The college text book business has been a racket for generations. The vast majority of information has been public domain and lets not pretend the text books are superbly written or edited. They have the study material students pour over as quickly as possible so they can pass the next round of tests... rinse and repeat.
Shifting to ebooks that will increasingly be public domain is the future.
The only reason I could see to remain with copyrighted books is if they offered something the open source books didn't.
Write them better so the students actually learn more or are less bored by them. Or offer novel insights, methods of approaching problems, or research. Something you're just not going to see anywhere else.
If you have nothing in your text book that isn't in the free text book... what exactly is its purpose for existing at all?
And why would students spend their limited resources on your book?
It needs to stop. The worst are the science and liberal arts books. In the science books you get science knowledge from 100 to 200 years ago sold for 400 dollars a book. And in the literature books you get compilations of public domain books sold for 80 dollars a pop.
Why exactly are we doing that?
Hopefully this and a few other innovations will suck the fat out of education budgets.
I'm not saying there aren't lots of things you can't do by clicking boxes on a web portal. But if you're really doing real office work you're not doing that. You're working with spread sheets, large text documents, and lots of other applications.
Tell me this... who wants to program ON the ipad? Anything that involves real work on the machine is a pain in the ass on an ipad. Its fine for light work where things have been streamlined for its use. Otherwise... *laughs*... No.
To the contrary the NRA was all for expanded background checks so long as they weren't a shadow ploy to disenfranchise gun owners or expose them to harassment or liability despite committing no criminal acts.
See, the anti gun crowd is not dealing honestly here. They say they just want to have better documentation. But that's not really true. They want to prohibit gun ownership entirely. And while they don't think they can ban them outright, they think they can make it so impractical to own them that its about as good as banning them.
And that is largely what this most recent push by them was about.
So grasp this... we have no problem with having records so we can tell legal from illegal gun owners. However we are not stupid. If you make an effort to ban gun ownership by proxy we will interpret it as an attempt to ban guns directly since it will work out to the same thing. And we will oppose it with everything.
I am saying that my right to my vote and my right to a gun are intertwined.
You try to make me powerless and its the same thing as trying to silence me. Its oppression. It is a violation of my rights. And I associate it with the right to vote because it is the most similar right.
A child can speak and it has no civic significance. An armed citizen has relevance. A vote has relevance.
You take my vote over my dead body. You take my gun over my dead body.
there are 300 million people in the US. National elections costing millions isn't a big deal. It is somewhat worrying that they're costing as much as they are...
I look at it this way... if the 100 million voters each gives 100 dollars you should get something like 10 billion political contributions. How much are we spending on these national elections?... All sides considered? Probably a good deal more then that. But the first ten billion or so isn't unreasonable.
As to the rest, I'm not a fatalist. I don't give up my rights because there are problems. I label them as obstacles to my power and do what I can to protect what rights and power I have left.
I know the anti gun people aren't going stop. That's fine. Neither will we stop.
I am not a violent person. I don't believe in using violence as anything but a means of defense. Truly.
That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.
Imagine if someone came to take away your right to vote? Would it matter what reasons they came up for it... what excuses? Unlikely. That is where I am on the issue. And I'm not alone for what that is worth. I don't think most of us are violent or desire violence. We simply believe we're entitled to be dangerous. I'm free. I'm a citizen. You should fear me. Not because I'm crazy. But because the free are powerful.
This gun... this technology... It made me cry the first time I saw it. To me, its beautiful. And I will protect it. This is a flame that will not go out.
I regret if this offends anyone. That is not my desire. I see in this a weapon that might one day free the world. Naive? Perhaps... but possibly this is the beginning of something glorious.
Look, how much does the IT department know about accounting, sales, marketing, or a dozen other features of a company? Get real. We specialize.
Management's specialty is management. Yes, they need to understand their business and if senior management doesn't grasp core business services then they're not fit to hold the position. But if the company isn't an IT service business then they don't need to know that stuff. That's what they pay you to know.
What you need is respect and/or trust from management. So that when something happens or you need something to work a certain way they listen to you. Possibly not just blindly do whatever it is you said but treat your recommendation with a high degree of weight.
So who is more likely to sell their services all things being equal?
There you go.
A lot of the problem is that engineers suck at selling themselves. Same thing with most technical professionals. They don't know how to work with customers and they don't know how to work with management.
Marketers are great at dealing with both customers and management. They manage their relationships and make sure everyone appreciates everything they do even if they didn't actually do it.
