available as GPL in the kernel.
I think that it comes down to is they didn't use gcc because they weren't looking for some massive slow cross compiler to modify to fit their needs, they (as the makers of the hardware) wanted a package that was built from the ground up to build the best code it can for their architecture. It would seem almost impossible to make gcc as good on any one architecture as an architecture specific compiler written by the architecture's creator. If I want a high performance sportscar I don't start with a station wagon as a base (well, unless I have my own show on TNN) and modify it. I build it from the ground up.
Hmm yes the Recording Industry Association of AMERICA traveled BACK IN TIME to post-WW2 Great Britain and wrote legislation to ban devices that make use of the FM spectrum so that 54 years later they could force a distributor of an iPod accessory in the UK via a mole they planted in the company to read the law and after speaking w/ the Radio Agency conclude that the device is illegal there.
Next they'll use their nifty time travel technology to go back and assure that Victrola loses to Eddison so that his proprietary cylindrical records become the standard instead of the easy to use flat Victrolas...
I'm a tech on a Windows network for the local government here and we immediately disable Automatic updates on machines now. Lord knows it's not because we're Linux users (I'm the only one) but because the updates all too often BREAK things that were already working.
I'd hope not wanting my country's businesses to invest huge amounts of their limited capital into something that they'd see no benefit from doing monetarily or otherwise is not something limited to American citizens... If so, I cry for the world economy. Will the US switch to IPv6? Absolutely. Will they do it before it makes economic sense to? Absolutely not. If US consumers start demanding the sort of devices (connected phones, appliances, etc) that require a massive rollout of IPv6 capabilities, I gaurantee you IPv6 will see rapid adoption. But until it makes business sense, they won't and they shouldn't. Make the net future proof? The majority of routing hardware in the US is Cisco; most of which supports IPv6 by flipping a switch or a firmware upgrade. When the time comes, it'll be done. In response to the poster that spoke about asynchronous callback on phones: Good point. You've shown me a good reason for IPv6 rollout. Now, when US users demand it... See previous paragraph.:)
If other countries were willing/able to dis-associate their chunk of the Internet from the US's chunk, they could do that RIGHT NOW to solve the IP Address shortage and not spend any money on the IPv6 upgrade. Just cut the cables and re-assign the addresses that America previously 'owned' to other nations on the Non-American Internet. It's the same principle as addressing on a private network; you can use the same IPs as someone else, just as long as your network can't see their network. Oh, and with NAT your networks can even be connected and still work. Hey wait, if we can use NAT to hide non-unique addresses from the Internet and not lose connectivity... Why the big push for the switch? The fact of the matter is users of the Internet DON'T WANT to be disconnected from the American section of the Internet. And the rest of the world switching to IPv6 while the US lags a few years behind won't bring that about, either. You can route between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (that's what the protocol was designed for) and there's no incentive for American businesses to spend money on an upgrade that they'll see no return on. Really man, find a good reason to spit venom at the US and stick to it. Attacking us because the other nations of the world want a unique IP address on every phone, car, bike, toaster, and gilette razor while we don't see the need for it immediately is just silly. The world can do what it wants and we can do what we want without breaking anything.
But guns are a solution to violence. If a criminal is shot dead he is no longer violent. Are they the only solution? No, but they're an effective one.:) How else would you protect yourself from an unbalanced individual except with a nagging fear of the consequences in the back of their mind? Studies have shown that when criminals fear being shot (due to concealed carry laws, past experience, etc) the crime rate drops through the floor.
Yes, 10,000 gun murders is too much (but that's almost 50% less than 10 years ago)... And on the flipside, handguns are used by people to protect themselves 1.5 to 2.5 million times per year on average (depends on the survey). Are you sure about your PER CAPITA comment? I seem to remember hundreds of thousands of people (God rest their souls) being ethnically cleansed in third world countries. I don't think they were killed with harsh language. Meanwhile, 10,000 gun deaths comes out to be about one death per thirty thousand people... Which seems like a lot until you realize one in 15000 people dies of Alzhemer's every year, and Alzhemer's is way down near the bottom of the list for causes of death.
