Actually, I wonder if perhaps the wrong tack was taken in re. elephants and ivory. Why not allow them to be farmed for their tusks? We farm cattle for their meat, and we see no drop-off in oxen. Why, there are probably more domesticated cattle than there are wild cattle.
As it is, the ivory trade is still around, but is utterly unregulated. Legalise it, regulate it and then we can save elephants as a species while still using ivory piano keys, billiard balls, knife handles, tie tacks &c. It's an attractive substance with many uses; why not use it?
I believe from my electronics days that this is wrong, that any voltage will--not can--kill at sufficient amperage. We used to say that it's not voltage that kills but amperage. As an example, a car battery has less voltage than two nine-volts in series, but far far far more amperage, and it can melt out pieces of the terminal.
There is a significant difference, though. A Colt firearm functions exactly as expected by the user. No sane man expects to shoot something and have ive cream and strawberries rain down on his target; he expects the target to get a hole through it. Unfortunately a lot of users expect a Microsoft OS to help them get work down. They're terribly wrong, of course; a Microsoft OS gets in the way of work.
MS Windows: less elegant than X/Motif, less stable than Mac OS. MS Windows: The choice of a foolish generation. MS Windows: You'll pity the dead. MS Windows: You can't be this bad by accident. MS Windows: Designed to lose.
We have all these security programs which store all known exploits and test against them. How difficult would it be to write a program which uses all known security exploits? The idea is that this would be an auto-cracker. Start running it, and it would attempt to crack various hosts (perh. by sniffing the TCP/IP stack).
The key would that each cracked host would receive a fairly small stub which would be used to perform the rest of the manipulations. This stub would use some back channel to communicate with its master--I envision either unused IP protocols or data payloads on ICMP packets. Both of those are currently used and can be detected by current security systems, though, so perhaps something trickier is in order--superfluous cookies in HTTP traffic or something. The idea would be that hosts would communicate not for speed but for stealth. Piggybacking on legitimate communications is ideal.
Communications would need to be encrypted; it would be a Very Bad Thing if they were readable. Some sort of stable organisation would need to be developed, either using traditional terrorist cell theory or, alternatively, the cell theory used in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The idea here is that no one hosts knows very many other infected hosts; just enough to communicate. The IPs of its master and children would be all that would be needed--with any luck, the IP only of its master.
Each stub would spend its time looking for more hosts to infect. The problem here would be double-infections. Establishing a pass-phrase could make it easy for detection of infected systems, so someone good at this sort of math needs to work out the right way to do this.
A suite of utilities for each platform would need to be developed which are able to mask the presence of the problem. They would report untrue disk usages--perhaps the progs would live in the unused bits of disk blocks--as well as false CPU usage times. Of course processes would be run very niced, so that CPU hit would be unnoticeable.
If this were coded properly it would be well-nigh undetectable. It could be used to carry out calculations, or just for the sheer fun of it. Imagine being able to brag that one owns 3 1/2 million hosts...
Many of us prefer not to use metric units. You do your thing, we do ours. It would have been useful to have both scales. It's not like we're using Uzebki kumquats for a unit; our system has been around for a long time.
Personally, I intensely dislike the metric system. Many many people harbour as great a dislike of standard units. The proper way to settle this sort of thing is to use both systems. That way everyone is happy.
I am currently working on a LaTeX version of the documentation. Go to http://latakia.dyndns.org/~ruhl/playst ation/ to take a look. It is a work in progress, but every change I make will be mirrored on the site immediately (the magic of hard links!).
This is a dashed good point--I'd never quite thought of it like that.
An OS is just a device which manages resources; everything else an application. That includes things such as file browsers, graphics systems, window managers and the rest.
The problem is that a computer sold with just an OS is not very useful; it cannot do anything useful to most users. So the question arises: what is the minimal amount of software needed for a `complete' system? Unfortunately, opinions will differ on this one. I would argue that the following things are needed:
file commands
This can be anything from cat/more/rm/mv/ls to a full-fledged Finder, Explorer or Midnight Commands environment. But this is vital to the use of the computer; the user can do nothing without it.
screen software
This can be anything from a simple command-line to curses to QuickDraw, the Windows graphics API or X+window manager. But it is obviously important that the user be able to deal with the computer.
This list is probably not complete, but these are the bits I can think of right now.
I do not believe that Internet applications are properly within the realm of the OS distribution. They are and should be add-ons; users should have a choice. OTOH it is appropriate for the distribution to provide hooks in the OS or file browser for Internet awareness: NFS, FTP or HTTP filesystems (take a look at anarchie for what an HTTP filesystem might look like).
Bundling third-party software is fine, but there is a problem with bundling one's own software: users are much less likely to replace an OS-branded component than a third party one, and there is a strong temptation to use hidden protocols to get things done. I do not believe that it is possible to integrate any third-party browser into a Windows machine as tightly as IE is, even if one were to write it from scratch. I may be wrong on that, though.
The goal should be something like what we have on Unix boxes. Distributions provide all sorts of tools (or don't: e.g. cc...), but they are all compatible, follow standards and can be replaced easily. This is one of my problems with Gnome/KDE: they are not drop-in replacements for each other, and they tend to break the older way of doing things. For good reasons, no doubt, but still I dislike them for it.
The Mac used to be something like this. In the old days there were Minifinders and Microfinders which offered some of the Finder's functionality with less overhead. The Mac is still light-years ahead of Windows, which is a dank cesspit of folly.
Heh. Right now my Linux box will not boot without a boot floppy. It used to boot from HD, but I rebuilt the kernel and cannot get the new one to work unless it's a boot floppy. Figures, eh?
Actually, it's an interesting phenomenon to examine. I happen to be a staunch libertarian--call me crazy, but I like freedom--so perhaps my viewpoint may be of some use.
The great hope for democracy was that the average man would be enlightened and less likely to be tyrannical than the elite. As we all know, this hope was misplaced; the common man is just as bad as anyone else.
It really doesn't matter what sort of government one lives under. As long as that government recognises the liberties which are inherent and proper to man (speech, conscience, religion, arms-bearing &c.), who cares howit may be run? The only reason that we ever wanted a popular government was the hope that it would respect our rights. If a government of men wearing robes and silly hats is willing to respect the rights due the individual, well then bring them on!
Incidentally, censorware is not necessarily a bad thing. It has one use: by parents. A parent has a right to control his children (I believe this, anyway; there is debate, but I've yet to be swayed). Anyone who acts in loco parentis has a derived right to use censorware. No one else does--not one at all.