If engineers worried a bit more about this stuff they'd have an easier time. And before you say that's unreasonable, consider all the politicking that goes on in academia, the fund raising in politics, the legal nonsense in medicine. Everyone has different things to worry about in their professions besides their actual job.
Make some sort of effort to market yourself or your department. Sell yourself to management. Remind them what you do now and tell them what you could do with more money.
Beyond that, something that marketers are very keen on is commissions. They say "look, for every extra account I bring in you give me X dollars in bonus pay"... management is frequently alright with that idea because if you bring in the account they're covered and if you don't its no skin off their back.
Do the same thing as an engineer. Propose a project. And say "when this is done and it works as advertised, I get a bonus"... put your own time into it.
My point is this... management might not appreciate you but that isn't the marketer's fault. They're doing their jobs. Engineers should emulate them a bit and not assume that they're allowed to sit in their ivory tower.
What I said was correct. I just didn't provide all the conditions and details.
Military service in Switzerland is compulsory isn't it? Which means its effectively something you do when you progress from being a child to being a citizen. And when you've finished that they do give you an automatic weapon and bag of bullets.
Yes, the above must be kept sealed etc. Tell me why those machine guns aren't constantly getting stolen and then schools getting mowed down by guys laughing as they machine gun people down?
The whole "people with guns kill people" meme is inaccurate.
You could give the average person a nuclear bomb and they wouldn't hurt anyone with it. Would I do that? No... But the thing is... Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people.
The limiting factor on these murders is not the guns but the people that do the killing. Look at those crazy guys that killed people in boston. Think increasing gun regulation will stop that? What about the Columbine shooting? Doesn't matter.
They've done extensive studies on people that commit spree killings and politically motivated killings. In the first case its almost always a neurological dysfunction. Spree killers tend to almost always be very sick. They have odd brain tumors or neurological imbalances. They're crazy. And a crazy person can kill a lot of people because our society assumes that we trust each other. Drive on the highway... at any time someone could swerve into you and kill you like THAT *snaps fingers*. Nothing you could do about it.
Want to kill a bunch of people? Go to a gas station in the middle of rush hour with a gas can and a dirty rag... you might be able to blow the whole station up.
Or go to a busy restaurant on a Friday night... tends to be a couple hundred people all in a little room. Dozens of ways to make that a death trap.
As to the political killers... those guys methodically network with each other and come up with ways to kill people. They research it. They plan. You're not going to be able to stop every possible means they could come up with... All you can do is find them and remove them from society. That's what the FBI and CIA does. They look for these guys and then they make them go away.
Your antipathy towards guns is naive. The guns aren't killing people. The people are killing people. The vast majority of gun owners are blameless and society is better off with them armed.
When bad things happen it is a comfort to law abiding citizens and a concern to criminals that out there are good people with guns.
Testing is meaningless since you don't think we have a problem with guns due to lack of training.
Registration is already the law of the land so you're ignorant there.
Registration links the serial number of the gun to the owner so you're ignorant again.
The serial number is on the gun which is effectively the same thing as a VIN number which is even better then a license plate. We only have license plates because VIN numbers or too long easily remember.
And as to mandatory insurance, its painfully obvious that you only want this to raise the cost of ownership and thus discourage their use which is why the supreme court cock blocked you on that issue.
Really, I don't know who you think you're fooling here. We're every bit as clever and educated as you are and these sad little arguments are transparent.
Actually you do find other weapons used more often in places where guns are banned. You also find a higher robbery and rape rate.
Though you are right there are fewer murders... that said... most of the murders in either case are criminal on criminal violence and should probably be filtered out of the stats unless your objective is to keep gang bangers from killing each other.
If that is your objective then prepare to have everyone just laugh because no one cares about them killing each other. We care about them killing innocents. But they're as likely to beat such people to deal with baseball bats as anything if that is the weapon to hand.
As to leaving your gun in a rack unlocked, that is actually frequently illegal in many places in the US.
Regardless, how many shootings occur because of that.
You basically are assuming that I'm so stupid that I'll believe that your problem with guns is that they're not locked up properly by their owners. Never mind that very little of the issue we have is caused by the consequences of that.
Lets say I just agreed to whatever your beef is with unsecured guns. Would that be the end of it for you? Or is there more? And more? And more... Tell me... where would you stop feeling you had achieved your goal. Because THAT is the place you ACTUALLY want to move the issue.
