Explored this in great detail. It also shows just how multi-faceted the problem is. Not just limited to liberals or republicans or unions or gun-toting texans.
IMO the biggest problem is us. While many problems exist, there are many decent solutions to them but require major change which generally speaking we fear. How many times have you heard a political candidate say something that you agree with, and say to yourself "man that's a great idea, too bad they're not electable." Why aren't they electable, because they want to bring change* when people really want a calm status quo.
*The current president doesn't count. His version of change is "not W" which isn't bad in itself, it's just not the change we need.
If you want a real social networking framework to start from, check out elgg. They've thought about many of the problems when considering a social graph
First of all, I never claimed to be a smart individual;]
In 1821, 93% of New York children were attending private schools (E.G. West, "The Political Economy of American Public School Legislation," Journal of Law and Economics, 1967, pg127). There was a fear that because of all of these schools were Catholic, it could potentially force Protestants to convert to Catholicism. The solution was a sort of "voucher" system (sound familiar) in which the states provided per pupil subsidies for Protestant schools. The Free Schools Act of 1867 then nationalized these Protestant schools, creating the public school system of today. The state then essentially ran a price war to gain a majority, which is why public high school students tend to be wealthy.
Public education has taken an overwhelming majority in the pre-university levels. Private institutions of higher learning are all we have left before the government controls a frightening majority of our ENTIRE educational system. This may not turn out to be a bad thing, BUT the fact that the government could POTENTIALLY start "brainwashing" our citizens through the educational system is enough to turn me off of the idea.
Alumni of said institutes. Look at Olin College. 100% completely free education on the assumption that their alumni will donate back to keep an endowment large enough to maintain the school.
Most of what a school generates in donations is from alumni of the school. Those large donations that earn a building name are usually from friends of trustees, deans, or other officers of the school, and are rare (relative to smaller donations).
My father is a letter carrier, didn't go to college, and doesn't make much money. He did, however, work hard and maintained a good credit rating. I go to a private university, mostly covered by loans in both mine and my father's name, with the understanding that I take over those loans when I graduate because I should have the ability to pay for them.
Just because someone doesn't make that much money doesn't mean they can't afford private schooling. It's all about making smart choices and taking personal responsibility.
If you want a better investment, I'd say take those tax dollars for public schools (or any donation money) and give them to private school's endowments. That would make private education very cheap, and keep it out of the hands of the government. They have enough to worry about.
All of your statistics don't disprove the point I was trying to make. It is only common sense that if take away guns, gun related crime will go down. But what about statistics for every other crime? You just did the same thing the NRA does, but only for you benefit.
You live in Australia, that's what you want (I am assuming), and that's great for you. I don't want to own a gun solely for hunting purposes. I want the freedom not to be afraid when I walk down the streets of Newark at 3am. (You see, the freedom of fear can't be enforce through laws. Fear is person specific, and it is up to the individual to not be afraid.)
You (not nessecarily you) don't want me to carry a gun because you are afraid that I may kill someone with it. Sounds like pre-emptive self defense to me, remind you of any "great" world leaders?
You make good a good argument, but it's really hard (at least I haven't found any proof over the years) to prove your points.
Yes, let's look outside the US. Austrailia and Britian have outlawed firearms. Look at their violent crime rates. Even in Iraq, firearms are being heavily restricted.
Anarchy? I am simply saying that there is absolutely no reason every state should have a carry permit system. Republicanism is far from anarchy. Even if this recording system is in place, it is not going to catch anyone who is carrying legally.
I agree it will cut down the "number and type of shots" argument. That may deter some, but many will still commit the crimes.
Throw people in jail for owning an Ak-47? That sure sounds like freedom to me (especially since they've been permantely banned since '89).
I do understand it is possible (though not really) to get a carry permit in NYC.
It is a hell of a lot easier in the state, this I know (Monroe county is pretty easy). But in order to do so, you must submit fingerprints which are submitted to the NY State police and the FBI. These are then in turn entered in the criminal databases, effectively making you (more like treating you like) a criminal.