Actually, that's a little bit wrong. Anyone in control of those without rights can use censorware. So parents, wardens and military officers may use censorware. But the point still stands.
Censorware in libraries, OTOH, is a bad idea. Just put the 'puter carrels out in public. Worked when I was a kid...
It's all a matter of taste. Many of us happen to find the taste of alcohol quite pleasurable in addition to the sensations it can cause (in moderation, of course; I don't think anyone enjoys being queasy and puking). Interestingly, the ill side effects of over-drinking are much like over-eating: stomach ache, queasiness, vomiting, utter misery &c. Yet very few people call for the abolition of food and the instatement of IVs for nutrition (they actually exist, but they're rather a minority).
Tobacco is the same. I happen to enjoy the way a pipe tastes and smells. Cigars are quite pleasant every once in awhile. I don't care for American cigarettes, but European can be pleasant.
Of course, others disagree. That is, in a way, my point: it is a matter on which rational men may disagree; it is a matter of taste.
As far as either habit necessarily being self-destructive, I take issue with that, but that is for another day.
Mr. Katz took alcohol too far. He probably used it to assuage the misery of his daily life. On the one hand this is a terrible thing to do, but on the other if one's life is that bad, who are we to deny one the sole recourse left? I feel genuinely sorry for him. In this world of Internet start-ups and 23 year old billionaires, Mr. Katz somehow missed the boat. He made a great contribution and society never rewarded him for it.
There are two schools of thought on this, and research can be found to support either point. IMHO, it is better to take everything in moderation. An alcoholic and a teetotaller are the same in my book: extremists. Far far better to drink a glass of wine with dinner, or have a beer with a friend, than to drink oneself into oblivion or to sit around drinking lemonade--a far worse oblivion.
Extremism in all forms is to be avoided.
Re: Turning Microsoft's Art into a Commodity
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 3
This really points out one of the massive problems with a limited-license proprietary product. A site could be set up to serve a very small number of users, but when it is momentarily slashdotted due to media attention it can no longer serve as high a percentage of its customers. Bad thing to build a business on, if you ask me.
Well, the problem is not that Be did not read a license agreement, but that they made a mistake. All the other GPLed software they include does have source; some peon or other forgot to include the source of this stuff on the FTP site. He made a mistake; it was not deliberate. And certain people seem to think that Be did this on purpose.
We all make mistakes. We all write buggy software. The bugfix should have been private, but was not.
I just want to say that I think that this is very mature of Mr. Perens. He admits that his actions may have been a tad on the hasty side of things, and recognises that perhaps waiting might have been a bit more considered. This works for me.
I disagree with his action (i.e., posting early), but I think that I can safely say that I still respect him.
That said, it is much better to wait until the party in violation has changed or refuses to change before making it public. It enables the great unwashed masses to make better decisions; as it is, too many may have been a tad `knee-jerkish.' I hate to imagine what several of those Be mailboxes look like atm...
It's an interesting theory, but it has one problem, which is that, while Jesus spoke in Aramaic to an Aramaic-speaking audience, His words were written (many years later) in Greek by a member of that audience (one of the evenagelists). The reason that the Gospels were written in Greek is the same as the reason that nowadays things are written in English; it was the lingua franca of its age. Anyway, it's rather doubtful that the chap who wrote it down was having trouble with his native tongue.
Esp. because the other version makes a lot more sense. I have heard, though, that there is a geological formation known as the Eye of the Needle which is very narrow. Camels are the donkeys of the Middle East and are difficult to persuade. So it is difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of said needle...
Again, it's not impossible, but requires a bit of work.
My point about hunting was that it is one of the activities in which there is no denial of responsibility. The animal is dead, for better or for worse. No way to get around that. Now, there are those who leave it to rot (I'd like to leave them to rot!), but my point is that it is impossible to breathe life back into that corpse. Thus, with any luck, the hunter learns that his actions have irreversible results. And hopefully this leads him to consider his actions a little bit more carefully. Obviously, it doesn't work with everyone.
I think that I addressed the whole thing about trapping; it's less fair and less sporting. If we used traps the beaver would be dead by now; instead we shoot and not a single beaver has died yet. Yeah, it hasn't exactly helped the final goal of restoring some balance to the lake, but OTOH it has kept us true to our ideals.
Not that I'm against trapping; it has its place. But I personally don't wish to do it.
When I say that good ecology is Genesis 1, what I mean is that in there it says that man has dominion over the earth; he has power over it and is able to do what he will. But with this power comes responsibility; what Christian would deny that God demands an accounting for the use of His gifts? Much is expected from those to whome much is given. It's the parable of the talents all over again.
Which is why I oppose the misuse of the earth and why I support wise-use and conservation efforts. That and I sort of like the place:-)
The mechanism which should have been instituted was the same as was used for the empty lands in America's West: first to transmit into an area has broadcast rights to it. Thus anyone else is a trespasser.
Then standard property rights would go into effect.
I would imagine that some rule such as `must broadcast continually from a solid radio emplacement for 6 months, during which time no interference may be attempted' would have been put in place to cut down on abuse. A proper function of government, and it would have never lead to the current regulatory regime in which no-one owns the airwaves.
I pointed out the ways in which the high population level (remember we want to control them, not exterminate them) is a problem. They have ceased going after saplings and are now attacking older growth. These are trees which have stood in one place for 15-25 years, but are now being killed to no end; the beavers instinctually cut them down but are unable to drag them into place. They `girdle' them but make no use of them. This land is mostly wild, but what parts man has tamed or cleared have been put to use. Maybe 8 acres have been cleared: a road, a house, a donkey pen, a chicken yard and a junkyard. Every tree that was cut down was used for something. Every grass mowed was used to feed a goat. But the beaver kill for no good end; they kill out of instinct but make no use of their kill.
In addition to this they are causing a problem with the fish and the local animal population. Their increased numbers have caused a rise in the incidence of disease amongst all animals: beaver, armadillo, deer, coyote, feral dog, cat and even some fowl. Their great numbers have had an effect upon the fish population of the lakes involved. I do not know why the population rose as it did. No doubt there is some good, although probably accidental, reason. But the end result will be starvation and death for all species unless the population is brought more in line with what it should be. And that is where we come in.
Have you some reason to arse about with guns other than it's more fun? Are you, in fact, taking pleasure from (trying to) hurt these animals and are reluctant to finish the job quickly?