I'm not that stupid. If you want to HONESTLY argue your point, I am willing to hear your ACTUAL opinion. But if all you've got are false arguments then I have nothing to respond with but boiler plate. And ultimately, we have the second amendment and more then enough political clout to drop kick your whole counter movement as often as required.
It really boils down to this... how much time and money and political power to do you want to destroy while we laugh at you?
Don't like that response? Don't lie to me. Be honest and we can have a real discussion. Short of that we're just apes throwing shit at each other.
Shows how ignorant you are... he ordered his generals to draw up plans for an invasion of Switzerland. All their estimates came back showing horrific causalities. So he didn't do it.
As to bankers, Germany was bankrupt. That was in part why they went to war. They borrowed money from everyone and used it to fund their industrial build up. Then they invaded their creditors thus negating the need to pay them back.
As to trade, he went to war with the United States and the British Empire... the two powers that dominated international trade at that time. Precisely how would pissing Switzerland off rate compared to that?
I don't know... maybe you were kidding. I can't tell through the internet. And while some people say idiotic things because they're kidding a lot of them are so f'ing clueless they're actually serious.
No problem. Do the same thing with cars and kitchen knives.
And while you're at it, make sure people are educated before voting. After all, you wouldn't want some ignorant halfwit contributing his mishmash of misunderstandings and hearsay to the public discourse would you?
As to guns and criminals. The weapon must be accessible by the owner for self defense and precausions taken to secure the weapon must not increase the cost of ownership such that it is harder for the average citizen to aquire a gun.
Its like voting. Regulation on it is very touchy because it is very easy for that regulation to effectively discourage voting or disenfranchise portions of the public.
Now you're obviously intent on doing just that. You simply don't want people to own guns and will use any reasonable sounding pretext to accomplish that goal. That is transparent and obvious. But what you apparently don't understand is that this is a well entrenched argument and there is nothing you've said or thought on the matter that wasn't hashed out generations ago. Yet your master plan never happened.
So long as we remain free your plan will always fail. We will not be disarmed.
But as the saying goes... Your right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
That is what both of you aren't understanding. It ends at the nose. You don't get to rip my arm off because I MIGHT punch a man. My right to throw a punch ends at the other man's NOSE. When I make contact and NOT BEFORE... I have violated that man's rights and my rights in that matter have been exceeded.
So for example, I can have a gun. And I can shoot that gun. But if the bullets from my gun pass through your body or property then I have violated your rights. I'll even give you the noise pollution argument... so if I'm shooting the gun off at 4 am that is probably a violation of your rights too... assuming I'm doing it for recreational purposes or something.
In any case, my right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
Simply being CAPABLE of throwing a punch does not violate anyone's rights. Simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.
Your desire to be safe does not entitle you to render anyone else powerless unless they've personally demonstrated themselves to be unfit as citizens. Felons and the like can be justifiably disarmed.
So that's one path to disarming america. Classify everyone as felons. Of course, you'll also disqualify them from voting and get a pretty quick war on your hands. But then you're doing it for the LOLz and that should be pretty funny... in a sick and sad sort of way. But it's the same sort of humor we get out of that thinking. Grim and horrible... but once you get the joke you just can't stop laughing.
As to cars and guns. So if I passed some sort of test a teenager could pass... which is the sort of test you pass to drive... you'd suddenly be okay with me having a gun?
Really? This is what is keeping you up at night? "Oh GOD!!! Do they know which end the bullets come out from!?"...
Or is it that you're worried that gun owners are unaware of the laws regarding guns... little things like its illegal to shoot people in the face because they refused to give you their wallet?
Hilarious, sir.
As ot switzerland, the point is that their nation was only kept free from invasion because they had an armed population. It serves a purpose.
But indifferent to all that, my right to be dangerous goes hand in hand with my right to vote. Why do you get to vote? What qualifications do you have? Do you know how much damage an uneducated electorate can do to a nation?
Tell you what, you pass some poll taxes and other hilarious regulations that will backfire even harder then your silly gun regulation pushes... and we'll consider putting tests on guns.
Citizens are not peasants. You do not disarm us. You come for my gun the same way you come for my right to vote. They are the same thing. They are my power. Free people retain a measure of their power distinct from any external agency.
Felons naturally are not allowed to own weapons or vote. Why is that? Because they're a danger to society? No. Because they are no longer fit to dictate its course or challenge the power of citizens.
