we could spent that 500 billion or so on giving every eligible individual in the United States a college education,
Oh please. $500 billion doesn't go very far when you try to spead it out to 350 million people. Even if only a third of them were "eligible" (whatever the hell you mean by THAT), that'd be less than $5000 each. Not enough for a college education, my friend. I won't even bother to address the absurdity of the notion that government has any business paying for the higher educations of "eligible" people.
or paying scientists and technologists to develop high end tech to revolutionize our lives).
Wow, now THERE'S a specific plan! Care to give us some insight into what you think "high end tech to revolutionize our lives" is, exactly?
Fuckwit. You ever been to the back woods in Tennesee? W.Virginia? Kentucky? There are people so poor there that they have their 14 year old kids out in the woods shooting squirrels and possum so they can eat
What so now "deliverance" was a documentry? I am sure there are a lot of people in those states that would love this stereotype of them that you carry around with you. I can't blame you though, I blame the public school systems.
I'm not stereotyping, moron. Did I say that ALL people in those states are like that? No. I only say that such people exist. How do I know? I'm related to some of them (feel free to let fly with your own stereotyping here if you wish; I've heard it before and such hypocrisy wouldn't be unexpected from a smug bastard like you). One of my good friends in the army grew up like that. My brother-in-law used to have to hunt squirrel and raccoon if the venison ran out. These aren't a bunch of inbred freaks either. They just grew up really fucking poor. If rural poverty immediately makes you think of "Deliverance", then you're the one full of stereotypes, my friend. Get a clue. Or drop dead. I don't think it matters what a shitheel like you thinks anyway, because you live in your own seperate little world already.
So when there is no hard data supporting my claim, I can just make up some imaginary data and then justify it by saying that nobody reported it?
When you make crap up at least have the decency to make up some numbers rather than anecdotes. Unless your going to tell me that Mr Kleck talked to a million people who shouted "get out i have a gun" at burglers.
Here is an overview of Mr. Kleck's work. Take it or leave it. I didn't cite a stack of figures before because I really don't care what you think-- you've already got a position you've chosen to defend.
Umm dood, read your own words again and then try and tell me the other guy is the idiot.
According to the law, a child may posess, but not purchase a long arm. The original poster seemed to think they could go to the 7-11 and get an AK. He, like you, is an assclown who can't read.
No child below 18 has any right to posses a gun outside of direct adult supervision EVER.
Incorrect. Read Tennesee law above. They do have the right. Whether or not a pantywaist like you thinks they should or not is a seperate issue.
Give me a good reason why a 16 year old needs a gun when there is no parent around. Whats that? oh you can't? Thats right there is no friggen reason.
Fuckwit. You ever been to the back woods in Tennesee? W.Virginia? Kentucky? There are people so poor there that they have their 14 year old kids out in the woods shooting squirrels and possum so they can eat. Good enough for you? Or should everyone just "get a better job"? Or maybe the government cheese fairy can feed them? Gimme a break.
Seriously, how many lifes have the right to bear arms saved?
Hard to say. How do you count people who haven't been murdered? Criminologist Gary Kleck found that firearms were used defensively about 1 million times a year in the US. The reason you don't hear about it is that defensive firearm use usually involves someone brandishing a firearm and saying "I'm armed; get out". This kind of thing doesn't result in a murder statistic, which is what gun control freaks like to harp about.
So there you have it. The gun nuts have made the gun laws in Tennessee so weak that it was legal for those kids to have guns. They could buy them legally and carry them legally. They could even have bought assault rifles, with more firepower, legally.
Allowing posession is not the same as allowing purchase. You still can't purchase a long arm until you are 18. BTW, assault rifles don't have "more firepower" than a shotgun by any reasonable definition. You can't even buy one in the US that holds more than 10 rounds in its magazine anymore, so there is no measure by which an "assault rifle" is superior to a semi-auto deer rifle other than perhaps durability. You, sir, are just another propaganda parroting fool who doeswn't understand what he reads.
You only want guns because you spent so much time fighting for your right to have guns that your worst enemy is able to buy a gun
My worst enemy is the state itself, which has always been armed. Personally, I want cops to be afraid of being shot if they come to kick in my door. It may sound strange to you, but an armed populace does keep the police state at bay to some extent. Do you really want cops to be the only ones with guns?