It is more sporting to try to shoot them. Trapping would be the most effective alternative; it is how one kills beaver commercially. But it's not terribly fair to the beaver; it is not pitted in a contest against a foe it can smell and hear, but against one which is invisible and which, in fact, draws it in with bait. We choose to hunt them because it is a contest of skill: our skill to find and to shoot (which, BTW, is more difficult than any movie shows; try hitting a moving target about 3x3 in. in the water as it dives at night with a mist on the lake) versus the beavers' to detect, warn and evade. So far the beaver have won. That's more than fair.
You are right though; there is something fun in it. But it is not fun in the suffering of an animal. It is the fun of the chase. Have you ever played tag or hide-and-seek? Those are but vague shadows of hunting. There is nothing like the thrill that runs through one at the sound of the approaching animal. First there is the rustling (or, in our case, the splashing). The noise may approach, or it may depart (always a disappointment). The tensions builds. Then--at last--the sighting! Now the rifle is raised, the hunter tracks the animal through the scope. He waits until he has a good shot at the vitals; there is no honour to shooting a beast in the leg or gut where it will slowly and painfully die. No, the hunter holds his fire until he has a good chance of hitting the head or chest. He steels himself, and fires. The shot hits, and it is over within a few seconds. That is the most horrible moment of all for me: when I see that I have just taken life. I don't enjoy that at all. But I enjoy the thrill of the chase, the wait, the anticipation, the joy of a good shot and the taste of meat I have killed and dressed myself.
Killing is a nasty bloody business. The hunter knows that: he sees it happen before his eyes. The vain consumer never sees it; meat somes in a plastic package like all his food. But the hunter saw an animal that was alive and healthy, and he changed that in an instant. Then he took responsibility for his action: he dressed the animal and prob. butchered it. The consumer has no idea what is involved. He has no sense of responsibility.
Oh give me a break. Thank god for these selfless individuals out in the wilderness, day and night tirelessly protecting nature from itself and the rest of us stay-at-homes from the rage of the wild beaver.
Hunters kill not out of joy of killing, but from the joy of hunting. Killing is a part of that, it is true. But it has to be. The pursuit is much more fun than the attainment of the goal; the hunt is more fun than the kill.
t is a logical inconsistancy to say you are killing random animals (I assume you don't actually raise them to hunt them, like some foxhunters do in the UK) because of respect for the farm animals raised for the purpose and which will be killed in their millions anyway, regardless of your actions. It is a logical inconsistancy to say that you spend so much time and effort to kill these animals without pay and without being asked by the govt or other body which could force you to do it and then to claim that you don't get pleasure out of it. You don't seem to realise that the very real pleasure of hunting is not in the kill. At least, not to a mentally stable person. It is in the contact with nature (a far bloodier master than any man, that is certain), in the outdoors, in the pursuit and the tracking, in the technical skill involved in shooting. To do all these things without shooting is to be false about it. That is why I cannot subscribe to the `shoot nothing but pictures' philosophy: it feels empty to me. Others may differ, of course. But if one is going to indulge the instinctual urge to hunt, it seems to be lying to stop just short of the ultimate goal.
(about blackpowder pistol season for hares) Why is this any different from using a machine gun?
It is very different. The difficulty makes it a fairer and more sporting match. Believe it or not, hunting does not consist of driving to a field, walking up to a deer and shooting it through the head with a pistol. But it can be much easier with modern weapons. When one has become an excellent hunter with modern gear, it becomes time to up the ante and make things a little more difficult. IMHO, at least.
In re: taking pictures and not shooting.
Have you ever shot? I shoot quite frequently, but at cans or paper targets. These are a lot of fun--shooting is a challenging sport. But shooting at a real target is more of a challenge. It takes nerves and skill. Taking a picture involves these, but it is less real because it is less serious. There is nothing I know of more serious than levelling a weapon at another living being. In that moment the other creature goes from fellow to foe. It is an introduction to that principle which underlies all of life: competition. We compete with every other organism, from bacteria to plants to animals to other men.
This is not to say that we should wipe out any organism. We are called to be stewards of the Earth and its resources (good ecology is Genesis chapter 1). IMHO it is better stewardship to hunt than to merely by pre-killed meat. And there is fun in that shot. There is uncertainty. The animal is not dead until the round hits. At any moment a finger might shake, an arm might quiver, a branch might obstruct or the animal may bound away. That is fair. What chance does a cow have?
Not that I oppose the cattle industry. But I feel that hunting is a fairer means of procuring meat.
Man this is so off-topic that I will surely be moderated down...
How can I get this back on-topic? Lemme see...
On-topic Follows
Perhaps what high-schoolers need nowadays is an education in authenticity. Too many of them have been raised in an environment in which decisions have no consequences. There is no responsibility in their world. From the day they are born they are sheltered from every effect of their actions. They are not punished in any significant way, but are taught to feel good about themselves in the futile hope the self-esteem leads to respect for others.
They eat packaged meat, packaged vegetables and lead packaged lives. They watch a television in which problems never last more than an hour. They watch movies in which only the attractive side of violence is shown. The use computers in which anything can be undone (which is a nice capability, of course). But in real life there is no undo button. When you kill a man he dies; generally he dies in a graphic, painful and humiliating fashion. Too late to say `I'm sorry.' Too late to rethink things. Too late to hit undo.
Children are doing these things because they really don't understand the finality of their actions. They have been insulated all their lives from the unpleasant realities of life. And what better way to take out their frustrations then to carry out the common fantasy of killing one's classmates? Only problem is that in real life it matters; there's no way to bring someone back to life after his brain has been shot out the back of his head.
Children need to be disciplined. They need to be brought up to recognise some sort of right and wrong--I don't really care if it's my right and wrong. They need to realise that their actions have results. They need to see that life has no undo button. Hunting demonstrates that...
`No challenge'? Obviously you've never been hunting. A friend of mine owns about 160 acres with three lakes on it. Two of these lakes have a nasty beaver problem: about 40 beavers, when there should be maybe eight to twelve. They have killed all the saplings and are now working on the 15 to 25 year-old trees. The native coyotes and wild dogs are not working, and the beaver are spreading disease and contagion throughout the whole area.
We have made four hunting trips trying to get the damned nuisances. We have yet to shoot a single one. We've tried every method: dusk, dawn, spotlighting (legal for small game) &c. And we're not a bunch of hunting newbies; it's just that beaver are difficult animals. There is plenty of challenge, let me tell you.
As another points out, you must have a correlation in order for an indicator to work. Hunters and football players tend not to be sociopaths, unless you choose to define hunter or football player as sociopath, in which case it works out just fine. Hunters--at least responsible, mature hunters--are not in the sport for the fun of killing. They are in it for the challenge, for a love of nature and a respect of wildlife (believe it or not, these do not contradict killing said wildlife; does a hiker respect the trail he is cutting through the wilderness?), because they feel that it is a more authentic method of getting food, because they appreciate organic meat, because they feel that it is more humane &c. &c &c.