I'm especially amused by your 'other than drug dealers and criminals' comment, thereby associating law abiding citizens who own a firearm for protective purposes with peddlers of poison. Criminals own guns in the US, too. Almost always illegally so. Meanwhile, legal owners of guns barely register as a stastical blip on crime charts. I think a husband and father of three's idead of 'protection' is very different than a cocaine dealer's idea of 'protection'.:)
Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is? I know a few firearms experts who would claim a semi-automatic doesn't exist, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. It simply means that when you pull the trigger, the gun fires one round then loads the next round. Contrast this with fully automatic, wherein by holding down the trigger the bullet will continuously fire rounds. I'm very confused by people who talk about the evils of semi-automatics... And while I wouldn't use a semi-automatic rifle for deer hunting (I'd rather a bolt action rifle for accuracy), semi-automatic shotguns are very useful for hunting smaller game like rabbits and water fowl. I'd rather have three shots for a duck on the wing than one.:) Why shouldn't the public have access to such weapons? If nothing else, they're a last resort against government oppression (a point often made by the framers of the constitution). Handguns are useful for self defense, nuff said. In the US during our period of westward expansion the Colt 45 was known as the great equalizer. No matter how small/weak of a person you were, if you had one you did not have to fear someone bigger/stronger than you. Nowadays I know of numerous cases where people's lives have been saved due to their carrying a handgun. In most cases, the weapon never even has to be discharged. The gun itself is an effective enough deterrent.:)
The device's sole purpose is to prevent other human being from wiping out our human beings. Carriers are as good of an defensive weapon as they are offensive. Their mere existance and often their presence in a region generally leads to lessened hostilities. Considering the service lifetime of a Nimitz, I'd say this is money very well spent. Five billion now nets us a ship that will serve the country well for the next three or four decades. Why do we need a large military budget? To defend ourselves and our interests. My question would be why do we need a huge budget for social programs? The Federal Government's primary responsibility is to see to the defense of its citizens, and yet by category they spend more money on almost everything else. What has the past four decades of social programs earned us? If anything, I'd claim that the social programs have LED to many of the problems we face today (see: Welfare). Meanwhile, at about the same time as the huge increase in social spending started, the USS Constellation entered service. She is a distinguished ship who has served her country well, and who's retirement coincides with the launch of the Reagan. This has nothing to do with the ship's inability to serve her country, simply due to the fact that the increased cost of running two large carriers when one could do the job was unnecessary. See? The military cutting costs. When was the last time some huge social entitlement program (re: Welfare, Social Security, Medicare) got rid of a part of itself to cut costs? The best solution to social problems is for the people who face those problems to decide to do something about them; the answer is not for them to wait for the huge and benevolent government to save them.
If you honestly think 5 billion would make it through the socialist beaurocracy down to the people who actually need it and accomplish anything useful, you haven't paid attention to the last few decades of social programs in the US.
Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. Finding the root causes of the problem (collapse of the family, failed education system, lack of personal accountability, etc, etc, etc) and fixing those leads to a problem.
Lack of social funding? 28% of the Federal Government's budget is spent on social programs look for yourself. 18% on social programs and 10% on community development (the same thing). Meanwhile only 18% is spent on national defense...
God, I can't believe I spent so much energy on an AC troll...
Except that hydrogen is bad too. I've become convinced there's nothing man can do that will not upset an environmentalist somewhere... (re: wind farms) So let's just nuke the planet and let Nature and God sort out the pieces.;)
Actually the ionosphere and large radiation belts surrounding the earth stop (most) cosmic rays. They collide with charged particles there and get converted into other less energetic things. The piddly ozone layer would do NOTHING to slow down these rays, it simply blocks Ultraviolet radiation. Nothing man has done or could do (though some would argue HAARP might be able to cause problems) can dislodge that belt of protection (ionosphere, magnetic field) from around our planet.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just pointing out that many people (myself included) feel that the taxes we spend on defense are much better spent than money going to "social security" programs. The Balkans were just a convenient example of how defense is more valuable than social programs.
