> What happens when one of their toys take a nose-dive into the heart of a heavly-populated city?
Unlikely. These "toys" go awry on occasion, for sure, but the existing regulations prevent launch arcs that fall over heavily populated areas already. Also, modern rockets are required (again, by existing regulations) to have a self-destruct mechanism on board, and there's only one documented case of said system failing in use.
> NASA got damn lucky where and when the shuttle came apart. What would've happened if a large chunk of it survied intact and had plowed
into downtown Dallas?
Having a bit of trouble wrapping our hands around the term "suborbital", are we? Suborbital rockets do not burn up and fragment on reentry, because they don't undergo reentry. And as to what would have happened, it's vanishingly unlikely that any significant damage would be done by stuttle fragments that fell on a populated area. First, it would have to be very big (the entirety of the shuttle would not be very big in terms of collateral damage). Second, it would have to hit something full of people. If you think that's a definite, you should be aware that more than 50 percent of the ground space in any given city isn't occupied buildings, it's roads, parks, factories (which are very sparsely populated on a per-square-foot basis), waterways and other stuff no more densely populated than anywhere else. Third, it would have to hit those people in a soft target, and, 9/11 not withstanding, buildings are not soft targets. Remember that it was fire and the subsequent collapse from fire that destroyed the Twin Towers, both of which withstood the initial collisions. Since falling debris from orbit isn't generally full of high-test aviation fuel, that fire damage simply wouldn't occur.
You sound like someone who takes information from watching reruns of "Armageddon". That's a movie, not reality.
Only certain players get this skill at level 1. You need to put skill points into "stretch" or pay a Doctor player for some body modifications. Also, some other player classes (pro wrestler and Mafioso, for example) will teach you this skill for free, although learning it that way will reduce your run and sexuality skill levels.
On a more serious note, the Bible isn't a rule book. It doesn't cover falling damage or skill progressions, for example. The Bible is a strategy guide.
> You keep making my point for me. Alcohol is legal yet does irrepairable damage to thousands every year. Other drugs, that are currently deemed illegal, do the same. So how would legalising or decriminalising them help?
How does this support your point? Your question is, how would decriminalizing currently illegal drugs help? My answer is that the vast majority of problems caused by drug use stem from its illegal nature. Of the seven bullet points that were presented in this thread, six are as a direct result of the illegality of the drug, so removing that criminality would, to a large extent, reduce the problems associated with using it.
> Put another way, I'm not saying that cocaine is bad so it should be illegal, I'm saying that it's negative aspects won't suddenly all fade away if it were a legal drug.
See above. The negative aspects of cocaine use are exactly the same as the negative aspects of alcohol use, in terms of inherent health risks and addictive nature. But cocaine has the added onus of illegality. When's the last time you read about someone dying from tainted alcohol? How many alcohol deals gone bad result in shootings? How many turf wars over alcohol distribution have you read about lately? How many casual alcohol users are currently spending time in prison? An awful lot of this very thing happened when alcohol was criminalized (Al Capone was a rum runner, remember?) and these problems just compounded the problems inherent in alcohol, and the number of alcoholics in the U.S. actually fell after Prohibition ended, because people could seek help without fear they'd wind up in the big house. I find little reason to believe that cocaine would be any different.
> Remember, I'm contesting the original poster's statement that "drugs do not generally cause a great deal of harm in and of themselves", which to me is patently not true.
Your statement has been and continues to be overbroad. There are large numbers of drugs in the world that can be (and are) abused, from diuretics to acetaminophen. I suspect you're singling out recreational use of intoxicants, although I'm not sure why, but even if I go along with that and narrow your statement to match, it's still misguided. The drugs themselves are habit forming, but as alcohol proves, that's not sufficient to ensure abuse, as there a more than a thousand non-addicted alcohol users for every alcoholic in the U.S. alone. The reason such a large number of illegal drug users are addicted is because one must have a compelling reason to use illegal drugs, or it's not worth the risk. It is my contention that these people will get hooked on drugs whether they're illegal or not, but (again, as Prohibition proved) decriminalizing currently illegal drugs will not cause everyone to run out and promptly get addicted, and it will reduce a large portion of the problems that drug abusers currently face, thereby reducing the chances that they'll get killed or incarcerated before they can get help.
> It's all very well saying it's about abuse but where does experimentation end and abuse start?
Answer that question about alcohol, and you'll get to my point. At what level of drinking does abuse start? You seem to imply that using a drug for pleasure necessarily develops into an addiction. Can one smoke pot, for example, without becoming addicted? Can one use cocaine socially? With current laws, no. In the absence of those laws? Who knows?
> After all, it's not like a crack addict is able to make rational choices is it?
I must in return call you out for a bit of spin yourself. Your points:
> The weapons were locked in a closet
I must agree with the other posters who commented that if this kid had never fired a gun, he should not have had access to them. If he didn't break the lock to get them (he didn't), then they weren't secured properly. Securing firearms is the complete and sole responsibility of the owner of those firearms. Period.
> The majority of the (whoo scary) 2000 rounds of ammunition were a few 500 boxes of ancient target rounds.
