Why is it that./ers seem so opposed to suing vidoe game manufactures, yet are all for blaming the guns? Maybe neither is to blame, maybe both are to blame, but the principles that tell me that it is wrong to sue the manufacter of a device because an individual misuses the device--either uses it for an incorrect purpose (guns) or takes it WAY too seriously and is therefore mentally affected (video games)-- by it seem to apply in both cases. Let's face it, gun manufacters will always have a reason to manufacture guns--if solely for the police and military. So long as there are guns made, Americans will be able to get ahold of them (I am using things like the drug war, prostitution, and prohibition as examples of how banning something does not do a whole lot to remove it from society). Are we always going to accept people blaming guns and gun manufacters everytime a child kills? When are we going to ask ourselves why the child kills instead of how is he able to? Until we take a hard look at why a child kills, video games, guns, books, the iternet, and freedom in general is in danger (note that I do not consider taking away guns as taking away my freedom, I just think it is serving as a "quick fix" for politicians who do not want to handle the more difficult issue. I also do not believe it will be effective in stopping the killings.)
He seems to be complaining, although indirectly,
about the same problem that plagues much of computer technology--the lack of a set of unbiased, well-defined standards. I do not think he would have an issue with ICANN (perhaps I am supposing too much here) if they had very specific guidelines that had been agreed upon by much of the internet community (maybe a online vote...I really have no idea how this could be done). Of course, standardization has its own problems, but I do not know if there is a perfect solution.
Stupid me...responding to what is a pointless debate.
First of all, most of your complaints may well be true as far as Utah goes. What I would like people to understand is that UTAH DOES NOT EQUAL MORMONISM. Utah is mormonism at its very worst, at its most extreme position. I grew up in a small Mormon church in New Mexico, where white was the majority in the church (I think there was about one other white family in the word). I loved the diversity. People would give speeches in spanish, we would be taught Indian dances with chants sung by Pueblo Indians. I loved the church I grew up in and I am sorry your experience made you so hateful.
Most people in my church did not go on a mission, and no one really cared. Tithing is not demanded, only recommended (again no one in my church cared...).
No one I knew cared if you drank or not...
As far as your proofs, would it make you feel better if I say you are right? The fact is, I don't care...does that make me ignorant and stupid...probably in your mind. But going to church makes me happy, and it makes my daughters happy...and I would guess that if you found something that made you equally happy, you wouldn't care what someone said about it (for instance, if someone was to tell you that alcohol was bad for you...do you really give a shit?)
Your posting is so riddled with inaccuracies, outright lies and bias, that I hardly know where to start.
First off: missionary work: 100% voluntary. Very few mormons I know went on a mission.
Second: 10% Tithing...this is a standard recommended tithing for most religions. No one other than the bishop (head of the church) has any knowledge of whether you pay it or not, and he will not say anything to you if you never pay a time. It is strictly a voluntary, private thing. And I have no clue what you are talking about "sex in the next life" for...
Drinking cokes is perfectly acceptable, so perhaps those condescending looks you are getting are for another reason. Also, no mormon I know (and I grant you they are a bit more fanatical in Utah) really gives a dam if you drink (or cuss...)
Also, as for your debunking theory, one could argue the whole notion of the existence of a deity had been "debunked". I have never seen so-called "proofs of the absence of god" or proofs that a holy writing is fiction really prove anything. Finally, who cares if it is true or not? If I want to believe the world was started by a race of green, 3-headed aliens...why should you care?
I am an active Mormon, so I am a little bothered by the anti-mormon attitude throughout these postings. The problems with Salt Lake (and I acknowledge there are many) have very little to do with the particular religion and everything to do with the face that everyone is a member of that religion. I grew up in a predominatly catholic community, and they had many of the same problems. The problem is in the lack of diversity, and you can see the same problems come up anywhere the vast majority of the population holds the same, strong religous (or political for those you take their politics very seriously) beliefs.