It's probably got to a point where it's all irreversible now though, and you couldn't safely outlaw handguns in the home in America.
It's been irrevesible since about 1870. And why pick on handguns? These kids didn't use handguns, they used long arms. Ditto for the columbine kids. Saying "something should have been done 130 years ago" is asinine. Whether or not the "something" would have been a good thing or not is totally irrelevant because it's too fucking late. Suggest something do-able, fool.
"I didn't want to hurt anyone," Joshua wrote. "This will stick with me the rest of my life."
Right... I didn't want to hurt anyone, I just wanted to shoot guns at people, that's all officer.
Can someone please explain to me what the fuck is wrong with people these days? Not only do they take a rifle and shoot at people because they were "bored", they either lied about not wanting to hurt people or didn't realise that lead travelling towards fleshy humans at hundreds of feet per second can hurt!
Yeah, they clearly lied. They did want to hurt people. They just can't admit that now that they're looking at the possibilityt of life in prison.
United States 14.24;
Northern Ireland 6.63;
Israel 2.91;
So what are the "bomb-related deaths" for these three countries?I reckon Israel and Ireland beat the US there. Blaming the tool for the craftsman's work is stupid.
Trying to stop killing by taking away most murderer's preferred weapon doesn't address the problem of murder any more than throwing a drug addict in jail addresses the problem of drug addiction.
While we're at it, why not go after the organization (NRA) that opposes just about any form of gun control, and is very influential? How many innocent lifes does NRA have on their conscience as a result of their virulent oppostion to profiliation of guns?
Please. There are already 350 million+ guns in circulation. No amount of regulatory control is going to make them go away. Gun control might work if it was 1860, but by the beginning of the 20th century it was too late. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's already illegal to kill people at random. How would additional laws affect someone who's willing to break that one?
I think google's great, but just to counter the usual fan boy posts here is a link to some people who don't think so:google-watch
"some people"? It's one guy, and the guy is a nutcase. He's upset that his own site namebase.org isn't ranked as well as he wants, so he came up with a list of conspiratorial complaints. I read his complaints against google, and frankly they sound like tin-foil hat ravings. Then I looked at namebase.org and found that tin-foil hat ravings are not unusual from him. He's a loon.
Of course, suing everybody for damages is the new American Way.
Isn't this guy canadian ?, who's the retard now...
True, people use "America" when they mean "USA", but everybody knows that Canada is "America Junior", so his point still holds.
Re:This shows how geeky Im am...
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 1
Of course some people see this as a down side, as it tkaes attention of professors away from actually teaching.
Hah! Since when do prof's have to teach anymore? Don't they have grad students to order around?
Re:This shows how geeky Im am...
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 1
some high schools are now charging between 10 and 100 bucks to participate in any extracurricular activity because there's no budget for them. In related news, the reconstruction of Iraq will cost between 70 and 150 billion dollars.
Related? How? Perhaps in the sense that in both cases the recipients are being made to pay their own way. That $70-$150B isn't a shower of gifts-- it's being paid for in oil.
Re:Interesting
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I just wonder if it can compete with the Intel x86-64 line of processors.
Huh? There's no such thing as an "Intel x86-64" processor. x86-64 is AMD's solely implementation.
Wrong.
Technician class gives you access to all the amature bands "above" (higher freq, shorter wavelength) 6 Meteres and includes the 6 meter band. This also includes the multi GHz bands where things like, say Wireless LAN, live.
Sorry. I was thinking "below 50mHz" but I'd already gone with wavelength rather than frequency so I said "6m" and my meaning turned out wrong.
There's already a no-code service. It's called CB.
Awww, get off it, Francine. CB is not no-code service-- it's no license. You still would need to take the written test, just like you do for Technician class now. No-code 6m is equivalent to what we have on 2m and 70cm. I've noticed no discernable drop in traffic quality since they 86'd the 5wpm morse requirement from the technician test. In fact, I'd say the breadth of conversation topics has improved greatly.
It seems that what the morse code requirement provided was a non-monetary barrier to entry. In other words, if you are serious about the license you will have to study, learn the rules, then take the test.
But couldn't this be tested just as easily by requiring more technical knowledge of radio theory on a written test? It seems to me that a little more radio theory would be a more practical requirement than having to learn a silly monkey trick like morse code.
