Well, OK, so the statistics do not link firearm homicide directly to crime. However, in my opinion homcide cannot be categorized into "normal" crime.
However, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the orignal post was about _violent_ crime and gun ownership.
Still, the United States has the highest percentage of incarcerations in the world, so I guess that pretty much speaks for the crime rate too, unless a lot of people are in jail for no reason. You can look up that statistic yourself;)
There are statistics that will will show that the US is not very crime ridden in comparison to other Western countries. However, if we were to "convert" ALL instances of crime in a country to homicide, the statistics would not change, but I'm sure the quality of life in that country WOULD. So much for statistics.
It's not about who you shoot. You can shoot Americans in MOHAA, BF1942, etc.
However, there is hardly any doubt that the United States of America LOST in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of casualties for the pleasure of getting to go home a loser.
Could this be why Vietnam and Vietnam alone is a touchy subject when it comes to American conflicts?
The reason that people live in this great country is because people have the freedom to do what they feel is necessary to protect their rights. If someone wants to "steal gas trucks and ram them into office buildings," certainly the government should take steps to stop them from doing so, but not at the expense of giving up our personal freedoms such as the right to privacy.
People live in the US because they are born there. Very few are allowed to move there and become citizens anymore. Also, the only people I ever hear calling the US great are Americans.
I'd be willing to bet that any one of them would LOVE to trade places with you, with the ability to use the internet to look up information they never knew existed before, to drive around in a car wherever they want, and if they desire, to rise up against an evil government and overthrow them!
In the US there are many people that feel their government is becoming evil and oppressive. Are they allowed to surf the Internet and rise up to destroy that government, as you say? Is Timothy McVeigh alive???
Anyway, driving your car around is hardly freedom.
Maybe by buying the patent or suing the owner of that patent until he/she is forced to sell it or capitulate. Sound familiar? It takes money to use a patent as leverage.
Oh yes. And they just didn't think of having the crew wait for a rescue mission on the IIS or even on the Shuttle. They overlooked that, and let them burn. Sure.
Perhpas it would be an excellent candidate to require ALL nations to switch to. But I guess some are more equal than others.
BTW, 60 Minutes is populist shit. I hope they someday do a piece on something you really know, like your hometown, or something, then you'll see. They will distort the truth just to make whatever they are talking about sound interresting. I saw a piece on Finland where they (for real) explained that Finns don't do anything but dance tango. No exceptions, just tango, in all of their spare time, because Finns can't speak to eachother due to pathological shyness. So bollocks to their NK-piece.
I wasn't refering to George Orwell's personal political ideas, but rather to the system he presented in 1984 (which I have read). I think that that is what most people mean, just like when I say rock n' roll, I mean the music, and not the 1950's slang for "fucking". There is a different vocabulary in spoken word and historical discourse.
The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise. Nothing could be further than Big Brother; in 1984 all of that was overt; there was no disguising it.
There is no disguising in passing a law that infringes on privacy, either. It will be available in every law book. Also, you state that everything in 1984 was overt, which is false. In the book there was no real resistance: it was invented by the government to ensnare dissidents. The book that "told the truth about the opressive government" in 1984 was written by that same government! And that was THE secret, remember?
A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.
I disagree, because a market economy depends on the freedom of it's consumers. If people aren't allowed to act freely they analogously they can't consume freely, either.
A government can't allow people to think at work but not at home and still expect to reap all of the so-called benefits of the free market. Why? Because people WILL think at home. Why? Because they have and education. They have television. They have the Internet. I really can't see a modern economy which clamps down ONLY on it's consumers and still expects them to go to the shopping mall and keep the ball rolling.
China would be an example of a country whose government is totalitarian and at the same time attempting to implement a market economy. How many years do YOU give the Communist Pary? I give it five at the most.
I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? I don't mean that "Big Brother"-shit, I mean, people will not abide by this law because it is too cumbersome. People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.
This kind of civil disobedience may seem trivial, but what happens when lots of people lose respect for the law in other areas because they deem (correctly) that the lawmakers are totally clueless about modern society?
When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!
Re:This brings a few questions to mind...
on
SAUNAAB
·
· Score: 1
Yes, if you like your beer to taste like dirty mineral water.
I don't know. Maybe they think the money can do more good elsewhere? I mean, it's a patent on a method, not an actual tangible product, so if they say bollocks to the patent, they can do the tests and keep their money too.