Narf... There's no good economic reason for you not to pay sales tax on something bought online... If you don't want to pay sales taxes, petition your local government to abolish them...
And bush's tax cut was very much not the correct decision to help our economy.
And what grounds do you have for saying that other than someone on TV told you so?
I hope you mean by 'a socially-beneficial way' getting the poor jobs... Because unless they're somehow employed in such a way as to bring in a steady income, you're not solving the problem.
I'm rather confused by your mention of diversity, however... If I'm fertilizing a corn field, I want corn... Your metaphor could use some work.
A better plant metaphor would be watching to see what plants grow best and using them to seed your next crop. ie: Successful businesses/individuals should be encouraged, not punished by having more of their income taken from them.
Except that we pay significantly less taxes than most EU member nations... What social security is there without physical security? I doubt the people living in Kosovo for instance would've been so happy about a great dental plan while militants were kicking in the doors and executing them.
Governments should build roads and provide defense, not support their citizens with social programs...
Hrmph, that's because you didn't include the RFC standard tags. :P
I'd argue that radio (especially talk radio) is pretty diverse... There's too much of it out there for even a station solely devoted to playing it to cover. As far as television... Well, when I still watched television (got rid of DirecTV two months ago) all I watched was History, Cartoon Network, and occassionally sci-fi... So yeah, TV sucks. Read a book.
The only way someone will control the flow of media information in the US is if everyone in the US wants to listen to their flavour of media. A good example of this is the former dominance of CNN/ABC/CBS when it came to news... and how people are ceasing to watch them and instead watch Fox News in droves because Fox provides the kind of news they want to see. And yet, some people prefer to listen to the older news casts still.
As the person you're replying to pointed out, there will never be one opinion in charge of all the media because it will be too easy for someone who caters to another viewpoint to move in and take market share.
If it doesn't pass, Radio will lose all diversity, Newspapers will only print boring wire stories, and television news will only be about ratings!
:P
And if the Republicans win, school children will starve and millions will die from poisoned water supplies!
Seriously, reread your statement and listen to how sensational you sound. Due to deregulation of broadcasting in the past, radio GAINED diversity. If companies were allowed to own more stations in a market, they could more easily tailor those stations to different niches of the market... Instead of being forced to stick with what's extremely popular. If a company owns three stations in a market, at least one will have to be for Pop/Top40, one will most likely be country (depending on the area of the country), and one will probably be news/talk. If they were allowed many more stations they could branch out to have stations for other genres (techo, folk, metal, etc), seperate talk and news, sports, etc... And if they didn't offer information or a viewpoint that people wanted to hear then *GASP* they'd listen to some other company's station! Listeners don't care about WHO owns the station, just whether or not the station offers what they want to hear.
For instance, I listen mostly to a local news/talk station. But starting at 7PM locally, they play a show called 'Southern Sports Tonight'. I listen to this station to hear political talk and news... Not a bunch of Rednecks discuss college football. So I change the channel. If the company that owns this station (And a local pop, local easy listening, local country, and local ESPN Radio station) were allowed to have more stations, it could have a station dedicated solely to talk radio. They keep having to change their lineup because their listenership can't always agree on what they want to listen to. Bruce Williams was dropped for a late night libertarian show, Ken Hamblin was replaced with Southern Sports Tonight, an hour of Bill O'Reilly was cut off to allow an hour more of Sean Hannity. The 6PM news hour was axed because they had too much talk radio to play. One extra station would allow all these things to stay on the lineup and allow consumers a choice as to what they listen to instead of being stuck with the current selection.