Yes, there are irresponsible hunters. But the majority of hunters look down on these. Unless you are a radical vegetarian (in which case I respect your opinion), it is a logical inconsistency to state that animals should be indutrially killed but not killed on a one-on-one basis.
There are instances of modern hunting where the reality is removed. Certain of the private hunting establishments amount to little more than shooting fish in a barrel. But on the other hand you have the bowhunting and blackpowder movements. Try shooting a snowhare with an 8 inch flintlock pistol when it is under 32 outside; it's not as easy as you might think. Try shooting a whitetail with an arrow after you've tracked it for an hour. Hell, forget shooting it; just try tracking it for an hour.
A lot of this is due to regional variations. In Montana I believe that it is considered unsporting to use corn or salt to attract deer, but in Texas no-one does anything but. This is due to the fact that in Texas private land is very small and hence the hunter cannot track across country, and public lands are dangerous, whereas in Montana public lands are open and safe. But the end result is that Montanans think that Texans are unethical and Texans think that Montanans are too strict. Who is right? If the Texans did not hunt as they do, then the deer population would undergo a Malthusian period of sickness and starvation.
On-Topic Stuff Here
To get a little bit more on-topic, those warning signs are pretty silly. Let's look at some of them:
frequent physical fighting--isn't this usual behaviour for children? Would you prefer emotional fighting or armed fighting?
increasing risk-taking behavior--isn't this what teenagers do? Ever hear of roller-coasters?
detailed plans to commit acts of violence--hasn't everyone had thoseat one time or another?
carrying a weapon--we did this all the time in my grade school. There wasn't a boy there who didn't carry a pocketknife. How times have changed...
Exactly. In my opinion, the social contract is that government will use its massive force in order to preserve the rights of the populace. Now, this necessarily entails quite a bit, but this is what it boils down to.
And a government which does not protect these rights is worse than useless. It takes its due but does not perform its duty.
A government which does more than this does too much; it intrudes upon what should be the private realm. Also, I have a feeling--I may be wrong--that any time a government steps beyond protecting rights it must inevitably violate rights. For example, welfare involves violating the property rights of the rich in order to better the lives of the poor. I will have to think about that one; it may not actually follow.
IMHO a right is something which must be allowed someone (well, until he has committed a crime and thus placed himself outside the protection of the law). Property, for example, is a right; I should not take the clothes off of your back, nor the fields which feed you. It follows from this, then, that nothing which denies someone his right can be a right.
This means that the so-called rights to food or health care are not rights; for them to be guaranteed you others must be deprived of their posessions. TANSTAAFL; if I wish to feed you then I must take that food from someone. Generally this means that a government which guarantees these `rights' must steal from some of its citizens in order to give to others.
Now, this is not to say that the poor should not be fed or the ill taken care of. Indeed, in my religion these are virtues. But what right have I to impose my religion of caring for others on those very same others? What right do I have to make a misanthrope pay to keep the poor alive? None. Instead, I give willingly of my own posessions to feed the poor and nurse the sick. But I will never make someone else do so.
The right to keep and bear arms does not deprive anyone else of anything: it does not deprive him of his faith, his opinion, his property, his life, his liberty or any other thing. Granted, a weapon can be used to do so, but that is a case of misuse. My freedom of religion could be sued to deprive you of religion, or life, or property, but only if misused.
The one (taking care of the destitute) is a moral duty; the other is a natural right.
That you do not feel that your right has been denied you does not make it any less so. For centuries people did not mind not being permitted to worship or speak freely. This did not mean that they lived under just regimes.
The Charter of Human Rights, IIRC, includes such insane `rights' as health care and food. That is utter nonsense (IMHO). Rights are in my opinion, things which do nto hurt other people: speech, religion, arms-bearing--not the improper use of arms, which does hurt others, just like the improper use of speech: e.g. `hang him!' to a mob. I hardly consider it a valid authority on what is and is not a human right. Instead, I seek a logic and rationale for determining what should and should not be considered a right. IMHO the right to bear arms is the most fundamental of all. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.
There are no eternal laws, but rights are eternal. They may be granted or denied, but the right itself is always a right, and any who denies it to another is a tyrant. All IMHO, of course.
Most people know lots of things, such as that shooting in the head will result in death. What most don't have is an instinctual understanding of facts. This is why the military spends so much money on training. The untrained person who walks into a room shoots at bodies, as they are an easier and larger target. The trained person will use head shots if they are possible (and in the short range of a room, they commonly are).
The untrained person raised on Hollywood films and some games will not hunch down low; his survival instinct has been conditioned out. He will stand out and will be cut down. The trained person will try to duck for cover and things along those lines. While a video game cannot teach the physical end of things, it can teach the mental aspect of all this.
As unbelievable as it may seem, most untrained people just stand still or run around when they hear gunshots. Most veterans hit the floor and find cover. This is the result of training.
You are right though; all of those experiences taught you how to kill. And they should all be legal, regardless of what they taught. That was my point.
BTW, it was an American officer holding a gun to a VC's head; the VC had just finished killing either a friend of his or his family. I forget which. But a picture never gives context; it just shows some poor fellow about to die.
It would not be so bad if people forgot the Second Amendment but remembered the reason for it. The posession of arms is as fundamental a human right as the freedoms of religion and speech and the right to freedom from torture and malicious prosecution. It is more fundamental than any 'right to vote' (which I would deny exists).
Arms-bearing is what seperates the free man from the slave. Among our ancestors the Germans when a slave was freed he was given a weapon as a token thereof. The Romans had a similar concept, I believe. Life is, in some ways, a power struggle. Government--good or bad, excellent or tyrannical--exercises its will through raw violence. It is impossible to do away with this; it is a fact of nature and of life. So we have two options: we can deny it, we can give up our right to wield violence for our own ends, cede our power to a monopolistic wielder of violence or we can reserve our right, the right which indicates our freedom, the right which demonstrates to all that we are not slaves of The Man but our own men.
Note that I do not mean that any individual has a hope against a government--he most certainly does not. That sort of conflict is not what I mean at all. It is the symbolism of the thing. When a young boy is given his first knife, he has attained a certain level of freedom. When he is given his first BB gun, he has reached another. When his father gives him his first.22 rifle, then he is well on the way to manhood.
I could go on about it more, about how familiarity with weapons leads to a greater sense of moral responsibility, but that would be off-topic.