Spin point one: twenty to thirty years old does not qualify as "ancient" in any sane sense, and thirty year old rounds still fire correctly in most cases. Spin point two: what difference does it make how old they were? Are you implying that being shot by a thirty year old bullet pack would somehow be less injurious than a new round? Also, the guns and ammo were fitted to each other. I'd frankly be less worried if the son had grabbed an old gun and new bullets, since they're less likely to be compatible. If the guns were antiques, why did he keep period ammunition? If he had to keep ammo for the gun, why did he keep it with the gun? Rule one for keeping people from using your firearms without your say-so is to separate your stores of ammo from the weapon. Again, this is very irresponsible gun ownership.
> The "kid" was 18, a legal adult.
Irrelevant. His guns, his responsiblity. Nobody thinks he should be charged with conspiracy to commit assault, they think he should be charged with criminal negligence. The "kid"'s age does not change that.
> Blaming the parent without knowing the full facts is just as idiotic as blaming video games.
I agree. However, there are enough facts available in this case to pass judgement.
> Substance abuse - regardless of whether or not that substance is legal or illegal - can and does destroy tens of thousands of lives every year.
The point I make is that the key in the term "substance abuse" is the word abuse, not substance. All of the problems you describe related to drugs stem from the abuse of drugs, not the drugs themselves. That's the first, last and only point. The original poster stated, "drugs do not generally cause a great deal of harm in and of themselves" and without the "abuse" part, he's correct. The problem isn't the drugs, it's the abusers.
Your comment is a perfect example of what the article describes. Reread it, and see if you can find a single non-tech person who could comprehend that spew of jargon. Yikes. So, you can construct a decent quality machine for US$600, but can Joe Sixpack?
> Schools are buying more computers, and kids are using them more, but they aren't learning about computers.
I don't agree with this. If the kids are using computers more, then they're learning about the machine by interfacing with it. Learning by doing works well for many skills, so why do you think it's not so for computers?
> Public schools use computers to try to get kids to learn in other subjects. They often have math programs, encyclopedias, and typing teachers. The most common uses of computers in public schools are typing reports in word, printing, and of course web browsing and instant messenger.
Where is your point? These are all valid uses for a computer.
> Every school, starting in elementary or middle school, should have required computer classes. Everyone who graduates public high school in the united states should have knowledge in the following topics. (list follows)
With the exception of typing skills, which I consider as important as penmanship, I don't agree with a single one of your points. Everybody does not need to know these things to use a computer, any more than they need to understand internal combustion to drive a car. Binary math? What use would that be to a fisherman, or a car salesman, or a doctor? Parts and assembly of a modern computer change too quickly to force everyone to learn it (if I learned that in high school and never actually did it, my knowledge would have been completely obsolete fifteen years ago). Knowledge of electronics is useless to most of the population, and basic UNIX skills would be as limiting as choosing any other particular operating system.
> Schools have computers, and they use them to teach everything, except about computers.
Inaccurate. My school used computers to teach everything including computers.
> You buy paint and brushes to teach about art, and novels to teach about literature, why buy computers to teach something besides computers?
Well, because you can use a computer to teach about stuff besides computers. We read books to learn about art, not just learning about books. I agree that a computer is a powerful teaching tool, but I see no reason to limit its teaching use to computers themselves.
> I think in the world today this is really a necessity to teach these skills to everybody.
Then you need to broaden your horizons a bit. While everyone should be given instruction in basic computer skills, your idea of what that term encompasses is badly overbroad. Not every driver wants or needs to be a mechanic. Nobody needs to understand electronics to use a VCR, nor radiology to use a microwave oven. And, not every computer user needs to be a computer technician.
> Of course nobody are talking about literaly blowing up your computer. As the article clearly states, it would be a temporary lock out, that could easily be lifted.
This is outright incorrect. Senator Hatch indeed was interested in damaging computers, not locking out computers. He said exactly that himself. The word "damage" does not connote temporary results. Also, what happens during the lockout? Who recompenses me for lost productivity if I'm not really guilty? What happens if I'm not breaking any copyright laws? Do I have to prove I'm not infringing to get the lock lifted? Doesn't that run directly counter to the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"? If they have sufficient evidence to prove I'm in violation, then I can be charged under existing laws. This whole concept is a gross violation of due process.
> This is not so much different from for example revoking your drivers license if you are caught speeding. I know most Slashdoters are more attached to their computers than to their cars, but you still take it for granted that the government can revoke this right if you break their rules.
You're right, it's not. Last I checked, nobody ever got their license revoked before conviction in a court of law. That's called due process; see above for how the same process must apply to accusations of piracy. Remember that before the state can revoke my right to drive, they must prove I've broken a law. Senator Hatch suggests that companies be given the right to exact punishment without the messy problem of actually proving that I've done something wrong, and also suggests that accountability be removed or reduced in the event they target me incorrectly.
> Of course, I see this is not an ideal solution.
I don't see it as a solution at all. I see it as dereliction of Senator Hatch's oath to protect the Constitution. Subcontracting law enforcement and the court system to private corporations doesn't solve the problem, and creates an enormous array of new problems to pile on top of it.
> Laws like this are for dealing with acute problems, not long term solutions. In the long term, the market should sort itself out.
That's a great idea, but in the face of this law, what market forces could come to bear on content providers to force paradigm shift?
You have a very bad understanding of what's at stake here. Orrin Hatch has made a most offensive and unpatriotic play and I hope he gets run out of office over it. A man with this little regard for the Bill of Rights does not deserve the job of legislator.