This *might* help prevent purely corporate interests from buying a license then trying in some way to exploit the community of radio operators.
Hmmmm....The FCC already prohibits "corporate interests" from getting amateur licenses. How is the morse requirement related to that? By making it too hard for anyone but pasty radio geeks like us to get a license to Xmit on 6m? I don't understand your fears here.
title of article:: Article: A Business Man's View
Hmm, why should business care? If you ANYTHING for money/objects/services, you're breaking FCC rules. The ham licenses were created for hobbists and hobbists alone.
RTFA, idiot. He's not talking about conducting business over amateur radio. He's talking about viewing the debate of "morse-test vs no-morse-test" in a practical, businesslike manner i.e. "what's the cost/benefit ratio for amateur radio with each argument" rather than sticking to the elitist "I had to learn morse, so you should have to as well" line. As far as I know there's no FCC requirement that debates about radio licensing follow any sort of rules whatsoever.
If someone really wants to do HAM, learning to morse won't be a barrier,
Just off the top of my head, I'd say that having to key out morse would be a significant barrier to someone with (say) Parkinson's Disease. It's a physical test for permission to do what is essentially a non-physical activity.
but the requiements keeps the twits away from HAM and that probably maintains a good 'quality of service'.
There's already a fairly un-simple written test requirement that does that. Take a look at 70cm and 2m. Have they been flooded with twits in the last 10 years since the morse requirement was dropped? No, because you still have to go through the effort of learning the right way to use the radio waves in order to pass the written test. So make the 6m band more exclusive by making the written test a bit more difficult. Get rid of the ridiculous monkey-trick test. Mastery of archaic communication formats may prove dedication, but so would mastery of relevant aspects of radio theory-- and the latter could be tested for just as easily as the former.
The actual band is named "high frequency" (HF). The spectrum is divided into bands. Here is a nice diagram of how it's all split up. As you can see, "high" is a very relative term. When the 3-30MHz band was named, that level of oscillation probably was considered "high". But, like any other technology, RF modulation equipment has advanced quite a bit since then so now the "High Frequency" band has four more bands above it going up to 300GHz. It is, after all, just a name at this point. Like the 24Kbps modems made by Zoom that were called "V.FAST" modems. They're still called V.FAST even though they're about half the speed of any two-bit 56K modem you'd find now.
In the old days, you would run into shipboard radio operators who could listen to morse code and type the received message on a typewriter, while simultaneously having a conversation with someone in the radio room. Transcribing the code had become a reflex.
As a signal intelligence analyst(98C) in the army, I spent a lot of time with morse intercept operators(05H) and nothing was more fun than tapping the desktop with a pencil and watching their fingers twitch as their monkey-brains tried to decode the tapping. They really hated that.:)
However, I imagine the Russians must have created a cyrllic version of morse code.
Interestingly enough, they use standard morse code and map the cyrillic letters to their closest phonetic counterparts in the roman alphabet. I was a signal intelligence analyst in the army in the cold-war days and even the Red Army used standard morse. They did everything via code tables and didn't spell out actual words very often so it wasn't a big deal for them.
Perhaps the old-timers don't want their hobby to grow (for example to grow like the internet grew!) Perhaps they want to keep it like it is - rather clean, a bit of the elite-touch.
And for this to continue there have to be some off-putting requirements. If you want to transmit radio waves without learning anything one should choose citizien band.
But there's already a fairly extensive written test. It's not like the morse-code exam is the only thing preventing the FCC from handing out licenses to anyone with five dollars and a heartbeat. If they want to make the written test more technical, that's fine with me. Just get rid of the requirement for learning a stupid monkey trick. It should be about knowledge, not rote-learning a silly cipher.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. $500 billion doesn't go very far when you try to spead it out to 350 million people. Even if only a third of them were "eligible" (whatever the hell you mean by THAT), that'd be less than $5000 each. Not enough for a college education, my friend. I won't even bother to address the absurdity of the notion that government has any business paying for the higher educations of "eligible" people.
or paying scientists and technologists to develop high end tech to revolutionize our lives).
Wow, now THERE'S a specific plan! Care to give us some insight into what you think "high end tech to revolutionize our lives" is, exactly?