On-Topic Stuff Here
This actually related to the video game issue. There are those who are against guns because they enable slaughter. But if they are against guns, then they must also be against violent video games, for video games also enable slaughter. Col. Grossman, whome I greatly dislike, does have a point. Those games do teach one how to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile (in some sense of that phrase; they cannot teach things like keeping the arms in tight).
But is this bad? Of course not. We already have the arguments against this. The video game does not cause anyone (save, perhaps, the demented, who could be set off by popcorn just as well as by video games) to murder. Neither does the gun. They are merely tools. The video game can teach some parts of combat readiness. The gun can be used in combat. But the choice to go into that combat, the choice to shoot and kill one's fellow man: that is made by a human being of his own free will.
I am a gun owner; I own a rifle and a handgun. I am responsible with my firearms. I never point a gun at something I do not wish to kill. I would rather shoot myself than someone else. Somehow that eeevvviiilll thing, the gun, has yet to turn me into a psychopath. But it has taught me a respect for life and death, for actions which do not have an 'undo' button: try looking at the body of an animal, knowing that you killed it and wishing that you could breath life back into it; try looking at the shattered remains of what was just a fraction of a second ago a perfectly normal beer bottle; try walking around with a device which if used properly is perfectly safe but which can be as deadly as anything else in this world. You learn that life isn't like a computer game. In real life no-one runs through a room figuring that he'll only get shot once or twice. No-one who knows what he is doing shoots someone without the clear idea that he is taking the life of a human being. The real world is for good; you cannot undo your actions by going to the Edit menu.
That is the problem with video games; they lead to a sense that nothing is permament. But this does not matter; it is our right to play video games just as much as it is our right to read what we will, believe what we will and wield what firepower we will. And I will defend anyone's right to play video games, and defend any video game manufacturer from this sort of foolish charge. Blame the craftsman, not the tools.
I daresay that I shall be moderated out of sight, but we shall see...
Well, I must admit that I actively like the taste of cold pizza. I have sometimes bought a pizza only to eat one piece, then leave it out or in the fridge to eat the next day. Very very tasty.
I think that part of the allure is that it doesn't fall apart like hot pizza does. I cannot stand anything more than getting cheese in my beard or burning my tongue on too-hot pizza. Those always-hot bags that Domino's introduced are the work of the devil:-) I always ask that they leave them unplugged.
Slashdot Mirror
As it is, the ivory trade is still around, but is utterly unregulated. Legalise it, regulate it and then we can save elephants as a species while still using ivory piano keys, billiard balls, knife handles, tie tacks &c. It's an attractive substance with many uses; why not use it?
I believe from my electronics days that this is wrong, that any voltage will--not can--kill at sufficient amperage. We used to say that it's not voltage that kills but amperage. As an example, a car battery has less voltage than two nine-volts in series, but far far far more amperage, and it can melt out pieces of the terminal.
MS Windows: less elegant than X/Motif, less stable than Mac OS. MS Windows: The choice of a foolish generation. MS Windows: You'll pity the dead. MS Windows: You can't be this bad by accident. MS Windows: Designed to lose.
We have all these security programs which store all known exploits and test against them. How difficult would it be to write a program which uses all known security exploits? The idea is that this would be an auto-cracker. Start running it, and it would attempt to crack various hosts (perh. by sniffing the TCP/IP stack).
The key would that each cracked host would receive a fairly small stub which would be used to perform the rest of the manipulations. This stub would use some back channel to communicate with its master--I envision either unused IP protocols or data payloads on ICMP packets. Both of those are currently used and can be detected by current security systems, though, so perhaps something trickier is in order--superfluous cookies in HTTP traffic or something. The idea would be that hosts would communicate not for speed but for stealth. Piggybacking on legitimate communications is ideal.
Communications would need to be encrypted; it would be a Very Bad Thing if they were readable. Some sort of stable organisation would need to be developed, either using traditional terrorist cell theory or, alternatively, the cell theory used in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The idea here is that no one hosts knows very many other infected hosts; just enough to communicate. The IPs of its master and children would be all that would be needed--with any luck, the IP only of its master.
Each stub would spend its time looking for more hosts to infect. The problem here would be double-infections. Establishing a pass-phrase could make it easy for detection of infected systems, so someone good at this sort of math needs to work out the right way to do this.
A suite of utilities for each platform would need to be developed which are able to mask the presence of the problem. They would report untrue disk usages--perhaps the progs would live in the unused bits of disk blocks--as well as false CPU usage times. Of course processes would be run very niced, so that CPU hit would be unnoticeable.
If this were coded properly it would be well-nigh undetectable. It could be used to carry out calculations, or just for the sheer fun of it. Imagine being able to brag that one owns 3 1/2 million hosts...
Personally, I intensely dislike the metric system. Many many people harbour as great a dislike of standard units. The proper way to settle this sort of thing is to use both systems. That way everyone is happy.
I am currently working on a LaTeX version of the documentation. Go to http://latakia.dyndns.org/~ruhl/playst ation/ to take a look. It is a work in progress, but every change I make will be mirrored on the site immediately (the magic of hard links!).
This is a dashed good point--I'd never quite thought of it like that.
An OS is just a device which manages resources; everything else an application. That includes things such as file browsers, graphics systems, window managers and the rest.
The problem is that a computer sold with just an OS is not very useful; it cannot do anything useful to most users. So the question arises: what is the minimal amount of software needed for a `complete' system? Unfortunately, opinions will differ on this one. I would argue that the following things are needed:
This can be anything from cat/more/rm/mv/ls to a full-fledged Finder, Explorer or Midnight Commands environment. But this is vital to the use of the computer; the user can do nothing without it.
This can be anything from a simple command-line to curses to QuickDraw, the Windows graphics API or X+window manager. But it is obviously important that the user be able to deal with the computer.
This list is probably not complete, but these are the bits I can think of right now.
I do not believe that Internet applications are properly within the realm of the OS distribution. They are and should be add-ons; users should have a choice. OTOH it is appropriate for the distribution to provide hooks in the OS or file browser for Internet awareness: NFS, FTP or HTTP filesystems (take a look at anarchie for what an HTTP filesystem might look like).
Bundling third-party software is fine, but there is a problem with bundling one's own software: users are much less likely to replace an OS-branded component than a third party one, and there is a strong temptation to use hidden protocols to get things done. I do not believe that it is possible to integrate any third-party browser into a Windows machine as tightly as IE is, even if one were to write it from scratch. I may be wrong on that, though.