Yes. And owning a gun does not infringe on your right to not be killed anymore then my owning a car infringes on your right to not be run over repeatedly by my car as I laugh.
Most men have the physical capability to rape a women if they so desire. Should you neuter all men then? Or possibly dope them so they lack that capability?
You might not appreciate these glib rebuttals but they're about as sensible as your initial argument that you're entitled to render people powerless on the off chance that they might exploit their power to harm you. Never mind that statistically almost none of them ever do it. And further that it is only by having such capabilities that we have rights in the first place.
How exactly do you think this country was created in the first place? Are you aware that in Switzerland they GIVE EVERYONE automatic weapons and a bag of bullets? Do you know why? When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...
Further, what is the first thing any tyrant does to the peasantry? Removes their ability to resist. Disarms them.
You might be a peasant. I am not. You do not disarm me. And peasants do not have rights. They do what their told or horrific brutality corrects their behavior. That is human history. Learn it.
Never mind that the rich and powerful will have private or official security that will be armed.
You know those nice young men in sun glasses that follow them around occasionally talking into their cuff links?
And beyond that, many of the supposed anti gun crowd have concealed carry licenses.
Barbara Boxer has such a license in California. As does Chuck Schumer in New York.
Think the average citizen in those states could get one? Think those Senators got permits because they're crack shots and well trained?
Power and influence.
Look, if you want to give away all your rights, that's fine. You give up YOUR rights. You don't get to give away mine. If you want to be lead around by the nose that is your own business. Hell, I'll even help you out by telling you how to live. It is apparently how you want things to work. But you're not going to tell me how to live. And my right be armed is inalienable. You can make it illegal. But it will be a violation of my rights. Just as you can outlaw a religion or gang political speech you find distasteful. Or just randomly kill people you don't like. You can physical do that and you can make that legal.
Making a reprehensible act legal won't make it less reprehensible. It will simply taint the rest of society with your sin.
I completely agree with the premise that you want to design weapons platforms from the ground up assuming a broad spectrum of threats. Be those direct physical attacks or more subtle network intrusions.
War.
What will one human mind do to overcome the machinations of another hostile human mind? Anything. Everything.
Be prepared for anything. Biological. Nuclear. Chemical. Hackers. Sexy honey pot assassins. Everything is on the table.
Let your guard down anywhere and you've told the enemy how to kill you.
I work with dozens of small companies many of whom have their own proprietary software and development. Consistency across these companies is nonexistent and consistency WITHIN the code any of the software packages is at best unpredictable.
I deal with this by writing comments into all their code for my own information. If and when there is an issue, I can typically find the problem area very quickly and correct it.
I make no effort to clean their code up if its operating acceptably. I get it so it works and don't waste anyone's time if it is already working.
My mother saved up her vacation days and took the time off without claiming maternity leave. No one needs it.
She was out of work for about two weeks tops and then back in work again.
Companies pay you to work. Part of what is screwing up the economy is all the people that think they should be paid when they don't work. We have some people that get two or more months of vacation a year... paid. As well as all sorts of sick days which aren't vacation days but which are effectively the same thing since you can use them the exact same way. And then you have maternity leave. And then you have some places with 3 to 4 hour lunch breaks leaving about 2 to 3 hours of total work. That's unusual... but there are places where that is "normal."
And uniformly when this sort of thing goes rampant the businesses dumb enough to support them die.
Now, Yahoo is not Google. They do not have money flowing out of their ears. They if they pay people they need to actually have them accomplish something of value to Yahoo.
What I'm saying here is that we should curb our expectations to something reasonable. Should women be able to take time off to care for children or babies or whatever? Sure. But the company likewise doesn't need to pay them for that. And if the men want to take time off to do the same they can also not be paid while doing the same. If they want to get paid, they need to show up for work.
Is the above not what people want to hear? Welcome to the real world. It isn't made of unicorns and rainbows.
Slashdot Mirror
The college text book business has been a racket for generations. The vast majority of information has been public domain and lets not pretend the text books are superbly written or edited. They have the study material students pour over as quickly as possible so they can pass the next round of tests... rinse and repeat.
Shifting to ebooks that will increasingly be public domain is the future.
The only reason I could see to remain with copyrighted books is if they offered something the open source books didn't.
Write them better so the students actually learn more or are less bored by them. Or offer novel insights, methods of approaching problems, or research. Something you're just not going to see anywhere else.
If you have nothing in your text book that isn't in the free text book... what exactly is its purpose for existing at all?