> I'm being forced by my boss to apply for a job that I dont want to do (its a long story that basically comes down to 'do this or I dont renew your contract'). I'd love to just tell him to
fsck off to his face and walk, but I have financial commitments that simply will not allow me to do so.
Consider this an object lesson, then, in getting yourself into a financial position where someone else has this much power over your decisions. Suck it up, and bust your butt getting your financial independence so you never have to be in this situation again. The term "wage slave" may be overused, but you're getting a firsthand look at how it works.
> By your logic, I guess its OK if I run a big magnet over your hard drive and erase it. After all - the drive is still there, same as the chess pieces you knocked over. I just rearranged the electrical charge of the platters.
There's a level of liability involved in the latter that does not extend from the former. The concept is financial loss. While it would be very difficult for me to show real financial loss at the ruining of my chess position, it is relatively easy to prove financial loss (in terms of actual data loss or recovery time/expense) for the ruining of my electron position. Therefore, while the same criminal lack-of-prosecution exists, I could easily charge you in a civil court for remuneration for wrecking my hard drive.
The reason this level of liability does not itself extend to an in-game persona is simply that the TOS for every game in existence specifically releases the company from said liability, so I sign away my right to financial recourse in the event of loss.
>...you want IRONCLAD statistics. Well, there aren't, and probably won't ever be.
Ironclad statistics? Even I'm not that cruel. What I want is ironclad proof (which is not the same thing). Since you assume a genetic predisposition, I ask that you present evidence of (perhaps I'm out on a limb here) the gene. Show me that those with the gene, regardless of race, predispose toward better athleticism. That said, I'm willing to shelve this discussion pending more work on the mapping of the human genome, so it's moot for the moment. My argument is as much to caution you on using the term "genetic predisposition" as any demand for real evidence. When you state a statistical predisposition, you can use statistics to back it up. But not enough is known about the human genome to point to genetic predispositions in something as nebulous as "athletic talent".
> I can't point to specific genes, but it's been shown that most of the Kenyan distance runners are from a common area of kenya that is elevated.
The problem here is in citation. Again I ask, "it's been shown" by whom, exactly? Also, a common area of Kenya that's elevated? What evidence can you present that it's genetic (based in Kenyan people) and not environmental (based on, for example, living at altitude)? How do the Kenyan valley dwellers stack up? You claim that there's something intrinsic to Kenyan genetics that you don't back up with anything resembling scientific proof or studies. You must do better than this if you're to convince me that you can rule out other factors.
> Furthermore, any argument of nature vs. nurture is basically undermined by the existence of an athletic development program in Kenya as or more aggressive than the distance running program: soccer. Soccer athletes are identified and pushed as much or more than distance running candidates, yet the Western African nations (and their similarly correlated fast-twitch genetic advantages) crush them every time.
Nice try, but individual athletic ability is very secondary to team strategy and coaching in team sports. There are a number of studies, done by the U.S. National Football League, that point up that while talented athletes can certainly tip the balance, on average it's the coach that wins the game. This comparison is invalid because of this proof.
> Non-equipment events in track and field (100m, mile, marathon) are as or more universally competed in by the world as soccer. And the resulting performances are as close to absolute metrics as you're going to get (so a kid runs a 10.4 on a dirt track and a 10.2 100m on a modern track - his time still shows he's fast as hell). Thus they are as good a basis for drawing athletic predispositions as anything.
You're right that they're valid for drawing athletic predispositions. The breakdown of logic is that you then extend athletic predispositions to genetic predispositions, without offering a shred of evidence that there's any causal relationship. You make no reasonable argument about why the Kenyan advantage is not related to their environment, their culture or anything else but their genetic makeup. Without proof, I don't buy it.
In an episode of the original series of Star Trek, the Enterprise encountered a ship, adrift, called the "Botany Bay", upon which humans from past history had put genetically modified superpeople that had gotten out of hand and been exiled. Their leader, name Kahn, was played by the actor Ricardo Montalban, who was also in some popular ads from Chrysler at the time, featuring cars with "fine Corinthian leather" seats and appointments. Much hilarity and cross-referencing ensued.
Enough that the line between a work of fiction and reality become blurred in ways unsupported by scientific advances of the era.
> Spurious comment aside, it's been shown that genetic traits such as the Kenyan gene that allows for sustained aerobic exercise produce excellent long distance runners, and the whole superpower cold war during the eighties produced olympic atheletes that were shaving tenths of seconds off times for huge investment.
There's a fundamental difference here. Firstly, the "Kenyan gene"? Can you explain with some concrete examples who "it's been shown" by? Moreover, completely accepting the assumption that it does exist, it qualifies as a lucky break, not a concerted effort to build a better athlete. Also, the efforts put forth by athletes in the '80s by U.S. and Soviet althletes was still an effort within the confines of human physique. While it's true that they were paid and supported so that they could train full time, any country could do the same with one or more "star athletes" and have a reasonable chance to compete. In your suggested world, only those countries advanced enough or rich enough to perform the genetic mods would have a chance to win these contests, which runs counter to the ideals of the Olympics, where Jamaica can field a bobsled team if they so choose.