Most Newspapers I read nowadays stick mainly to Associated Press articles with some articles of local interest and editorials thrown in. HOW exactly would that change?
And television isn't about ratings already? Is Laci Peterson and that dumb intern who got kidnapped in Washington really all that newsworthy compared to the hundreds of similar cases every day? Ratings are just a measure of who's watching... If no one's watching your show, WHY ARE YOU ON THE AIR!?
If Rupert Murdoch is legally allowed to take over all the media, he WILL.
As opposed to AOL/Time Warner controlling everything? How is Fox different from any other huge media conglomerate except that it's not dominated by left leaning opinions?
The new FCC regulations would only of allowed someone to control every market if the consumers in those markets wanted it to be that way. As long as there's a market for a differing viewpoint (Which CNN's numbers, while dwindling, show there is) no one entity would have control over the flow of all information.
The new FCC regulations simply got rid of a stupid system of propping up competition by making sure a successful organization that provided the content people WANTED couldn't buy out an unsuccessful competitor.
In the end what does it matter who owns what station? If the media outlet doesn't provide the information that people want, they'll go somewhere else (as is evident by the aforementioned dwindling CNN viewership). The government shouldn't be mucking about regulating the market, let the market forces regulate the market.
That's funny, in Louisiana the Dead are all registered Democrats. Wonder what's so different about the Afterlife where you live that everyone would vote Republican. Maybe I should move to your state before I die if that means I get to hang out with a bunch of Conservatives once I kick the bucket. ;)
Sorry, just can't take an AC post seriously...
Refer to my previous comment where I mentioned their lousy bargaining position with Microsoft. Microsoft OEM licenses forbid selling PCs with no OS. Dell gets around this by mailing a FreeDOS diskette with a machine, and now HP is sidestepping it with the Mandrake Disk offer.
The question is, if a user is buying a machine with no OS, why would they buy it from a big name instead of building it themselves cheaper, and why would a big name want to support it not knowing what the user will have installed on it.
How many flavours of Linux are there? BSDs? Plan9? BeOS? Ancient operating systems that have no business being on the PC except that a Geek owns it? How can a big name hope to support all those configurations?
Simple answer: They don't. They expect that if you're going to roll your own OS solution you'll also roll your own hardware solution. If you want OS-less PCs to avoid the "Microsoft tax" there are vendors out there who specialize in that. Tier One vendors specialize in selling you a preconfigured solution that they can support.
Oh yes, it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the decreased cost and complexity of supporting only one platform... Or the atrocious bargaining position they're trapped in with Microsoft... Or the frickin lack of consumer demand for Linux computers. It's all a grand conspiracy by The Man to keep Open Source down.
Dell does sell Linux preinstalls, actually. And these companies realize that someone who has the know-how to use Linux in their enterprise also has the know-how to not use their solutions in the first place. What would HP/Dell/Gateway gain with a major push of Linux other than a pain in the neck?
I'm all for supporting Linux, but expecting computer manufacturers to push Linux as hard as Windows because "it's the right thing to do" is ludicrous. "The right thing to do" is what your customers want; and their major customers want Windows solutions, not Linux.
Except that, as others have pointed out, the GCC team rejected IBM's patches because they changed too much that was fundamental to GCC.
Hmm... Maybe because this compiler is something they plan to sell (from what I can tell it's a closed source binary-only download) and return a profit on.
If you really think that all IBM has contributed is some legacy drivers to Linux, I'm guessing you're either out of touch or I've severely misunderstood IBM's involvement. Look at the SCO lawsuit for a good example of many of the IBM developed/owned technologies that are now available as GPL in the kernel.
I think that it comes down to is they didn't use gcc because they weren't looking for some massive slow cross compiler to modify to fit their needs, they (as the makers of the hardware) wanted a package that was built from the ground up to build the best code it can for their architecture. It would seem almost impossible to make gcc as good on any one architecture as an architecture specific compiler written by the architecture's creator. If I want a high performance sportscar I don't start with a station wagon as a base (well, unless I have my own show on TNN) and modify it. I build it from the ground up.