The goal should be something like what we have on Unix boxes. Distributions provide all sorts of tools (or don't: e.g. cc...), but they are all compatible, follow standards and can be replaced easily. This is one of my problems with Gnome/KDE: they are not drop-in replacements for each other, and they tend to break the older way of doing things. For good reasons, no doubt, but still I dislike them for it.
The Mac used to be something like this. In the old days there were Minifinders and Microfinders which offered some of the Finder's functionality with less overhead. The Mac is still light-years ahead of Windows, which is a dank cesspit of folly.
Worth it, though...
Actually, it's an interesting phenomenon to examine. I happen to be a staunch libertarian--call me crazy, but I like freedom--so perhaps my viewpoint may be of some use.
The great hope for democracy was that the average man would be enlightened and less likely to be tyrannical than the elite. As we all know, this hope was misplaced; the common man is just as bad as anyone else.
It really doesn't matter what sort of government one lives under. As long as that government recognises the liberties which are inherent and proper to man (speech, conscience, religion, arms-bearing &c.), who cares howit may be run? The only reason that we ever wanted a popular government was the hope that it would respect our rights. If a government of men wearing robes and silly hats is willing to respect the rights due the individual, well then bring them on!
Incidentally, censorware is not necessarily a bad thing. It has one use: by parents. A parent has a right to control his children (I believe this, anyway; there is debate, but I've yet to be swayed). Anyone who acts in loco parentis has a derived right to use censorware. No one else does--not one at all.
Actually, that's a little bit wrong. Anyone in control of those without rights can use censorware. So parents, wardens and military officers may use censorware. But the point still stands.
Censorware in libraries, OTOH, is a bad idea. Just put the 'puter carrels out in public. Worked when I was a kid...
Tobacco is the same. I happen to enjoy the way a pipe tastes and smells. Cigars are quite pleasant every once in awhile. I don't care for American cigarettes, but European can be pleasant.
Of course, others disagree. That is, in a way, my point: it is a matter on which rational men may disagree; it is a matter of taste.
As far as either habit necessarily being self-destructive, I take issue with that, but that is for another day.
Mr. Katz took alcohol too far. He probably used it to assuage the misery of his daily life. On the one hand this is a terrible thing to do, but on the other if one's life is that bad, who are we to deny one the sole recourse left? I feel genuinely sorry for him. In this world of Internet start-ups and 23 year old billionaires, Mr. Katz somehow missed the boat. He made a great contribution and society never rewarded him for it.
Extremism in all forms is to be avoided.
This really points out one of the massive problems with a limited-license proprietary product. A site could be set up to serve a very small number of users, but when it is momentarily slashdotted due to media attention it can no longer serve as high a percentage of its customers. Bad thing to build a business on, if you ask me.
We all make mistakes. We all write buggy software. The bugfix should have been private, but was not.
I disagree with his action (i.e., posting early), but I think that I can safely say that I still respect him.
That said, it is much better to wait until the party in violation has changed or refuses to change before making it public. It enables the great unwashed masses to make better decisions; as it is, too many may have been a tad `knee-jerkish.' I hate to imagine what several of those Be mailboxes look like atm...
Esp. because the other version makes a lot more sense. I have heard, though, that there is a geological formation known as the Eye of the Needle which is very narrow. Camels are the donkeys of the Middle East and are difficult to persuade. So it is difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of said needle...
Again, it's not impossible, but requires a bit of work.
I think that I addressed the whole thing about trapping; it's less fair and less sporting. If we used traps the beaver would be dead by now; instead we shoot and not a single beaver has died yet. Yeah, it hasn't exactly helped the final goal of restoring some balance to the lake, but OTOH it has kept us true to our ideals.
Not that I'm against trapping; it has its place. But I personally don't wish to do it.
When I say that good ecology is Genesis 1, what I mean is that in there it says that man has dominion over the earth; he has power over it and is able to do what he will. But with this power comes responsibility; what Christian would deny that God demands an accounting for the use of His gifts? Much is expected from those to whome much is given. It's the parable of the talents all over again.
Which is why I oppose the misuse of the earth and why I support wise-use and conservation efforts. That and I sort of like the place:-)
Golly it's late; 1.30 here...
The mechanism which should have been instituted was the same as was used for the empty lands in America's West: first to transmit into an area has broadcast rights to it. Thus anyone else is a trespasser.
Then standard property rights would go into effect.
I would imagine that some rule such as `must broadcast continually from a solid radio emplacement for 6 months, during which time no interference may be attempted' would have been put in place to cut down on abuse. A proper function of government, and it would have never lead to the current regulatory regime in which no-one owns the airwaves.
Are they bothering you in some way?
I pointed out the ways in which the high population level (remember we want to control them, not exterminate them) is a problem. They have ceased going after saplings and are now attacking older growth. These are trees which have stood in one place for 15-25 years, but are now being killed to no end; the beavers instinctually cut them down but are unable to drag them into place. They `girdle' them but make no use of them. This land is mostly wild, but what parts man has tamed or cleared have been put to use. Maybe 8 acres have been cleared: a road, a house, a donkey pen, a chicken yard and a junkyard. Every tree that was cut down was used for something. Every grass mowed was used to feed a goat. But the beaver kill for no good end; they kill out of instinct but make no use of their kill.
In addition to this they are causing a problem with the fish and the local animal population. Their increased numbers have caused a rise in the incidence of disease amongst all animals: beaver, armadillo, deer, coyote, feral dog, cat and even some fowl. Their great numbers have had an effect upon the fish population of the lakes involved. I do not know why the population rose as it did. No doubt there is some good, although probably accidental, reason. But the end result will be starvation and death for all species unless the population is brought more in line with what it should be. And that is where we come in.
Have you some reason to arse about with guns other than it's more fun? Are you, in fact, taking pleasure from (trying to) hurt these animals and are reluctant to finish the job quickly?
It is more sporting to try to shoot them. Trapping would be the most effective alternative; it is how one kills beaver commercially. But it's not terribly fair to the beaver; it is not pitted in a contest against a foe it can smell and hear, but against one which is invisible and which, in fact, draws it in with bait. We choose to hunt them because it is a contest of skill: our skill to find and to shoot (which, BTW, is more difficult than any movie shows; try hitting a moving target about 3x3 in. in the water as it dives at night with a mist on the lake) versus the beavers' to detect, warn and evade. So far the beaver have won. That's more than fair.