> So perhaps rather than putting money into things which have no real human benefit (millimetre wave radar, and *do not* get me started on the whole idea of 'defence') it would be interesting if there was some kind of move towards body modification as a means of getting an edge in competitive games.
How convenient that you can foretell the future well enough to know which scientific advances are worthy of pursuit for human benefit and which aren't. How, exactly, do you know what advances in RADAR will mean to the human race in twenty or fifty years? Are you aware that nuclear medicine, which saves thousands of cancer patients yearly, developed from the Manhattan Project? Try not to inject your politics into the study of science. Trying to say that the study of one field of science over any other is necessary for the benefit of humanity has always been, and continues to be, very short-sighted.
> Retractable claws would be cool, too.
Well, yeah, okay. They would be. But how do these qualify as a genetic enhancement, instead of a cybernetic enhancement? Somebody has been reading too many X-Men comic books.
You did a fine job illustrating it, then. A square fails miserably, because if you put it vertically, then turn it so the edge lies diagonally to the corners of the hole, it'll fit with inches to spare. The same goes for many other symmetrical shapes.
Manholes aren't drilled. They're dug with backhoes. They dig out a big pit (usually pretty close to square) and then put a manhole on top of it, which looks like a big metal or concrete plate with a round hole in the center. Cover the plate (except the hole) with dirt/asphalt/concrete, put on the manhole cover, and you're done. Manholes are usually molded (if they're metal) or cast (if they're concrete).
Point the first:
One class at my whack-ass college had two sessions per week, two hours long each, for three credit hours. Semesters lasted 15 weeks. Using that, and assuming 15 credits per semester, that's (2*2*15)*5= 300 class hours per semester. Taking his number of 3408, which whack-ass college can you name that will issue a doctorate after six years (12 semesters)?
Point the second:
True enough. Point conceded.
Point the third:
Everquest is no more nor less a time sink than any other hobby one could spend time on, and is more social than a number of hobbies I can think of. And no, you don't detect an Evercrack addict. I put in about 10 hours a week, because that's all my schedule will allow. I am, however, touchy about it, because of people like you who imply (with a wink that you think makes your barb somehow less irritating) that if one is at all involved in Everquest, one is necessarily overinvolved in Everquest.
> with 15% of the respondents playing for more than 50 hours a week, and around 40% playing for 40 or more hours a week. When does it become a problem? When it hits 60 hours a week? 70?
This question points up the real problem with the general public's view of the phenomenon. There's no set time for when it's a problem, despite what anyone wants to say. It becomes a problem when it starts to overarch the parts of one's life that cannot suffer the infringement. While one person can handle playing 50 hours a week, another might have problems with 15. For example, an early-twenties person who is not married and has no other social obligations could play for 40 hours a week, keep up with work and still have a full social life. Another person with a house and two kids might suffer ill effects if he put more than 10 hours a week into the game. Or perhaps instead of bowling or watching TV he chooses to spend his leisure time online. That's the difficulty with saying that 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week is a "problem". These times mean nothing without the context of a particular person's lifestyle and time constraints.
> Finall tally? 142 DAYS played. (3408 hours). In this time i could've gotten a phd in nuclear phisics, or made 25 thousand dollars working at mcdonalds for minimum wage!
Perhaps the PhD would need to wait until you took a course in remedial math. 3,408 hours is not nearly enough time for a doctorate, even if you count only classroom time. Also, assuming $7.00 an hour, which is far above minimum wage, you'd have cleared $23,800 before taxes, or about $20,000 net.
Besides, if you do nothing for leisure, studies have shown that you'll have health and psychological problems to deal with, so the money hit for therapy and medical care would probably put you in the red, not counting that you'd feel pretty sucky.
> A quarter of people who responded to the survey said they played for 41 hours or more. If that's the usage of a quarter, how many are playing the game for 20 hours a week or more? What else are you doing outside of your job if you're spending that much time on there?
Substitute television for Everquest and ask the question again. A large percentage of the population of the U.S. watches 40+ hours of TV per week. I personally watch less than an hour of television a week, and so does my wife. We spend our time together after the kids go to bed playing Everquest instead. It's actually much more social than what she did before, and if we feel like talking instead of playing, it's easier to turn away from it because you don't miss anything if you stop.
> Whatever anyone says about the skills developed by games such as EQ, there are important ones that may (that's "may", not "will") be allowed to wither on the vine, like the ability to interact well with others in social situations.
See above. it's a lot more interactive than what many people choose for relaxation.
> Having been one of these people who spent every waking hour in front of a monitor, when not at work, in the past I can't overstate too much the importance of getting out and interacting for real. The geeky stereotype comes about when you really are using EQ as a replacement for more social activities.
Agreed, but be careful about how you say that. As I stated above I and my wife (and most of our in-game friends) use it as a replacement for less social activities, and that's one of the things that this study is trying to put forward.
Slashdot Mirror
> What happens when one of their toys take a nose-dive into the heart of a heavly-populated city?
Unlikely. These "toys" go awry on occasion, for sure, but the existing regulations prevent launch arcs that fall over heavily populated areas already. Also, modern rockets are required (again, by existing regulations) to have a self-destruct mechanism on board, and there's only one documented case of said system failing in use.
> NASA got damn lucky where and when the shuttle came apart. What would've happened if a large chunk of it survied intact and had plowed into downtown Dallas?