It's interesting that LA, Chicago, DC, NYC, and Philly have the highest crime and murder rates in the nation, yet also have made it all but illegal to legally own a firearm.
This system may deter crime, but the ultimate deterrant would be to allow citizens to legally carry firearms. Think about it from the criminals perspective; would your rather mug/rob/rape/attemp to murder someone in Vermont where the victom is possibly packing, or in LA/Chi/etc where weapons can only be kept at home unloaded with the ammo in a seperate container out of reach?
And I bet if a cop catches you with a knife in your pocket, you'd be arrested. I carry a big knife: http://www.knifeworks.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIE WPROD&ProdID=2984
because only a criminal can carry a gun in NY State. Is that knife rediculous? Maybe, but it also happened to make quick work of 6-guage wire at work. =]
I think it was something like 77% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Anyway, why are hot burglaries so low in the US? Ask a criminal, it's because they don't want to get shot. Why are hot burglaries so high in the UK? Because people don't own firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
NYC Mayor Bloomberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
EE from Johns Hopkins
John Sununu Sr.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Sununu
John Sununu Jr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Sununu
Both MechE's from MIT
Explored this in great detail. It also shows just how multi-faceted the problem is. Not just limited to liberals or republicans or unions or gun-toting texans.
IMO the biggest problem is us. While many problems exist, there are many decent solutions to them but require major change which generally speaking we fear. How many times have you heard a political candidate say something that you agree with, and say to yourself "man that's a great idea, too bad they're not electable." Why aren't they electable, because they want to bring change* when people really want a calm status quo.
*The current president doesn't count. His version of change is "not W" which isn't bad in itself, it's just not the change we need.
From TFA (http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/a_variousfields.png):
Feature: Accuracy
Baseline (Female): 54.9%
One tweet: 65.9%
Description: 71.2%
All tweets: 75.8%
Screen Name: 77.1%
Full Name: 89.1%
Tweets + screen name: 81.4%
Screen name + description + all tweets: 84.3%
All four fields: 92%
Honestly, 77% based on screen name alone was the most interesting result to me.
Can the entire device be encrypted yet? From what I've seen, this seems to be the biggest concern from a corporate point of view.
Drupal is CMS with social networking tacked on.
If you want a real social networking framework to start from, check out elgg. They've thought about many of the problems when considering a social graph
www.elgg.org
... and your appearance may not present an image that is good for the company...
"Just ask yourself: Is this good for the company"
The gladiators had the highest salaries in the empire...
Let them try it, and let the free market decide.
First of all, I never claimed to be a smart individual ;]
In 1821, 93% of New York children were attending private schools (E.G. West, "The Political Economy of American Public School Legislation," Journal of Law and Economics, 1967, pg127). There was a fear that because of all of these schools were Catholic, it could potentially force Protestants to convert to Catholicism. The solution was a sort of "voucher" system (sound familiar) in which the states provided per pupil subsidies for Protestant schools. The Free Schools Act of 1867 then nationalized these Protestant schools, creating the public school system of today. The state then essentially ran a price war to gain a majority, which is why public high school students tend to be wealthy.
Public education has taken an overwhelming majority in the pre-university levels. Private institutions of higher learning are all we have left before the government controls a frightening majority of our ENTIRE educational system. This may not turn out to be a bad thing, BUT the fact that the government could POTENTIALLY start "brainwashing" our citizens through the educational system is enough to turn me off of the idea.
Alumni of said institutes. Look at Olin College. 100% completely free education on the assumption that their alumni will donate back to keep an endowment large enough to maintain the school.
Most of what a school generates in donations is from alumni of the school. Those large donations that earn a building name are usually from friends of trustees, deans, or other officers of the school, and are rare (relative to smaller donations).
My father is a letter carrier, didn't go to college, and doesn't make much money. He did, however, work hard and maintained a good credit rating. I go to a private university, mostly covered by loans in both mine and my father's name, with the understanding that I take over those loans when I graduate because I should have the ability to pay for them.