If you don't believe me, take a look around you. Chances are pretty good that one of you co-workers is one of those fanatical mormons you are talking about...
The fundamental question here is what are reasonable expectations a person can legally have in regards to their private computer. It is wrong to suggest that anytime a users hits "public file sharing" that they understand and accept the consequences. It is also wrong to suggest that public file sharing amounts to a legal acceptance of other user's using ones personal computer. Simply because someone has made it technically feasible (without doing any cracking) to use their computer does not imply a legal acceptance.
I am not saying for sure that what these people are doing is legal or illegal, but I do believe that the case for illegal is more heavily weighted.
The gun control issue is hardly as simplistic as these posts would like to pretend. It is not about protection from a potentially tryannical government, and it is not aboutAmerica's culture of violence (which, although I love America, I have to admit does exist). It is about personal freedoms.
Americans are extremely of all freedoms. We are willing to sacrifice some in exchange for living with less crime, but there has to be some definate correlation between the sacrifice of one of our rights and the drop in crime. I don't see this correlation with gun control; for every statistic that shows the drop in crime, another contradicts. At best, the results are inconclusive.
So, then, are we willing to give up one of our freedoms for a possible drop in crime? The international community fails to understand why we do not do this. I ask you to look at our history in regulating items that too many people desire. We attempted prohibition and spurned the mafia. Our war on drugs has been a miserable failure that has led to gross prison overcrowding and hundreds of lives lost. We ban prostition and create an enviroment where women are forced into sexual slavery and young girls are turned into prostition (I am aware legalizing would not eliminate these problems; I am arguing they would lessen them). The fact is, Americans obey laws when they agree with them. You may argue that this is what is wrong with America; I say this is what makes America great. I see no reason why strict gun control would be any less of a fiasco. Already many multiple shootings were done with guns the people should never have been able to buy.
Politics suck. There is no question about that. However, it is politicians who make laws, and lawyers who interpret laws. As long as technologically literate people avoid politics, laws and rulings will continue to be made in favor of big business and against movements such as the open source movement.
I plan on going to law school after getting my masters (in computer science). When I say this, people look at me as though I have gone to the dark side. I feel, however, that trying to fight the system from the outside has proven to be almost entirely ineffective. We need more people who understand the technology fighting for our rights. Thank you for posting the why politics matter.
Honestly, it is something I do not get.
Where exactly do people get the idea that Gore is an intelectual while Bush is a dumbass? I know it is a view that is stated by most as fact, but I fail to understand it. I am not arguing that Bush is an intellectual giant; I am actually arguing that Gore is every bit as much of a dumbass as Bush. Look at how many "lies" (misstatements, inaccuracies, etc) Gore has been caught in. To say so many easily verifiable lies suggests to me that either Gore is a complete idiot or that he supposes that the American people are idiots who will not bother to check his so-called facts (note that I am not suggesting Bush does this less, only that they are equal). So if Gore truly is an intellectual, his opinion of the intelligence of americans is frightening. Personally, I am not quite sure he or Bush can really be considered the brightest crayon in the box.
I also fail to be convinced by Gore's academic record, which is mediocre at best, or his speechs and debates, where most politicians are merely robots spouting off comments composed by someone else.
First, let me me be clear on the fact that I am not voting for Gore or Bush. I am voting for Harry Browne, in part because he does not find things like Internet censorship as appealing as Gore and Bush.