Yes I realize you're not a guy, so don't take the 'Man' bit personally. ^_-
Hmm yes the Recording Industry Association of AMERICA traveled BACK IN TIME to post-WW2 Great Britain and wrote legislation to ban devices that make use of the FM spectrum so that 54 years later they could force a distributor of an iPod accessory in the UK via a mole they planted in the company to read the law and after speaking w/ the Radio Agency conclude that the device is illegal there.
Next they'll use their nifty time travel technology to go back and assure that Victrola loses to Eddison so that his proprietary cylindrical records become the standard instead of the easy to use flat Victrolas...
COME ON MAN, GET A GRIP
I'm a tech on a Windows network for the local government here and we immediately disable Automatic updates on machines now. Lord knows it's not because we're Linux users (I'm the only one) but because the updates all too often BREAK things that were already working.
Except that Win98 is also vulnerable to this, it's just no longer supported for updates.
Thankyoudrivethrough.
I'd hope not wanting my country's businesses to invest huge amounts of their limited capital into something that they'd see no benefit from doing monetarily or otherwise is not something limited to American citizens... If so, I cry for the world economy. :)
Will the US switch to IPv6? Absolutely. Will they do it before it makes economic sense to? Absolutely not. If US consumers start demanding the sort of devices (connected phones, appliances, etc) that require a massive rollout of IPv6 capabilities, I gaurantee you IPv6 will see rapid adoption. But until it makes business sense, they won't and they shouldn't. Make the net future proof? The majority of routing hardware in the US is Cisco; most of which supports IPv6 by flipping a switch or a firmware upgrade. When the time comes, it'll be done.
In response to the poster that spoke about asynchronous callback on phones: Good point. You've shown me a good reason for IPv6 rollout. Now, when US users demand it... See previous paragraph.
If other countries were willing/able to dis-associate their chunk of the Internet from the US's chunk, they could do that RIGHT NOW to solve the IP Address shortage and not spend any money on the IPv6 upgrade. Just cut the cables and re-assign the addresses that America previously 'owned' to other nations on the Non-American Internet. It's the same principle as addressing on a private network; you can use the same IPs as someone else, just as long as your network can't see their network.
Oh, and with NAT your networks can even be connected and still work. Hey wait, if we can use NAT to hide non-unique addresses from the Internet and not lose connectivity... Why the big push for the switch?
The fact of the matter is users of the Internet DON'T WANT to be disconnected from the American section of the Internet. And the rest of the world switching to IPv6 while the US lags a few years behind won't bring that about, either. You can route between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (that's what the protocol was designed for) and there's no incentive for American businesses to spend money on an upgrade that they'll see no return on.
Really man, find a good reason to spit venom at the US and stick to it. Attacking us because the other nations of the world want a unique IP address on every phone, car, bike, toaster, and gilette razor while we don't see the need for it immediately is just silly. The world can do what it wants and we can do what we want without breaking anything.
But guns are a solution to violence. If a criminal is shot dead he is no longer violent. Are they the only solution? No, but they're an effective one. :) How else would you protect yourself from an unbalanced individual except with a nagging fear of the consequences in the back of their mind? Studies have shown that when criminals fear being shot (due to concealed carry laws, past experience, etc) the crime rate drops through the floor.
:)
Yes, 10,000 gun murders is too much (but that's almost 50% less than 10 years ago)... And on the flipside, handguns are used by people to protect themselves 1.5 to 2.5 million times per year on average (depends on the survey). Are you sure about your PER CAPITA comment? I seem to remember hundreds of thousands of people (God rest their souls) being ethnically cleansed in third world countries. I don't think they were killed with harsh language. Meanwhile, 10,000 gun deaths comes out to be about one death per thirty thousand people... Which seems like a lot until you realize one in 15000 people dies of Alzhemer's every year, and Alzhemer's is way down near the bottom of the list for causes of death.