You are right though; there is something fun in it. But it is not fun in the suffering of an animal. It is the fun of the chase. Have you ever played tag or hide-and-seek? Those are but vague shadows of hunting. There is nothing like the thrill that runs through one at the sound of the approaching animal. First there is the rustling (or, in our case, the splashing). The noise may approach, or it may depart (always a disappointment). The tensions builds. Then--at last--the sighting! Now the rifle is raised, the hunter tracks the animal through the scope. He waits until he has a good shot at the vitals; there is no honour to shooting a beast in the leg or gut where it will slowly and painfully die. No, the hunter holds his fire until he has a good chance of hitting the head or chest. He steels himself, and fires. The shot hits, and it is over within a few seconds. That is the most horrible moment of all for me: when I see that I have just taken life. I don't enjoy that at all. But I enjoy the thrill of the chase, the wait, the anticipation, the joy of a good shot and the taste of meat I have killed and dressed myself.
Killing is a nasty bloody business. The hunter knows that: he sees it happen before his eyes. The vain consumer never sees it; meat somes in a plastic package like all his food. But the hunter saw an animal that was alive and healthy, and he changed that in an instant. Then he took responsibility for his action: he dressed the animal and prob. butchered it. The consumer has no idea what is involved. He has no sense of responsibility.
Oh give me a break. Thank god for these selfless individuals out in the wilderness, day and night tirelessly protecting nature from itself and the rest of us stay-at-homes from the rage of the wild beaver.
Hunters kill not out of joy of killing, but from the joy of hunting. Killing is a part of that, it is true. But it has to be. The pursuit is much more fun than the attainment of the goal; the hunt is more fun than the kill.
t is a logical inconsistancy to say you are killing random animals (I assume you don't actually raise them to hunt them, like some foxhunters do in the UK) because of respect for the farm animals raised for the purpose and which will be killed in their millions anyway, regardless of your actions. It is a logical inconsistancy to say that you spend so much time and effort to kill these animals without pay and without being asked by the govt or other body which could force you to do it and then to claim that you don't get pleasure out of it. You don't seem to realise that the very real pleasure of hunting is not in the kill. At least, not to a mentally stable person. It is in the contact with nature (a far bloodier master than any man, that is certain), in the outdoors, in the pursuit and the tracking, in the technical skill involved in shooting. To do all these things without shooting is to be false about it. That is why I cannot subscribe to the `shoot nothing but pictures' philosophy: it feels empty to me. Others may differ, of course. But if one is going to indulge the instinctual urge to hunt, it seems to be lying to stop just short of the ultimate goal.
(about blackpowder pistol season for hares) Why is this any different from using a machine gun?
It is very different. The difficulty makes it a fairer and more sporting match. Believe it or not, hunting does not consist of driving to a field, walking up to a deer and shooting it through the head with a pistol. But it can be much easier with modern weapons. When one has become an excellent hunter with modern gear, it becomes time to up the ante and make things a little more difficult. IMHO, at least.
In re: taking pictures and not shooting.
Have you ever shot? I shoot quite frequently, but at cans or paper targets. These are a lot of fun--shooting is a challenging sport. But shooting at a real target is more of a challenge. It takes nerves and skill. Taking a picture involves these, but it is less real because it is less serious. There is nothing I know of more serious than levelling a weapon at another living being. In that moment the other creature goes from fellow to foe. It is an introduction to that principle which underlies all of life: competition. We compete with every other organism, from bacteria to plants to animals to other men.
This is not to say that we should wipe out any organism. We are called to be stewards of the Earth and its resources (good ecology is Genesis chapter 1). IMHO it is better stewardship to hunt than to merely by pre-killed meat. And there is fun in that shot. There is uncertainty. The animal is not dead until the round hits. At any moment a finger might shake, an arm might quiver, a branch might obstruct or the animal may bound away. That is fair. What chance does a cow have?
Not that I oppose the cattle industry. But I feel that hunting is a fairer means of procuring meat.
Man this is so off-topic that I will surely be moderated down...
How can I get this back on-topic? Lemme see...
On-topic Follows
Perhaps what high-schoolers need nowadays is an education in authenticity. Too many of them have been raised in an environment in which decisions have no consequences. There is no responsibility in their world. From the day they are born they are sheltered from every effect of their actions. They are not punished in any significant way, but are taught to feel good about themselves in the futile hope the self-esteem leads to respect for others.
They eat packaged meat, packaged vegetables and lead packaged lives. They watch a television in which problems never last more than an hour. They watch movies in which only the attractive side of violence is shown. The use computers in which anything can be undone (which is a nice capability, of course). But in real life there is no undo button. When you kill a man he dies; generally he dies in a graphic, painful and humiliating fashion. Too late to say `I'm sorry.' Too late to rethink things. Too late to hit undo.
Children are doing these things because they really don't understand the finality of their actions. They have been insulated all their lives from the unpleasant realities of life. And what better way to take out their frustrations then to carry out the common fantasy of killing one's classmates? Only problem is that in real life it matters; there's no way to bring someone back to life after his brain has been shot out the back of his head.
Children need to be disciplined. They need to be brought up to recognise some sort of right and wrong--I don't really care if it's my right and wrong. They need to realise that their actions have results. They need to see that life has no undo button. Hunting demonstrates that...
`No challenge'? Obviously you've never been hunting. A friend of mine owns about 160 acres with three lakes on it. Two of these lakes have a nasty beaver problem: about 40 beavers, when there should be maybe eight to twelve. They have killed all the saplings and are now working on the 15 to 25 year-old trees. The native coyotes and wild dogs are not working, and the beaver are spreading disease and contagion throughout the whole area.
We have made four hunting trips trying to get the damned nuisances. We have yet to shoot a single one. We've tried every method: dusk, dawn, spotlighting (legal for small game) &c. And we're not a bunch of hunting newbies; it's just that beaver are difficult animals. There is plenty of challenge, let me tell you.
As another points out, you must have a correlation in order for an indicator to work. Hunters and football players tend not to be sociopaths, unless you choose to define hunter or football player as sociopath, in which case it works out just fine. Hunters--at least responsible, mature hunters--are not in the sport for the fun of killing. They are in it for the challenge, for a love of nature and a respect of wildlife (believe it or not, these do not contradict killing said wildlife; does a hiker respect the trail he is cutting through the wilderness?), because they feel that it is a more authentic method of getting food, because they appreciate organic meat, because they feel that it is more humane &c. &c &c.
Yes, there are irresponsible hunters. But the majority of hunters look down on these. Unless you are a radical vegetarian (in which case I respect your opinion), it is a logical inconsistency to state that animals should be indutrially killed but not killed on a one-on-one basis.