Having a bit of trouble wrapping our hands around the term "suborbital", are we? Suborbital rockets do not burn up and fragment on reentry, because they don't undergo reentry. And as to what would have happened, it's vanishingly unlikely that any significant damage would be done by stuttle fragments that fell on a populated area. First, it would have to be very big (the entirety of the shuttle would not be very big in terms of collateral damage). Second, it would have to hit something full of people. If you think that's a definite, you should be aware that more than 50 percent of the ground space in any given city isn't occupied buildings, it's roads, parks, factories (which are very sparsely populated on a per-square-foot basis), waterways and other stuff no more densely populated than anywhere else. Third, it would have to hit those people in a soft target, and, 9/11 not withstanding, buildings are not soft targets. Remember that it was fire and the subsequent collapse from fire that destroyed the Twin Towers, both of which withstood the initial collisions. Since falling debris from orbit isn't generally full of high-test aviation fuel, that fire damage simply wouldn't occur.
You sound like someone who takes information from watching reruns of "Armageddon". That's a movie, not reality.
Virg
> I still can't figure out how to do a split.
Only certain players get this skill at level 1. You need to put skill points into "stretch" or pay a Doctor player for some body modifications. Also, some other player classes (pro wrestler and Mafioso, for example) will teach you this skill for free, although learning it that way will reduce your run and sexuality skill levels.
Virg
...for the PvP server, I guess.
Oh, wait, they're ALL PvP servers...
On a more serious note, the Bible isn't a rule book. It doesn't cover falling damage or skill progressions, for example. The Bible is a strategy guide.
Virg
> You keep making my point for me. Alcohol is legal yet does irrepairable damage to thousands every year. Other drugs, that are currently deemed illegal, do the same. So how would legalising or decriminalising them help?
How does this support your point? Your question is, how would decriminalizing currently illegal drugs help? My answer is that the vast majority of problems caused by drug use stem from its illegal nature. Of the seven bullet points that were presented in this thread, six are as a direct result of the illegality of the drug, so removing that criminality would, to a large extent, reduce the problems associated with using it.
> Put another way, I'm not saying that cocaine is bad so it should be illegal, I'm saying that it's negative aspects won't suddenly all fade away if it were a legal drug.
See above. The negative aspects of cocaine use are exactly the same as the negative aspects of alcohol use, in terms of inherent health risks and addictive nature. But cocaine has the added onus of illegality. When's the last time you read about someone dying from tainted alcohol? How many alcohol deals gone bad result in shootings? How many turf wars over alcohol distribution have you read about lately? How many casual alcohol users are currently spending time in prison? An awful lot of this very thing happened when alcohol was criminalized (Al Capone was a rum runner, remember?) and these problems just compounded the problems inherent in alcohol, and the number of alcoholics in the U.S. actually fell after Prohibition ended, because people could seek help without fear they'd wind up in the big house. I find little reason to believe that cocaine would be any different.
> Remember, I'm contesting the original poster's statement that "drugs do not generally cause a great deal of harm in and of themselves", which to me is patently not true.
Your statement has been and continues to be overbroad. There are large numbers of drugs in the world that can be (and are) abused, from diuretics to acetaminophen. I suspect you're singling out recreational use of intoxicants, although I'm not sure why, but even if I go along with that and narrow your statement to match, it's still misguided. The drugs themselves are habit forming, but as alcohol proves, that's not sufficient to ensure abuse, as there a more than a thousand non-addicted alcohol users for every alcoholic in the U.S. alone. The reason such a large number of illegal drug users are addicted is because one must have a compelling reason to use illegal drugs, or it's not worth the risk. It is my contention that these people will get hooked on drugs whether they're illegal or not, but (again, as Prohibition proved) decriminalizing currently illegal drugs will not cause everyone to run out and promptly get addicted, and it will reduce a large portion of the problems that drug abusers currently face, thereby reducing the chances that they'll get killed or incarcerated before they can get help.
Virg
> It's all very well saying it's about abuse but where does experimentation end and abuse start?
Answer that question about alcohol, and you'll get to my point. At what level of drinking does abuse start? You seem to imply that using a drug for pleasure necessarily develops into an addiction. Can one smoke pot, for example, without becoming addicted? Can one use cocaine socially? With current laws, no. In the absence of those laws? Who knows?
> After all, it's not like a crack addict is able to make rational choices is it?
Nor the alcoholic. See above.
Virg
I must in return call you out for a bit of spin yourself. Your points:
> The weapons were locked in a closet
I must agree with the other posters who commented that if this kid had never fired a gun, he should not have had access to them. If he didn't break the lock to get them (he didn't), then they weren't secured properly. Securing firearms is the complete and sole responsibility of the owner of those firearms. Period.
> The majority of the (whoo scary) 2000 rounds of ammunition were a few 500 boxes of ancient target rounds.
Spin point one: twenty to thirty years old does not qualify as "ancient" in any sane sense, and thirty year old rounds still fire correctly in most cases. Spin point two: what difference does it make how old they were? Are you implying that being shot by a thirty year old bullet pack would somehow be less injurious than a new round? Also, the guns and ammo were fitted to each other. I'd frankly be less worried if the son had grabbed an old gun and new bullets, since they're less likely to be compatible. If the guns were antiques, why did he keep period ammunition? If he had to keep ammo for the gun, why did he keep it with the gun? Rule one for keeping people from using your firearms without your say-so is to separate your stores of ammo from the weapon. Again, this is very irresponsible gun ownership.