What so now "deliverance" was a documentry? I am sure there are a lot of people in those states that would love this stereotype of them that you carry around with you. I can't blame you though, I blame the public school systems.
I'm not stereotyping, moron. Did I say that ALL people in those states are like that? No. I only say that such people exist. How do I know? I'm related to some of them (feel free to let fly with your own stereotyping here if you wish; I've heard it before and such hypocrisy wouldn't be unexpected from a smug bastard like you). One of my good friends in the army grew up like that. My brother-in-law used to have to hunt squirrel and raccoon if the venison ran out. These aren't a bunch of inbred freaks either. They just grew up really fucking poor. If rural poverty immediately makes you think of "Deliverance", then you're the one full of stereotypes, my friend. Get a clue. Or drop dead. I don't think it matters what a shitheel like you thinks anyway, because you live in your own seperate little world already.
Here is an overview of Mr. Kleck's work. Take it or leave it. I didn't cite a stack of figures before because I really don't care what you think-- you've already got a position you've chosen to defend.
According to the law, a child may posess, but not purchase a long arm. The original poster seemed to think they could go to the 7-11 and get an AK. He, like you, is an assclown who can't read.
No child below 18 has any right to posses a gun outside of direct adult supervision EVER.
Incorrect. Read Tennesee law above. They do have the right. Whether or not a pantywaist like you thinks they should or not is a seperate issue.
Give me a good reason why a 16 year old needs a gun when there is no parent around. Whats that? oh you can't? Thats right there is no friggen reason.
Fuckwit. You ever been to the back woods in Tennesee? W.Virginia? Kentucky? There are people so poor there that they have their 14 year old kids out in the woods shooting squirrels and possum so they can eat. Good enough for you? Or should everyone just "get a better job"? Or maybe the government cheese fairy can feed them? Gimme a break.
Hard to say. How do you count people who haven't been murdered? Criminologist Gary Kleck found that firearms were used defensively about 1 million times a year in the US. The reason you don't hear about it is that defensive firearm use usually involves someone brandishing a firearm and saying "I'm armed; get out". This kind of thing doesn't result in a murder statistic, which is what gun control freaks like to harp about.
Allowing posession is not the same as allowing purchase. You still can't purchase a long arm until you are 18. BTW, assault rifles don't have "more firepower" than a shotgun by any reasonable definition. You can't even buy one in the US that holds more than 10 rounds in its magazine anymore, so there is no measure by which an "assault rifle" is superior to a semi-auto deer rifle other than perhaps durability. You, sir, are just another propaganda parroting fool who doeswn't understand what he reads.
My worst enemy is the state itself, which has always been armed. Personally, I want cops to be afraid of being shot if they come to kick in my door. It may sound strange to you, but an armed populace does keep the police state at bay to some extent. Do you really want cops to be the only ones with guns?
It's probably got to a point where it's all irreversible now though, and you couldn't safely outlaw handguns in the home in America.
It's been irrevesible since about 1870. And why pick on handguns? These kids didn't use handguns, they used long arms. Ditto for the columbine kids. Saying "something should have been done 130 years ago" is asinine. Whether or not the "something" would have been a good thing or not is totally irrelevant because it's too fucking late. Suggest something do-able, fool.
Yeah, they clearly lied. They did want to hurt people. They just can't admit that now that they're looking at the possibilityt of life in prison.
Northern Ireland 6.63;
Israel 2.91;
So what are the "bomb-related deaths" for these three countries?I reckon Israel and Ireland beat the US there. Blaming the tool for the craftsman's work is stupid.
Trying to stop killing by taking away most murderer's preferred weapon doesn't address the problem of murder any more than throwing a drug addict in jail addresses the problem of drug addiction.
Please. There are already 350 million+ guns in circulation. No amount of regulatory control is going to make them go away. Gun control might work if it was 1860, but by the beginning of the 20th century it was too late. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's already illegal to kill people at random. How would additional laws affect someone who's willing to break that one?
"some people"? It's one guy, and the guy is a nutcase. He's upset that his own site namebase.org isn't ranked as well as he wants, so he came up with a list of conspiratorial complaints. I read his complaints against google, and frankly they sound like tin-foil hat ravings. Then I looked at namebase.org and found that tin-foil hat ravings are not unusual from him. He's a loon.