And why would students spend their limited resources on your book?
It needs to stop. The worst are the science and liberal arts books. In the science books you get science knowledge from 100 to 200 years ago sold for 400 dollars a book. And in the literature books you get compilations of public domain books sold for 80 dollars a pop.
Why exactly are we doing that?
Hopefully this and a few other innovations will suck the fat out of education budgets.
I'm not saying there aren't lots of things you can't do by clicking boxes on a web portal. But if you're really doing real office work you're not doing that. You're working with spread sheets, large text documents, and lots of other applications.
Tell me this... who wants to program ON the ipad? Anything that involves real work on the machine is a pain in the ass on an ipad. Its fine for light work where things have been streamlined for its use. Otherwise... *laughs*... No.
We're not against background checks.
To the contrary the NRA was all for expanded background checks so long as they weren't a shadow ploy to disenfranchise gun owners or expose them to harassment or liability despite committing no criminal acts.
See, the anti gun crowd is not dealing honestly here. They say they just want to have better documentation. But that's not really true. They want to prohibit gun ownership entirely. And while they don't think they can ban them outright, they think they can make it so impractical to own them that its about as good as banning them.
And that is largely what this most recent push by them was about.
So grasp this... we have no problem with having records so we can tell legal from illegal gun owners. However we are not stupid. If you make an effort to ban gun ownership by proxy we will interpret it as an attempt to ban guns directly since it will work out to the same thing. And we will oppose it with everything.
I don't care if you see things otherwise.
I am saying that my right to my vote and my right to a gun are intertwined.
You try to make me powerless and its the same thing as trying to silence me. Its oppression. It is a violation of my rights. And I associate it with the right to vote because it is the most similar right.
A child can speak and it has no civic significance. An armed citizen has relevance. A vote has relevance.
You take my vote over my dead body. You take my gun over my dead body.
No compromise.
there are 300 million people in the US. National elections costing millions isn't a big deal. It is somewhat worrying that they're costing as much as they are...
I look at it this way... if the 100 million voters each gives 100 dollars you should get something like 10 billion political contributions. How much are we spending on these national elections?... All sides considered? Probably a good deal more then that. But the first ten billion or so isn't unreasonable.
As to the rest, I'm not a fatalist. I don't give up my rights because there are problems. I label them as obstacles to my power and do what I can to protect what rights and power I have left.
This technology does not diminish my power.
But I think I just need to say... I'm for it.
I know the anti gun people aren't going stop. That's fine. Neither will we stop.
I am not a violent person. I don't believe in using violence as anything but a means of defense. Truly.
That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.
Imagine if someone came to take away your right to vote? Would it matter what reasons they came up for it... what excuses? Unlikely. That is where I am on the issue. And I'm not alone for what that is worth. I don't think most of us are violent or desire violence. We simply believe we're entitled to be dangerous. I'm free. I'm a citizen. You should fear me. Not because I'm crazy. But because the free are powerful.
This gun... this technology... It made me cry the first time I saw it. To me, its beautiful. And I will protect it. This is a flame that will not go out.
I regret if this offends anyone. That is not my desire. I see in this a weapon that might one day free the world. Naive? Perhaps... but possibly this is the beginning of something glorious.
Look, how much does the IT department know about accounting, sales, marketing, or a dozen other features of a company? Get real. We specialize.
Management's specialty is management. Yes, they need to understand their business and if senior management doesn't grasp core business services then they're not fit to hold the position. But if the company isn't an IT service business then they don't need to know that stuff. That's what they pay you to know.
What you need is respect and/or trust from management. So that when something happens or you need something to work a certain way they listen to you. Possibly not just blindly do whatever it is you said but treat your recommendation with a high degree of weight.
Marketers or Engineers?
So who is more likely to sell their services all things being equal?
There you go.
A lot of the problem is that engineers suck at selling themselves. Same thing with most technical professionals. They don't know how to work with customers and they don't know how to work with management.
Marketers are great at dealing with both customers and management. They manage their relationships and make sure everyone appreciates everything they do even if they didn't actually do it.
If engineers worried a bit more about this stuff they'd have an easier time. And before you say that's unreasonable, consider all the politicking that goes on in academia, the fund raising in politics, the legal nonsense in medicine. Everyone has different things to worry about in their professions besides their actual job.
Make some sort of effort to market yourself or your department. Sell yourself to management. Remind them what you do now and tell them what you could do with more money.