Just because someone doesn't make that much money doesn't mean they can't afford private schooling. It's all about making smart choices and taking personal responsibility.
If you want a better investment, I'd say take those tax dollars for public schools (or any donation money) and give them to private school's endowments. That would make private education very cheap, and keep it out of the hands of the government. They have enough to worry about.
compared to when you take a look at this interesting take on the future of news and media delivery:
http://www.letitblog.com/epic/
All of your statistics don't disprove the point I was trying to make. It is only common sense that if take away guns, gun related crime will go down. But what about statistics for every other crime? You just did the same thing the NRA does, but only for you benefit.
You live in Australia, that's what you want (I am assuming), and that's great for you. I don't want to own a gun solely for hunting purposes. I want the freedom not to be afraid when I walk down the streets of Newark at 3am. (You see, the freedom of fear can't be enforce through laws. Fear is person specific, and it is up to the individual to not be afraid.)
You (not nessecarily you) don't want me to carry a gun because you are afraid that I may kill someone with it. Sounds like pre-emptive self defense to me, remind you of any "great" world leaders?
You make good a good argument, but it's really hard (at least I haven't found any proof over the years) to prove your points.
Yes, let's look outside the US. Austrailia and Britian have outlawed firearms. Look at their violent crime rates. Even in Iraq, firearms are being heavily restricted.
Anarchy? I am simply saying that there is absolutely no reason every state should have a carry permit system. Republicanism is far from anarchy. Even if this recording system is in place, it is not going to catch anyone who is carrying legally.
I agree it will cut down the "number and type of shots" argument. That may deter some, but many will still commit the crimes.
Throw people in jail for owning an Ak-47? That sure sounds like freedom to me (especially since they've been permantely banned since '89).
Yes, I do consult, and love packing.org.
I do understand it is possible (though not really) to get a carry permit in NYC.
It is a hell of a lot easier in the state, this I know (Monroe county is pretty easy). But in order to do so, you must submit fingerprints which are submitted to the NY State police and the FBI. These are then in turn entered in the criminal databases, effectively making you (more like treating you like) a criminal.
It's interesting that LA, Chicago, DC, NYC, and Philly have the highest crime and murder rates in the nation, yet also have made it all but illegal to legally own a firearm.
E WPROD&ProdID=2984
This system may deter crime, but the ultimate deterrant would be to allow citizens to legally carry firearms. Think about it from the criminals perspective; would your rather mug/rob/rape/attemp to murder someone in Vermont where the victom is possibly packing, or in LA/Chi/etc where weapons can only be kept at home unloaded with the ammo in a seperate container out of reach?
And I bet if a cop catches you with a knife in your pocket, you'd be arrested. I carry a big knife: http://www.knifeworks.com/index.asp?PageAction=VI
because only a criminal can carry a gun in NY State. Is that knife rediculous? Maybe, but it also happened to make quick work of 6-guage wire at work. =]
Google aim client?
I thought GAIM already existed.
I dont really consider wireless acess a freebie, as that is part of the school's network.
Even most schools that have these Napster like services make the students pay for music. I wouldn't exactly call that free.
Good schools will still attract students based on academic reputation, not on freebies.
..that a google ad appeared below this article.
Acting in "self-defense" doesn't make an action morally defensible.
Even so, it's not in your or the government's right or power to tell me I can't protect myself. Am I supposed to just lay down and submit to everyone?
I think it was something like 77% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Anyway, why are hot burglaries so low in the US? Ask a criminal, it's because they don't want to get shot. Why are hot burglaries so high in the UK? Because people don't own firearms.
It was meant to be funny, and I knew what you relly meant.
I do believe that the government has no right to know what I do, even if it is a measure of "national security."
=]
Was the American Revolution won with a computer? Will the 2nd? (possibly)
Don't get me wrong, computers are a very versatile tool but fireamrs are just as important.
This is why we have so many gun laws, because if you said that in person, I'd probably shoot you.
When will they understand that computers are simply tools?
When will they understand firearms are simply tools? Now you know how peace loving gun owners have been feeling for years.