> The "kid" was 18, a legal adult.
Irrelevant. His guns, his responsiblity. Nobody thinks he should be charged with conspiracy to commit assault, they think he should be charged with criminal negligence. The "kid"'s age does not change that.
> Blaming the parent without knowing the full facts is just as idiotic as blaming video games.
I agree. However, there are enough facts available in this case to pass judgement.
Virg
Just one point:
> Substance abuse - regardless of whether or not that substance is legal or illegal - can and does destroy tens of thousands of lives every year.
The point I make is that the key in the term "substance abuse" is the word abuse, not substance. All of the problems you describe related to drugs stem from the abuse of drugs, not the drugs themselves. That's the first, last and only point. The original poster stated, "drugs do not generally cause a great deal of harm in and of themselves" and without the "abuse" part, he's correct. The problem isn't the drugs, it's the abusers.
Virg
> Placebo? Is that the art of convincing your enemy you hit him really without actually touching him?
No, no, that's aikido.
Virg
Your comment is a perfect example of what the article describes. Reread it, and see if you can find a single non-tech person who could comprehend that spew of jargon. Yikes. So, you can construct a decent quality machine for US$600, but can Joe Sixpack?
Virg
> Schools are buying more computers, and kids are using them more, but they aren't learning about computers.
I don't agree with this. If the kids are using computers more, then they're learning about the machine by interfacing with it. Learning by doing works well for many skills, so why do you think it's not so for computers?
> Public schools use computers to try to get kids to learn in other subjects. They often have math programs, encyclopedias, and typing teachers. The most common uses of computers in public schools are typing reports in word, printing, and of course web browsing and instant messenger.
Where is your point? These are all valid uses for a computer.
> Every school, starting in elementary or middle school, should have required computer classes. Everyone who graduates public high school in the united states should have knowledge in the following topics. (list follows)
With the exception of typing skills, which I consider as important as penmanship, I don't agree with a single one of your points. Everybody does not need to know these things to use a computer, any more than they need to understand internal combustion to drive a car. Binary math? What use would that be to a fisherman, or a car salesman, or a doctor? Parts and assembly of a modern computer change too quickly to force everyone to learn it (if I learned that in high school and never actually did it, my knowledge would have been completely obsolete fifteen years ago). Knowledge of electronics is useless to most of the population, and basic UNIX skills would be as limiting as choosing any other particular operating system.
> Schools have computers, and they use them to teach everything, except about computers.
Inaccurate. My school used computers to teach everything including computers.
> You buy paint and brushes to teach about art, and novels to teach about literature, why buy computers to teach something besides computers?
Well, because you can use a computer to teach about stuff besides computers. We read books to learn about art, not just learning about books. I agree that a computer is a powerful teaching tool, but I see no reason to limit its teaching use to computers themselves.
> I think in the world today this is really a necessity to teach these skills to everybody.
Then you need to broaden your horizons a bit. While everyone should be given instruction in basic computer skills, your idea of what that term encompasses is badly overbroad. Not every driver wants or needs to be a mechanic. Nobody needs to understand electronics to use a VCR, nor radiology to use a microwave oven. And, not every computer user needs to be a computer technician.
Virg
About your .sig ("Ach! Mein Lieben!"): it's incorrect. That means, "Argh! My love!" You want, "Ach! Mein Leben!" which means, "Argh! My life!"
Carry on.
Virg
> Of course nobody are talking about literaly blowing up your computer. As the article clearly states, it would be a temporary lock out, that could easily be lifted.
This is outright incorrect. Senator Hatch indeed was interested in damaging computers, not locking out computers. He said exactly that himself. The word "damage" does not connote temporary results. Also, what happens during the lockout? Who recompenses me for lost productivity if I'm not really guilty? What happens if I'm not breaking any copyright laws? Do I have to prove I'm not infringing to get the lock lifted? Doesn't that run directly counter to the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"? If they have sufficient evidence to prove I'm in violation, then I can be charged under existing laws. This whole concept is a gross violation of due process.
> This is not so much different from for example revoking your drivers license if you are caught speeding. I know most Slashdoters are more attached to their computers than to their cars, but you still take it for granted that the government can revoke this right if you break their rules.
You're right, it's not. Last I checked, nobody ever got their license revoked before conviction in a court of law. That's called due process; see above for how the same process must apply to accusations of piracy. Remember that before the state can revoke my right to drive, they must prove I've broken a law. Senator Hatch suggests that companies be given the right to exact punishment without the messy problem of actually proving that I've done something wrong, and also suggests that accountability be removed or reduced in the event they target me incorrectly.
> Of course, I see this is not an ideal solution.
I don't see it as a solution at all. I see it as dereliction of Senator Hatch's oath to protect the Constitution. Subcontracting law enforcement and the court system to private corporations doesn't solve the problem, and creates an enormous array of new problems to pile on top of it.
> Laws like this are for dealing with acute problems, not long term solutions. In the long term, the market should sort itself out.
That's a great idea, but in the face of this law, what market forces could come to bear on content providers to force paradigm shift?