However, I do want to refute the notion that Gore is some sort of intellectual. Look at some of the many lies he has been caught in (the union song that was created when he was 27 that he said his Mom sung to him as a lullaby; the arthiritis drug that he said his mom paid $100 and his dog paid $37; the fact that he claims extensive law knowledge from the law school that he dropped out of; etc, etc). I expect politicians to lie to me (I am a cynic), but Gore's lies are so blantently obvious that I am convinced that either he is a moron or he believes the American puplic are morons. Either way, I would never vote for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that ./ers seem so opposed to suing vidoe game manufactures, yet are all for blaming the guns? Maybe neither is to blame, maybe both are to blame, but the principles that tell me that it is wrong to sue the manufacter of a device because an individual misuses the device--either uses it for an incorrect purpose (guns) or takes it WAY too seriously and is therefore mentally affected (video games)-- by it seem to apply in both cases. Let's face it, gun manufacters will always have a reason to manufacture guns--if solely for the police and military. So long as there are guns made, Americans will be able to get ahold of them (I am using things like the drug war, prostitution, and prohibition as examples of how banning something does not do a whole lot to remove it from society). Are we always going to accept people blaming guns and gun manufacters everytime a child kills? When are we going to ask ourselves why the child kills instead of how is he able to? Until we take a hard look at why a child kills, video games, guns, books, the iternet, and freedom in general is in danger (note that I do not consider taking away guns as taking away my freedom, I just think it is serving as a "quick fix" for politicians who do not want to handle the more difficult issue. I also do not believe it will be effective in stopping the killings.)
He seems to be complaining, although indirectly, about the same problem that plagues much of computer technology--the lack of a set of unbiased, well-defined standards. I do not think he would have an issue with ICANN (perhaps I am supposing too much here) if they had very specific guidelines that had been agreed upon by much of the internet community (maybe a online vote...I really have no idea how this could be done). Of course, standardization has its own problems, but I do not know if there is a perfect solution.
That was suppose to be white was the minority, for those of you who believe all mormons are racist...
Stupid me...responding to what is a pointless debate. First of all, most of your complaints may well be true as far as Utah goes. What I would like people to understand is that UTAH DOES NOT EQUAL MORMONISM. Utah is mormonism at its very worst, at its most extreme position. I grew up in a small Mormon church in New Mexico, where white was the majority in the church (I think there was about one other white family in the word). I loved the diversity. People would give speeches in spanish, we would be taught Indian dances with chants sung by Pueblo Indians. I loved the church I grew up in and I am sorry your experience made you so hateful. Most people in my church did not go on a mission, and no one really cared. Tithing is not demanded, only recommended (again no one in my church cared...). No one I knew cared if you drank or not... As far as your proofs, would it make you feel better if I say you are right? The fact is, I don't care...does that make me ignorant and stupid...probably in your mind. But going to church makes me happy, and it makes my daughters happy...and I would guess that if you found something that made you equally happy, you wouldn't care what someone said about it (for instance, if someone was to tell you that alcohol was bad for you...do you really give a shit?)
Your posting is so riddled with inaccuracies, outright lies and bias, that I hardly know where to start. First off: missionary work: 100% voluntary. Very few mormons I know went on a mission. Second: 10% Tithing...this is a standard recommended tithing for most religions. No one other than the bishop (head of the church) has any knowledge of whether you pay it or not, and he will not say anything to you if you never pay a time. It is strictly a voluntary, private thing. And I have no clue what you are talking about "sex in the next life" for... Drinking cokes is perfectly acceptable, so perhaps those condescending looks you are getting are for another reason. Also, no mormon I know (and I grant you they are a bit more fanatical in Utah) really gives a dam if you drink (or cuss...) Also, as for your debunking theory, one could argue the whole notion of the existence of a deity had been "debunked". I have never seen so-called "proofs of the absence of god" or proofs that a holy writing is fiction really prove anything. Finally, who cares if it is true or not? If I want to believe the world was started by a race of green, 3-headed aliens...why should you care?
I am an active Mormon, so I am a little bothered by the anti-mormon attitude throughout these postings. The problems with Salt Lake (and I acknowledge there are many) have very little to do with the particular religion and everything to do with the face that everyone is a member of that religion. I grew up in a predominatly catholic community, and they had many of the same problems. The problem is in the lack of diversity, and you can see the same problems come up anywhere the vast majority of the population holds the same, strong religous (or political for those you take their politics very seriously) beliefs. If you don't believe me, take a look around you. Chances are pretty good that one of you co-workers is one of those fanatical mormons you are talking about...