Beyond that, something that marketers are very keen on is commissions. They say "look, for every extra account I bring in you give me X dollars in bonus pay"... management is frequently alright with that idea because if you bring in the account they're covered and if you don't its no skin off their back.
Do the same thing as an engineer. Propose a project. And say "when this is done and it works as advertised, I get a bonus"... put your own time into it.
My point is this... management might not appreciate you but that isn't the marketer's fault. They're doing their jobs. Engineers should emulate them a bit and not assume that they're allowed to sit in their ivory tower.
What I said was correct. I just didn't provide all the conditions and details.
Military service in Switzerland is compulsory isn't it? Which means its effectively something you do when you progress from being a child to being a citizen. And when you've finished that they do give you an automatic weapon and bag of bullets.
Yes, the above must be kept sealed etc. Tell me why those machine guns aren't constantly getting stolen and then schools getting mowed down by guys laughing as they machine gun people down?
The whole "people with guns kill people" meme is inaccurate.
You could give the average person a nuclear bomb and they wouldn't hurt anyone with it. Would I do that? No... But the thing is... Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people.
The limiting factor on these murders is not the guns but the people that do the killing. Look at those crazy guys that killed people in boston. Think increasing gun regulation will stop that? What about the Columbine shooting? Doesn't matter.
They've done extensive studies on people that commit spree killings and politically motivated killings. In the first case its almost always a neurological dysfunction. Spree killers tend to almost always be very sick. They have odd brain tumors or neurological imbalances. They're crazy. And a crazy person can kill a lot of people because our society assumes that we trust each other. Drive on the highway... at any time someone could swerve into you and kill you like THAT *snaps fingers*. Nothing you could do about it.
Want to kill a bunch of people? Go to a gas station in the middle of rush hour with a gas can and a dirty rag... you might be able to blow the whole station up.
Or go to a busy restaurant on a Friday night... tends to be a couple hundred people all in a little room. Dozens of ways to make that a death trap.
As to the political killers... those guys methodically network with each other and come up with ways to kill people. They research it. They plan. You're not going to be able to stop every possible means they could come up with... All you can do is find them and remove them from society. That's what the FBI and CIA does. They look for these guys and then they make them go away.
Your antipathy towards guns is naive. The guns aren't killing people. The people are killing people. The vast majority of gun owners are blameless and society is better off with them armed.
When bad things happen it is a comfort to law abiding citizens and a concern to criminals that out there are good people with guns.
Testing is meaningless since you don't think we have a problem with guns due to lack of training.
Registration is already the law of the land so you're ignorant there.
Registration links the serial number of the gun to the owner so you're ignorant again.
The serial number is on the gun which is effectively the same thing as a VIN number which is even better then a license plate. We only have license plates because VIN numbers or too long easily remember.
And as to mandatory insurance, its painfully obvious that you only want this to raise the cost of ownership and thus discourage their use which is why the supreme court cock blocked you on that issue.
Really, I don't know who you think you're fooling here. We're every bit as clever and educated as you are and these sad little arguments are transparent.
Actually you do find other weapons used more often in places where guns are banned. You also find a higher robbery and rape rate.
Though you are right there are fewer murders... that said... most of the murders in either case are criminal on criminal violence and should probably be filtered out of the stats unless your objective is to keep gang bangers from killing each other.
If that is your objective then prepare to have everyone just laugh because no one cares about them killing each other. We care about them killing innocents. But they're as likely to beat such people to deal with baseball bats as anything if that is the weapon to hand.
As to leaving your gun in a rack unlocked, that is actually frequently illegal in many places in the US.
Regardless, how many shootings occur because of that.
You basically are assuming that I'm so stupid that I'll believe that your problem with guns is that they're not locked up properly by their owners. Never mind that very little of the issue we have is caused by the consequences of that.
Lets say I just agreed to whatever your beef is with unsecured guns. Would that be the end of it for you? Or is there more? And more? And more... Tell me... where would you stop feeling you had achieved your goal. Because THAT is the place you ACTUALLY want to move the issue.
I'm not that stupid. If you want to HONESTLY argue your point, I am willing to hear your ACTUAL opinion. But if all you've got are false arguments then I have nothing to respond with but boiler plate. And ultimately, we have the second amendment and more then enough political clout to drop kick your whole counter movement as often as required.
It really boils down to this... how much time and money and political power to do you want to destroy while we laugh at you?