You have a very bad understanding of what's at stake here. Orrin Hatch has made a most offensive and unpatriotic play and I hope he gets run out of office over it. A man with this little regard for the Bill of Rights does not deserve the job of legislator.
Damn it, I hate it when people screw up acronyms! It's the Silly Cretins Operation. Get it right next time, eh?
Virg
> actually he technically wouldn't be stealing the cable because it was paid for by the previous owner.
He'd technically be stealing it from the previous owner.
Please, people, pay attention here.
Virg
> I'm being forced by my boss to apply for a job that I dont want to do (its a long story that basically comes down to 'do this or I dont renew your contract'). I'd love to just tell him to fsck off to his face and walk, but I have financial commitments that simply will not allow me to do so.
Consider this an object lesson, then, in getting yourself into a financial position where someone else has this much power over your decisions. Suck it up, and bust your butt getting your financial independence so you never have to be in this situation again. The term "wage slave" may be overused, but you're getting a firsthand look at how it works.
Vi
> By your logic, I guess its OK if I run a big magnet over your hard drive and erase it. After all - the drive is still there, same as the chess pieces you knocked over. I just rearranged the electrical charge of the platters.
There's a level of liability involved in the latter that does not extend from the former. The concept is financial loss. While it would be very difficult for me to show real financial loss at the ruining of my chess position, it is relatively easy to prove financial loss (in terms of actual data loss or recovery time/expense) for the ruining of my electron position. Therefore, while the same criminal lack-of-prosecution exists, I could easily charge you in a civil court for remuneration for wrecking my hard drive.
The reason this level of liability does not itself extend to an in-game persona is simply that the TOS for every game in existence specifically releases the company from said liability, so I sign away my right to financial recourse in the event of loss.
Virg
> ...you want IRONCLAD statistics. Well, there aren't, and probably won't ever be.
Ironclad statistics? Even I'm not that cruel. What I want is ironclad proof (which is not the same thing). Since you assume a genetic predisposition, I ask that you present evidence of (perhaps I'm out on a limb here) the gene. Show me that those with the gene, regardless of race, predispose toward better athleticism. That said, I'm willing to shelve this discussion pending more work on the mapping of the human genome, so it's moot for the moment. My argument is as much to caution you on using the term "genetic predisposition" as any demand for real evidence. When you state a statistical predisposition, you can use statistics to back it up. But not enough is known about the human genome to point to genetic predispositions in something as nebulous as "athletic talent".
Virg
Some thoughts on your proofs of concept:
> I can't point to specific genes, but it's been shown that most of the Kenyan distance runners are from a common area of kenya that is elevated.
The problem here is in citation. Again I ask, "it's been shown" by whom, exactly? Also, a common area of Kenya that's elevated? What evidence can you present that it's genetic (based in Kenyan people) and not environmental (based on, for example, living at altitude)? How do the Kenyan valley dwellers stack up? You claim that there's something intrinsic to Kenyan genetics that you don't back up with anything resembling scientific proof or studies. You must do better than this if you're to convince me that you can rule out other factors.
> Furthermore, any argument of nature vs. nurture is basically undermined by the existence of an athletic development program in Kenya as or more aggressive than the distance running program: soccer. Soccer athletes are identified and pushed as much or more than distance running candidates, yet the Western African nations (and their similarly correlated fast-twitch genetic advantages) crush them every time.
Nice try, but individual athletic ability is very secondary to team strategy and coaching in team sports. There are a number of studies, done by the U.S. National Football League, that point up that while talented athletes can certainly tip the balance, on average it's the coach that wins the game. This comparison is invalid because of this proof.
> Non-equipment events in track and field (100m, mile, marathon) are as or more universally competed in by the world as soccer. And the resulting performances are as close to absolute metrics as you're going to get (so a kid runs a 10.4 on a dirt track and a 10.2 100m on a modern track - his time still shows he's fast as hell). Thus they are as good a basis for drawing athletic predispositions as anything.
You're right that they're valid for drawing athletic predispositions. The breakdown of logic is that you then extend athletic predispositions to genetic predispositions, without offering a shred of evidence that there's any causal relationship. You make no reasonable argument about why the Kenyan advantage is not related to their environment, their culture or anything else but their genetic makeup. Without proof, I don't buy it.
Virg
In an episode of the original series of Star Trek, the Enterprise encountered a ship, adrift, called the "Botany Bay", upon which humans from past history had put genetically modified superpeople that had gotten out of hand and been exiled. Their leader, name Kahn, was played by the actor Ricardo Montalban, who was also in some popular ads from Chrysler at the time, featuring cars with "fine Corinthian leather" seats and appointments. Much hilarity and cross-referencing ensued.
Virg
> How many is too many?
Enough that the line between a work of fiction and reality become blurred in ways unsupported by scientific advances of the era.
> Spurious comment aside, it's been shown that genetic traits such as the Kenyan gene that allows for sustained aerobic exercise produce excellent long distance runners, and the whole superpower cold war during the eighties produced olympic atheletes that were shaving tenths of seconds off times for huge investment.