The fundamental question here is what are reasonable expectations a person can legally have in regards to their private computer. It is wrong to suggest that anytime a users hits "public file sharing" that they understand and accept the consequences. It is also wrong to suggest that public file sharing amounts to a legal acceptance of other user's using ones personal computer. Simply because someone has made it technically feasible (without doing any cracking) to use their computer does not imply a legal acceptance. I am not saying for sure that what these people are doing is legal or illegal, but I do believe that the case for illegal is more heavily weighted.
The gun control issue is hardly as simplistic as these posts would like to pretend. It is not about protection from a potentially tryannical government, and it is not aboutAmerica's culture of violence (which, although I love America, I have to admit does exist). It is about personal freedoms. Americans are extremely of all freedoms. We are willing to sacrifice some in exchange for living with less crime, but there has to be some definate correlation between the sacrifice of one of our rights and the drop in crime. I don't see this correlation with gun control; for every statistic that shows the drop in crime, another contradicts. At best, the results are inconclusive. So, then, are we willing to give up one of our freedoms for a possible drop in crime? The international community fails to understand why we do not do this. I ask you to look at our history in regulating items that too many people desire. We attempted prohibition and spurned the mafia. Our war on drugs has been a miserable failure that has led to gross prison overcrowding and hundreds of lives lost. We ban prostition and create an enviroment where women are forced into sexual slavery and young girls are turned into prostition (I am aware legalizing would not eliminate these problems; I am arguing they would lessen them). The fact is, Americans obey laws when they agree with them. You may argue that this is what is wrong with America; I say this is what makes America great. I see no reason why strict gun control would be any less of a fiasco. Already many multiple shootings were done with guns the people should never have been able to buy.
Politics suck. There is no question about that. However, it is politicians who make laws, and lawyers who interpret laws. As long as technologically literate people avoid politics, laws and rulings will continue to be made in favor of big business and against movements such as the open source movement. I plan on going to law school after getting my masters (in computer science). When I say this, people look at me as though I have gone to the dark side. I feel, however, that trying to fight the system from the outside has proven to be almost entirely ineffective. We need more people who understand the technology fighting for our rights. Thank you for posting the why politics matter.
Honestly, it is something I do not get. Where exactly do people get the idea that Gore is an intelectual while Bush is a dumbass? I know it is a view that is stated by most as fact, but I fail to understand it. I am not arguing that Bush is an intellectual giant; I am actually arguing that Gore is every bit as much of a dumbass as Bush. Look at how many "lies" (misstatements, inaccuracies, etc) Gore has been caught in. To say so many easily verifiable lies suggests to me that either Gore is a complete idiot or that he supposes that the American people are idiots who will not bother to check his so-called facts (note that I am not suggesting Bush does this less, only that they are equal). So if Gore truly is an intellectual, his opinion of the intelligence of americans is frightening. Personally, I am not quite sure he or Bush can really be considered the brightest crayon in the box. I also fail to be convinced by Gore's academic record, which is mediocre at best, or his speechs and debates, where most politicians are merely robots spouting off comments composed by someone else.
First, let me me be clear on the fact that I am not voting for Gore or Bush. I am voting for Harry Browne, in part because he does not find things like Internet censorship as appealing as Gore and Bush. However, I do want to refute the notion that Gore is some sort of intellectual. Look at some of the many lies he has been caught in (the union song that was created when he was 27 that he said his Mom sung to him as a lullaby; the arthiritis drug that he said his mom paid $100 and his dog paid $37; the fact that he claims extensive law knowledge from the law school that he dropped out of; etc, etc). I expect politicians to lie to me (I am a cynic), but Gore's lies are so blantently obvious that I am convinced that either he is a moron or he believes the American puplic are morons. Either way, I would never vote for him.