Don't like that response? Don't lie to me. Be honest and we can have a real discussion. Short of that we're just apes throwing shit at each other.
Shows how ignorant you are... he ordered his generals to draw up plans for an invasion of Switzerland. All their estimates came back showing horrific causalities. So he didn't do it.
As to bankers, Germany was bankrupt. That was in part why they went to war. They borrowed money from everyone and used it to fund their industrial build up. Then they invaded their creditors thus negating the need to pay them back.
As to trade, he went to war with the United States and the British Empire... the two powers that dominated international trade at that time. Precisely how would pissing Switzerland off rate compared to that?
I don't know... maybe you were kidding. I can't tell through the internet. And while some people say idiotic things because they're kidding a lot of them are so f'ing clueless they're actually serious.
If you're kidding put in /s tags next time. If you're not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto
That's not true. Furthermore, instances where guns are used to defend a person that do not result in injury are not well reported.
Many instances are defused simply by displaying a gun to a would be attacker who then decides to back off.
No problem. Do the same thing with cars and kitchen knives.
And while you're at it, make sure people are educated before voting. After all, you wouldn't want some ignorant halfwit contributing his mishmash of misunderstandings and hearsay to the public discourse would you?
As to guns and criminals. The weapon must be accessible by the owner for self defense and precausions taken to secure the weapon must not increase the cost of ownership such that it is harder for the average citizen to aquire a gun.
Its like voting. Regulation on it is very touchy because it is very easy for that regulation to effectively discourage voting or disenfranchise portions of the public.
Now you're obviously intent on doing just that. You simply don't want people to own guns and will use any reasonable sounding pretext to accomplish that goal. That is transparent and obvious. But what you apparently don't understand is that this is a well entrenched argument and there is nothing you've said or thought on the matter that wasn't hashed out generations ago. Yet your master plan never happened.
So long as we remain free your plan will always fail. We will not be disarmed.
Oh, he has a right not to be killed.
But as the saying goes... Your right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
That is what both of you aren't understanding. It ends at the nose. You don't get to rip my arm off because I MIGHT punch a man. My right to throw a punch ends at the other man's NOSE. When I make contact and NOT BEFORE... I have violated that man's rights and my rights in that matter have been exceeded.
So for example, I can have a gun. And I can shoot that gun. But if the bullets from my gun pass through your body or property then I have violated your rights. I'll even give you the noise pollution argument... so if I'm shooting the gun off at 4 am that is probably a violation of your rights too... assuming I'm doing it for recreational purposes or something.
In any case, my right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.
Simply being CAPABLE of throwing a punch does not violate anyone's rights. Simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.
Your desire to be safe does not entitle you to render anyone else powerless unless they've personally demonstrated themselves to be unfit as citizens. Felons and the like can be justifiably disarmed.
So that's one path to disarming america. Classify everyone as felons. Of course, you'll also disqualify them from voting and get a pretty quick war on your hands. But then you're doing it for the LOLz and that should be pretty funny... in a sick and sad sort of way. But it's the same sort of humor we get out of that thinking. Grim and horrible... but once you get the joke you just can't stop laughing.
As to cars and guns. So if I passed some sort of test a teenager could pass... which is the sort of test you pass to drive... you'd suddenly be okay with me having a gun?
Really? This is what is keeping you up at night? "Oh GOD!!! Do they know which end the bullets come out from!?"...
Or is it that you're worried that gun owners are unaware of the laws regarding guns... little things like its illegal to shoot people in the face because they refused to give you their wallet?
Hilarious, sir.
As ot switzerland, the point is that their nation was only kept free from invasion because they had an armed population. It serves a purpose.
But indifferent to all that, my right to be dangerous goes hand in hand with my right to vote. Why do you get to vote? What qualifications do you have? Do you know how much damage an uneducated electorate can do to a nation?
Tell you what, you pass some poll taxes and other hilarious regulations that will backfire even harder then your silly gun regulation pushes... and we'll consider putting tests on guns.
Citizens are not peasants. You do not disarm us. You come for my gun the same way you come for my right to vote. They are the same thing. They are my power. Free people retain a measure of their power distinct from any external agency.
Felons naturally are not allowed to own weapons or vote. Why is that? Because they're a danger to society? No. Because they are no longer fit to dictate its course or challenge the power of citizens.
Just so and no more.
Yes. And owning a gun does not infringe on your right to not be killed anymore then my owning a car infringes on your right to not be run over repeatedly by my car as I laugh.