I'm not saying it's legal, and I sure as hell don't know the true motivation behind the Canadian government. If, however, it's obvious that the fees are too high to be paid, I vote to simply not pay. Money will always find it's way to people, patents or no patents. The World Economy does NOT depend on Intellectual Property, but on the exchange of goods and services. If you are selling something that is overpriced, not worth the investment or just immoral to ask money for, tough shit. Because it's a market economy, remember?
The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them
True, it is however questionable if it's a good idea to allow these patents to be profitable without bounds. A lot of research could be done with government grants, requiring the result be given to the public domain, for example. The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy. Companies make money, even though lots of software is unlicensed and a lot of movies and music are ripped; they just don't make as much as they want to make.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
Perhaps, but I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal. For example, even though it is very cheap and thus economically "wise" to manufacture clothes in sweatshops in Asia, it is hardly the best solution. Poverty in one place is an asset for others with economic interrest. And since your debunking of my argument relied one paragraph and one idea, so will mine of yours.
Should the government pay for tests for breast cancer genes (which don't always lead to breast cancer), or should the government try to reduce heart disease in women? Heart disease kills far more women than breast cancer does.
Your argument about breast cancer is not about money, but about human resources. The government is not a corporation. A corporation developing a drug is not trying to save lives, but to make money. I'm sure the actual developers (the people working) are trying to do good, but not the financers. Besides, if it was deemed all-important to find all breast cancer growths, the government could force all doctors do check people for free. People have been drafted for worse ends. I hardly see anybody except the company who designed the "idea" losing money if they aren't paid.
If you take away patent protection, medical research by for-profit companies will dry up overnight.
Riiiight... just like the media and software business will die without Draconian Copyright Laws. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that perhaps there should be more non-profit research and less for-profit.
I do realize that this is a rather unpopular method and has it's problems. However, patents are only good as long as they are respected. If someone was to develop The Super Drug (TM) that cured everything, and wanted $100 000 a pop, I really doubt anyone would listen.
No matter what, it is still each sovereign country's own damn business how they choose to enforce their laws, so if a government feels that an international patent is not valid within the borders of that country, well, it isn't.
More importantly, the company can hire a decent lawyer, and slap the provincial government with a big lawsuit, and quickly win lots of money that could otherwise be used to provide health care.
Yes, there are some places in the world where this is possible.... or was it just one.
Just because the system seems to be working right now doesn't mean it's the best, or even a good one.
Perhaps developing life-saving "technology", like genes, should not be done by coprations striving only for profit for their shareholders? People who are sick or perhaps dying will not listen stupid analogies about cars being stolen. According to some, I seem to remember, the business of a state was to see after the well being of it's citizens, not the well-being patent-driven pharamceutical companies located in other countries.
If you can give me any example or argument where money is more important than life, I will eat my hat.
Sure is. I bet America can do just fine with that attitude, since you don't really need other people or other places and you surely don't need any natural resources outside of your borders. Oh, wait...
Wow, what an argument. Of course we are thieves, it can't be the site's owners fault that he publishes his stuff in a medium that can't enforce ad-watching. I also steal everyday when I don't read every ad in the morning paper.
For all companies that started up on hype and don't have a sound business model: please, belly up, like, immediately. That means you too, anti-leech.com...
Couldn't you use LDAP as a centralized authentication service? I think that's the way we're going at work with our Windows/*nix password synchronization.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, OK, so the statistics do not link firearm homicide directly to crime. However, in my opinion homcide cannot be categorized into "normal" crime.
;)
However, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the orignal post was about _violent_ crime and gun ownership.
Still, the United States has the highest percentage of incarcerations in the world, so I guess that pretty much speaks for the crime rate too, unless a lot of people are in jail for no reason. You can look up that statistic yourself
There are statistics that will will show that the US is not very crime ridden in comparison to other Western countries. However, if we were to "convert" ALL instances of crime in a country to homicide, the statistics would not change, but I'm sure the quality of life in that country WOULD. So much for statistics.
Some links for Mr. Living In Denial:
... next time maybe you can do your own fucking googling.
here
and
here
It's not about who you shoot. You can shoot Americans in MOHAA, BF1942, etc.
However, there is hardly any doubt that the United States of America LOST in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of casualties for the pleasure of getting to go home a loser.
Could this be why Vietnam and Vietnam alone is a touchy subject when it comes to American conflicts?
The reason that people live in this great country is because people have the freedom to do what they feel is necessary to protect their rights. If someone wants to "steal gas trucks and ram them into office buildings," certainly the government should take steps to stop them from doing so, but not at the expense of giving up our personal freedoms such as the right to privacy.
People live in the US because they are born there. Very few are allowed to move there and become citizens anymore. Also, the only people I ever hear calling the US great are Americans.