There's a fundamental difference here. Firstly, the "Kenyan gene"? Can you explain with some concrete examples who "it's been shown" by? Moreover, completely accepting the assumption that it does exist, it qualifies as a lucky break, not a concerted effort to build a better athlete. Also, the efforts put forth by athletes in the '80s by U.S. and Soviet althletes was still an effort within the confines of human physique. While it's true that they were paid and supported so that they could train full time, any country could do the same with one or more "star athletes" and have a reasonable chance to compete. In your suggested world, only those countries advanced enough or rich enough to perform the genetic mods would have a chance to win these contests, which runs counter to the ideals of the Olympics, where Jamaica can field a bobsled team if they so choose.
> So perhaps rather than putting money into things which have no real human benefit (millimetre wave radar, and *do not* get me started on the whole idea of 'defence') it would be interesting if there was some kind of move towards body modification as a means of getting an edge in competitive games.
How convenient that you can foretell the future well enough to know which scientific advances are worthy of pursuit for human benefit and which aren't. How, exactly, do you know what advances in RADAR will mean to the human race in twenty or fifty years? Are you aware that nuclear medicine, which saves thousands of cancer patients yearly, developed from the Manhattan Project? Try not to inject your politics into the study of science. Trying to say that the study of one field of science over any other is necessary for the benefit of humanity has always been, and continues to be, very short-sighted.
> Retractable claws would be cool, too.
Well, yeah, okay. They would be. But how do these qualify as a genetic enhancement, instead of a cybernetic enhancement? Somebody has been reading too many X-Men comic books.
Virg
You did a fine job illustrating it, then. A square fails miserably, because if you put it vertically, then turn it so the edge lies diagonally to the corners of the hole, it'll fit with inches to spare. The same goes for many other symmetrical shapes.
Manholes aren't drilled. They're dug with backhoes. They dig out a big pit (usually pretty close to square) and then put a manhole on top of it, which looks like a big metal or concrete plate with a round hole in the center. Cover the plate (except the hole) with dirt/asphalt/concrete, put on the manhole cover, and you're done. Manholes are usually molded (if they're metal) or cast (if they're concrete).
Virg
Point the first:
One class at my whack-ass college had two sessions per week, two hours long each, for three credit hours. Semesters lasted 15 weeks. Using that, and assuming 15 credits per semester, that's (2*2*15)*5= 300 class hours per semester. Taking his number of 3408, which whack-ass college can you name that will issue a doctorate after six years (12 semesters)?
Point the second:
True enough. Point conceded.
Point the third:
Everquest is no more nor less a time sink than any other hobby one could spend time on, and is more social than a number of hobbies I can think of. And no, you don't detect an Evercrack addict. I put in about 10 hours a week, because that's all my schedule will allow. I am, however, touchy about it, because of people like you who imply (with a wink that you think makes your barb somehow less irritating) that if one is at all involved in Everquest, one is necessarily overinvolved in Everquest.
Virg
> with 15% of the respondents playing for more than 50 hours a week, and around 40% playing for 40 or more hours a week. When does it become a problem? When it hits 60 hours a week? 70?
This question points up the real problem with the general public's view of the phenomenon. There's no set time for when it's a problem, despite what anyone wants to say. It becomes a problem when it starts to overarch the parts of one's life that cannot suffer the infringement. While one person can handle playing 50 hours a week, another might have problems with 15. For example, an early-twenties person who is not married and has no other social obligations could play for 40 hours a week, keep up with work and still have a full social life. Another person with a house and two kids might suffer ill effects if he put more than 10 hours a week into the game. Or perhaps instead of bowling or watching TV he chooses to spend his leisure time online. That's the difficulty with saying that 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week is a "problem". These times mean nothing without the context of a particular person's lifestyle and time constraints.
Virg
> Finall tally? 142 DAYS played. (3408 hours). In this time i could've gotten a phd in nuclear phisics, or made 25 thousand dollars working at mcdonalds for minimum wage!
Perhaps the PhD would need to wait until you took a course in remedial math. 3,408 hours is not nearly enough time for a doctorate, even if you count only classroom time. Also, assuming $7.00 an hour, which is far above minimum wage, you'd have cleared $23,800 before taxes, or about $20,000 net.
Besides, if you do nothing for leisure, studies have shown that you'll have health and psychological problems to deal with, so the money hit for therapy and medical care would probably put you in the red, not counting that you'd feel pretty sucky.
Virg
> A quarter of people who responded to the survey said they played for 41 hours or more. If that's the usage of a quarter, how many are playing the game for 20 hours a week or more? What else are you doing outside of your job if you're spending that much time on there?
Substitute television for Everquest and ask the question again. A large percentage of the population of the U.S. watches 40+ hours of TV per week. I personally watch less than an hour of television a week, and so does my wife. We spend our time together after the kids go to bed playing Everquest instead. It's actually much more social than what she did before, and if we feel like talking instead of playing, it's easier to turn away from it because you don't miss anything if you stop.
> Whatever anyone says about the skills developed by games such as EQ, there are important ones that may (that's "may", not "will") be allowed to wither on the vine, like the ability to interact well with others in social situations.
See above. it's a lot more interactive than what many people choose for relaxation.
> Having been one of these people who spent every waking hour in front of a monitor, when not at work, in the past I can't overstate too much the importance of getting out and interacting for real. The geeky stereotype comes about when you really are using EQ as a replacement for more social activities.
Agreed, but be careful about how you say that. As I stated above I and my wife (and most of our in-game friends) use it as a replacement for less social activities, and that's one of the things that this study is trying to put forward.
Virg