Most men have the physical capability to rape a women if they so desire. Should you neuter all men then? Or possibly dope them so they lack that capability?
You might not appreciate these glib rebuttals but they're about as sensible as your initial argument that you're entitled to render people powerless on the off chance that they might exploit their power to harm you. Never mind that statistically almost none of them ever do it. And further that it is only by having such capabilities that we have rights in the first place.
How exactly do you think this country was created in the first place? Are you aware that in Switzerland they GIVE EVERYONE automatic weapons and a bag of bullets? Do you know why? When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...
Further, what is the first thing any tyrant does to the peasantry? Removes their ability to resist. Disarms them.
You might be a peasant. I am not. You do not disarm me. And peasants do not have rights. They do what their told or horrific brutality corrects their behavior. That is human history. Learn it.
Never mind that the rich and powerful will have private or official security that will be armed.
You know those nice young men in sun glasses that follow them around occasionally talking into their cuff links?
And beyond that, many of the supposed anti gun crowd have concealed carry licenses.
Barbara Boxer has such a license in California. As does Chuck Schumer in New York.
Think the average citizen in those states could get one? Think those Senators got permits because they're crack shots and well trained?
Power and influence.
Look, if you want to give away all your rights, that's fine. You give up YOUR rights. You don't get to give away mine. If you want to be lead around by the nose that is your own business. Hell, I'll even help you out by telling you how to live. It is apparently how you want things to work. But you're not going to tell me how to live. And my right be armed is inalienable. You can make it illegal. But it will be a violation of my rights. Just as you can outlaw a religion or gang political speech you find distasteful. Or just randomly kill people you don't like. You can physical do that and you can make that legal.
Making a reprehensible act legal won't make it less reprehensible. It will simply taint the rest of society with your sin.
I completely agree with the premise that you want to design weapons platforms from the ground up assuming a broad spectrum of threats. Be those direct physical attacks or more subtle network intrusions.
War.
What will one human mind do to overcome the machinations of another hostile human mind? Anything. Everything.
Be prepared for anything. Biological. Nuclear. Chemical. Hackers. Sexy honey pot assassins. Everything is on the table.
Let your guard down anywhere and you've told the enemy how to kill you.
I work with dozens of small companies many of whom have their own proprietary software and development. Consistency across these companies is nonexistent and consistency WITHIN the code any of the software packages is at best unpredictable.
I deal with this by writing comments into all their code for my own information. If and when there is an issue, I can typically find the problem area very quickly and correct it.
I make no effort to clean their code up if its operating acceptably. I get it so it works and don't waste anyone's time if it is already working.
Any perceived dorkyness can be overcome with sufficient utility.
Google Glass doesn't get anywhere near that threshold. What does it ACTUALLY do that a smartphone doesn't do right now?
Make a list.
And then tell me why or how it overcomes the "problem."
They're trying.
I feel for them. I really do... I hope they can carve out a lasting niche for themselves in the evolving ebook retail world.
This move was good... it showed boldness. B&N will need to be bold to survive.
The virtual world that rat was placed in was not a true representation and doubtless lacked all sorts of things the rat's senses expected.
The conclusion here could rather be that the simulation wasn't very good... not that the rat needs less brain power in ANY simulation.
For women or men.
My mother saved up her vacation days and took the time off without claiming maternity leave. No one needs it.
She was out of work for about two weeks tops and then back in work again.
Companies pay you to work. Part of what is screwing up the economy is all the people that think they should be paid when they don't work. We have some people that get two or more months of vacation a year... paid. As well as all sorts of sick days which aren't vacation days but which are effectively the same thing since you can use them the exact same way. And then you have maternity leave. And then you have some places with 3 to 4 hour lunch breaks leaving about 2 to 3 hours of total work. That's unusual... but there are places where that is "normal."
And uniformly when this sort of thing goes rampant the businesses dumb enough to support them die.
Now, Yahoo is not Google. They do not have money flowing out of their ears. They if they pay people they need to actually have them accomplish something of value to Yahoo.
What I'm saying here is that we should curb our expectations to something reasonable. Should women be able to take time off to care for children or babies or whatever? Sure. But the company likewise doesn't need to pay them for that. And if the men want to take time off to do the same they can also not be paid while doing the same. If they want to get paid, they need to show up for work.
Is the above not what people want to hear? Welcome to the real world. It isn't made of unicorns and rainbows.