Isn't this guy canadian ?, who's the retard now...
True, people use "America" when they mean "USA", but everybody knows that Canada is "America Junior", so his point still holds.
Hah! Since when do prof's have to teach anymore? Don't they have grad students to order around?
Related? How? Perhaps in the sense that in both cases the recipients are being made to pay their own way. That $70-$150B isn't a shower of gifts-- it's being paid for in oil.
Huh? There's no such thing as an "Intel x86-64" processor. x86-64 is AMD's solely implementation.
Sorry. I was thinking "below 50mHz" but I'd already gone with wavelength rather than frequency so I said "6m" and my meaning turned out wrong.
Sorry. I was thinking "below 50mHz" but I'd already gone with wavelength rather than frequency so I said "6m" and my meaning turned out wrong.
Awww, get off it, Francine. CB is not no-code service-- it's no license. You still would need to take the written test, just like you do for Technician class now. No-code 6m is equivalent to what we have on 2m and 70cm. I've noticed no discernable drop in traffic quality since they 86'd the 5wpm morse requirement from the technician test. In fact, I'd say the breadth of conversation topics has improved greatly.
But couldn't this be tested just as easily by requiring more technical knowledge of radio theory on a written test? It seems to me that a little more radio theory would be a more practical requirement than having to learn a silly monkey trick like morse code.
This *might* help prevent purely corporate interests from buying a license then trying in some way to exploit the community of radio operators.
Hmmmm....The FCC already prohibits "corporate interests" from getting amateur licenses. How is the morse requirement related to that? By making it too hard for anyone but pasty radio geeks like us to get a license to Xmit on 6m? I don't understand your fears here.
RTFA, idiot. He's not talking about conducting business over amateur radio. He's talking about viewing the debate of "morse-test vs no-morse-test" in a practical, businesslike manner i.e. "what's the cost/benefit ratio for amateur radio with each argument" rather than sticking to the elitist "I had to learn morse, so you should have to as well" line. As far as I know there's no FCC requirement that debates about radio licensing follow any sort of rules whatsoever.
Just off the top of my head, I'd say that having to key out morse would be a significant barrier to someone with (say) Parkinson's Disease. It's a physical test for permission to do what is essentially a non-physical activity.
but the requiements keeps the twits away from HAM and that probably maintains a good 'quality of service'.
There's already a fairly un-simple written test requirement that does that. Take a look at 70cm and 2m. Have they been flooded with twits in the last 10 years since the morse requirement was dropped? No, because you still have to go through the effort of learning the right way to use the radio waves in order to pass the written test. So make the 6m band more exclusive by making the written test a bit more difficult. Get rid of the ridiculous monkey-trick test. Mastery of archaic communication formats may prove dedication, but so would mastery of relevant aspects of radio theory-- and the latter could be tested for just as easily as the former.
The actual band is named "high frequency" (HF). The spectrum is divided into bands. Here is a nice diagram of how it's all split up. As you can see, "high" is a very relative term. When the 3-30MHz band was named, that level of oscillation probably was considered "high". But, like any other technology, RF modulation equipment has advanced quite a bit since then so now the "High Frequency" band has four more bands above it going up to 300GHz. It is, after all, just a name at this point. Like the 24Kbps modems made by Zoom that were called "V.FAST" modems. They're still called V.FAST even though they're about half the speed of any two-bit 56K modem you'd find now.
As a signal intelligence analyst(98C) in the army, I spent a lot of time with morse intercept operators(05H) and nothing was more fun than tapping the desktop with a pencil and watching their fingers twitch as their monkey-brains tried to decode the tapping. They really hated that. :)
Interestingly enough, they use standard morse code and map the cyrillic letters to their closest phonetic counterparts in the roman alphabet. I was a signal intelligence analyst in the army in the cold-war days and even the Red Army used standard morse. They did everything via code tables and didn't spell out actual words very often so it wasn't a big deal for them.
But there's already a fairly extensive written test. It's not like the morse-code exam is the only thing preventing the FCC from handing out licenses to anyone with five dollars and a heartbeat. If they want to make the written test more technical, that's fine with me. Just get rid of the requirement for learning a stupid monkey trick. It should be about knowledge, not rote-learning a silly cipher.