I'm especially amused by your 'other than drug dealers and criminals' comment, thereby associating law abiding citizens who own a firearm for protective purposes with peddlers of poison. Criminals own guns in the US, too. Almost always illegally so. Meanwhile, legal owners of guns barely register as a stastical blip on crime charts. I think a husband and father of three's idead of 'protection' is very different than a cocaine dealer's idea of 'protection'.
Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is? I know a few firearms experts who would claim a semi-automatic doesn't exist, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. It simply means that when you pull the trigger, the gun fires one round then loads the next round. Contrast this with fully automatic, wherein by holding down the trigger the bullet will continuously fire rounds. I'm very confused by people who talk about the evils of semi-automatics... :) Why shouldn't the public have access to such weapons? If nothing else, they're a last resort against government oppression (a point often made by the framers of the constitution). :)
And while I wouldn't use a semi-automatic rifle for deer hunting (I'd rather a bolt action rifle for accuracy), semi-automatic shotguns are very useful for hunting smaller game like rabbits and water fowl. I'd rather have three shots for a duck on the wing than one.
Handguns are useful for self defense, nuff said. In the US during our period of westward expansion the Colt 45 was known as the great equalizer. No matter how small/weak of a person you were, if you had one you did not have to fear someone bigger/stronger than you. Nowadays I know of numerous cases where people's lives have been saved due to their carrying a handgun. In most cases, the weapon never even has to be discharged. The gun itself is an effective enough deterrent.
The device's sole purpose is to prevent other human being from wiping out our human beings. Carriers are as good of an defensive weapon as they are offensive. Their mere existance and often their presence in a region generally leads to lessened hostilities. Considering the service lifetime of a Nimitz, I'd say this is money very well spent. Five billion now nets us a ship that will serve the country well for the next three or four decades.
Why do we need a large military budget? To defend ourselves and our interests. My question would be why do we need a huge budget for social programs? The Federal Government's primary responsibility is to see to the defense of its citizens, and yet by category they spend more money on almost everything else. What has the past four decades of social programs earned us? If anything, I'd claim that the social programs have LED to many of the problems we face today (see: Welfare). Meanwhile, at about the same time as the huge increase in social spending started, the USS Constellation entered service. She is a distinguished ship who has served her country well, and who's retirement coincides with the launch of the Reagan. This has nothing to do with the ship's inability to serve her country, simply due to the fact that the increased cost of running two large carriers when one could do the job was unnecessary. See? The military cutting costs.
When was the last time some huge social entitlement program (re: Welfare, Social Security, Medicare) got rid of a part of itself to cut costs?
The best solution to social problems is for the people who face those problems to decide to do something about them; the answer is not for them to wait for the huge and benevolent government to save them.
If you honestly think 5 billion would make it through the socialist beaurocracy down to the people who actually need it and accomplish anything useful, you haven't paid attention to the last few decades of social programs in the US. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. Finding the root causes of the problem (collapse of the family, failed education system, lack of personal accountability, etc, etc, etc) and fixing those leads to a problem.
Lack of social funding? 28% of the Federal Government's budget is spent on social programs look for yourself. 18% on social programs and 10% on community development (the same thing).
Meanwhile only 18% is spent on national defense...
God, I can't believe I spent so much energy on an AC troll...
Except that hydrogen is bad too. I've become convinced there's nothing man can do that will not upset an environmentalist somewhere... (re: wind farms) So let's just nuke the planet and let Nature and God sort out the pieces. ;)
Actually the ionosphere and large radiation belts surrounding the earth stop (most) cosmic rays. They collide with charged particles there and get converted into other less energetic things. The piddly ozone layer would do NOTHING to slow down these rays, it simply blocks Ultraviolet radiation. Nothing man has done or could do (though some would argue HAARP might be able to cause problems) can dislodge that belt of protection (ionosphere, magnetic field) from around our planet.