There are instances of modern hunting where the reality is removed. Certain of the private hunting establishments amount to little more than shooting fish in a barrel. But on the other hand you have the bowhunting and blackpowder movements. Try shooting a snowhare with an 8 inch flintlock pistol when it is under 32 outside; it's not as easy as you might think. Try shooting a whitetail with an arrow after you've tracked it for an hour. Hell, forget shooting it; just try tracking it for an hour.
A lot of this is due to regional variations. In Montana I believe that it is considered unsporting to use corn or salt to attract deer, but in Texas no-one does anything but. This is due to the fact that in Texas private land is very small and hence the hunter cannot track across country, and public lands are dangerous, whereas in Montana public lands are open and safe. But the end result is that Montanans think that Texans are unethical and Texans think that Montanans are too strict. Who is right? If the Texans did not hunt as they do, then the deer population would undergo a Malthusian period of sickness and starvation.
On-Topic Stuff Here
To get a little bit more on-topic, those warning signs are pretty silly. Let's look at some of them:
And a government which does not protect these rights is worse than useless. It takes its due but does not perform its duty.
A government which does more than this does too much; it intrudes upon what should be the private realm. Also, I have a feeling--I may be wrong--that any time a government steps beyond protecting rights it must inevitably violate rights. For example, welfare involves violating the property rights of the rich in order to better the lives of the poor. I will have to think about that one; it may not actually follow.
This means that the so-called rights to food or health care are not rights; for them to be guaranteed you others must be deprived of their posessions. TANSTAAFL; if I wish to feed you then I must take that food from someone. Generally this means that a government which guarantees these `rights' must steal from some of its citizens in order to give to others.
Now, this is not to say that the poor should not be fed or the ill taken care of. Indeed, in my religion these are virtues. But what right have I to impose my religion of caring for others on those very same others? What right do I have to make a misanthrope pay to keep the poor alive? None. Instead, I give willingly of my own posessions to feed the poor and nurse the sick. But I will never make someone else do so.
The right to keep and bear arms does not deprive anyone else of anything: it does not deprive him of his faith, his opinion, his property, his life, his liberty or any other thing. Granted, a weapon can be used to do so, but that is a case of misuse. My freedom of religion could be sued to deprive you of religion, or life, or property, but only if misused.
The one (taking care of the destitute) is a moral duty; the other is a natural right.
The Charter of Human Rights, IIRC, includes such insane `rights' as health care and food. That is utter nonsense (IMHO). Rights are in my opinion, things which do nto hurt other people: speech, religion, arms-bearing--not the improper use of arms, which does hurt others, just like the improper use of speech: e.g. `hang him!' to a mob. I hardly consider it a valid authority on what is and is not a human right. Instead, I seek a logic and rationale for determining what should and should not be considered a right. IMHO the right to bear arms is the most fundamental of all. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.
There are no eternal laws, but rights are eternal. They may be granted or denied, but the right itself is always a right, and any who denies it to another is a tyrant. All IMHO, of course.
The untrained person raised on Hollywood films and some games will not hunch down low; his survival instinct has been conditioned out. He will stand out and will be cut down. The trained person will try to duck for cover and things along those lines. While a video game cannot teach the physical end of things, it can teach the mental aspect of all this.
As unbelievable as it may seem, most untrained people just stand still or run around when they hear gunshots. Most veterans hit the floor and find cover. This is the result of training.
You are right though; all of those experiences taught you how to kill. And they should all be legal, regardless of what they taught. That was my point.
BTW, it was an American officer holding a gun to a VC's head; the VC had just finished killing either a friend of his or his family. I forget which. But a picture never gives context; it just shows some poor fellow about to die.
Arms-bearing is what seperates the free man from the slave. Among our ancestors the Germans when a slave was freed he was given a weapon as a token thereof. The Romans had a similar concept, I believe. Life is, in some ways, a power struggle. Government--good or bad, excellent or tyrannical--exercises its will through raw violence. It is impossible to do away with this; it is a fact of nature and of life. So we have two options: we can deny it, we can give up our right to wield violence for our own ends, cede our power to a monopolistic wielder of violence or we can reserve our right, the right which indicates our freedom, the right which demonstrates to all that we are not slaves of The Man but our own men.
Note that I do not mean that any individual has a hope against a government--he most certainly does not. That sort of conflict is not what I mean at all. It is the symbolism of the thing. When a young boy is given his first knife, he has attained a certain level of freedom. When he is given his first BB gun, he has reached another. When his father gives him his first .22 rifle, then he is well on the way to manhood.
I could go on about it more, about how familiarity with weapons leads to a greater sense of moral responsibility, but that would be off-topic.
On-Topic Stuff Here
This actually related to the video game issue. There are those who are against guns because they enable slaughter. But if they are against guns, then they must also be against violent video games, for video games also enable slaughter. Col. Grossman, whome I greatly dislike, does have a point. Those games do teach one how to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile (in some sense of that phrase; they cannot teach things like keeping the arms in tight).
But is this bad? Of course not. We already have the arguments against this. The video game does not cause anyone (save, perhaps, the demented, who could be set off by popcorn just as well as by video games) to murder. Neither does the gun. They are merely tools. The video game can teach some parts of combat readiness. The gun can be used in combat. But the choice to go into that combat, the choice to shoot and kill one's fellow man: that is made by a human being of his own free will.
I am a gun owner; I own a rifle and a handgun. I am responsible with my firearms. I never point a gun at something I do not wish to kill. I would rather shoot myself than someone else. Somehow that eeevvviiilll thing, the gun, has yet to turn me into a psychopath. But it has taught me a respect for life and death, for actions which do not have an 'undo' button: try looking at the body of an animal, knowing that you killed it and wishing that you could breath life back into it; try looking at the shattered remains of what was just a fraction of a second ago a perfectly normal beer bottle; try walking around with a device which if used properly is perfectly safe but which can be as deadly as anything else in this world. You learn that life isn't like a computer game. In real life no-one runs through a room figuring that he'll only get shot once or twice. No-one who knows what he is doing shoots someone without the clear idea that he is taking the life of a human being. The real world is for good; you cannot undo your actions by going to the Edit menu.
That is the problem with video games; they lead to a sense that nothing is permament. But this does not matter; it is our right to play video games just as much as it is our right to read what we will, believe what we will and wield what firepower we will. And I will defend anyone's right to play video games, and defend any video game manufacturer from this sort of foolish charge. Blame the craftsman, not the tools.
I daresay that I shall be moderated out of sight, but we shall see...
I think that part of the allure is that it doesn't fall apart like hot pizza does. I cannot stand anything more than getting cheese in my beard or burning my tongue on too-hot pizza. Those always-hot bags that Domino's introduced are the work of the devil:-) I always ask that they leave them unplugged.