I'd be willing to bet that any one of them would LOVE to trade places with you, with the ability to use the internet to look up information they never knew existed before, to drive around in a car wherever they want, and if they desire, to rise up against an evil government and overthrow them!
In the US there are many people that feel their government is becoming evil and oppressive. Are they allowed to surf the Internet and rise up to destroy that government, as you say? Is Timothy McVeigh alive???
Anyway, driving your car around is hardly freedom.
What's an AC?
Thanx, anyway!
We are secure! There are no security issues in our code. Truly. We shall beat Linux with our shoes and call it a donkey!
... and that point is that Trademark == good, Free Speech == bad? You can't talk about our product, you can only buy it!
Isn't trademark infringement an issue only if the products are related?
Maybe by buying the patent or suing the owner of that patent until he/she is forced to sell it or capitulate. Sound familiar? It takes money to use a patent as leverage.
I meant ISS, not IIS. LOL...
Oh yes. And they just didn't think of having the crew wait for a rescue mission on the IIS or even on the Shuttle. They overlooked that, and let them burn. Sure.
Idiot.
Perhpas it would be an excellent candidate to require ALL nations to switch to. But I guess some are more equal than others.
BTW, 60 Minutes is populist shit. I hope they someday do a piece on something you really know, like your hometown, or something, then you'll see. They will distort the truth just to make whatever they are talking about sound interresting. I saw a piece on Finland where they (for real) explained that Finns don't do anything but dance tango. No exceptions, just tango, in all of their spare time, because Finns can't speak to eachother due to pathological shyness. So bollocks to their NK-piece.
What crap.
.. if you go there. Better have a browser with brains or enjoy "Hot Adult Entertainment" ads.
How irritating.
I wasn't refering to George Orwell's personal political ideas, but rather to the system he presented in 1984 (which I have read). I think that that is what most people mean, just like when I say rock n' roll, I mean the music, and not the 1950's slang for "fucking". There is a different vocabulary in spoken word and historical discourse.
The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise. Nothing could be further than Big Brother; in 1984 all of that was overt; there was no disguising it.
There is no disguising in passing a law that infringes on privacy, either. It will be available in every law book. Also, you state that everything in 1984 was overt, which is false. In the book there was no real resistance: it was invented by the government to ensnare dissidents. The book that "told the truth about the opressive government" in 1984 was written by that same government! And that was THE secret, remember?
A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.
I disagree, because a market economy depends on the freedom of it's consumers. If people aren't allowed to act freely they analogously they can't consume freely, either.
A government can't allow people to think at work but not at home and still expect to reap all of the so-called benefits of the free market. Why? Because people WILL think at home. Why? Because they have and education. They have television. They have the Internet. I really can't see a modern economy which clamps down ONLY on it's consumers and still expects them to go to the shopping mall and keep the ball rolling.
China would be an example of a country whose government is totalitarian and at the same time attempting to implement a market economy. How many years do YOU give the Communist Pary? I give it five at the most.
I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? I don't mean that "Big Brother"-shit, I mean, people will not abide by this law because it is too cumbersome. People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.
This kind of civil disobedience may seem trivial, but what happens when lots of people lose respect for the law in other areas because they deem (correctly) that the lawmakers are totally clueless about modern society?
When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!
Yes, if you like your beer to taste like dirty mineral water.
Tastes like shit, but it gets you drunk.
There, I said it, so now you don't have to. ... besides, Microsoft did change personal computing, for better or for worse (more likely).
I don't know. Maybe they think the money can do more good elsewhere? I mean, it's a patent on a method, not an actual tangible product, so if they say bollocks to the patent, they can do the tests and keep their money too.
I'm not saying it's legal, and I sure as hell don't know the true motivation behind the Canadian government. If, however, it's obvious that the fees are too high to be paid, I vote to simply not pay. Money will always find it's way to people, patents or no patents. The World Economy does NOT depend on Intellectual Property, but on the exchange of goods and services. If you are selling something that is overpriced, not worth the investment or just immoral to ask money for, tough shit. Because it's a market economy, remember?
The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them
True, it is however questionable if it's a good idea to allow these patents to be profitable without bounds. A lot of research could be done with government grants, requiring the result be given to the public domain, for example. The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy. Companies make money, even though lots of software is unlicensed and a lot of movies and music are ripped; they just don't make as much as they want to make.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
Perhaps, but I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal. For example, even though it is very cheap and thus economically "wise" to manufacture clothes in sweatshops in Asia, it is hardly the best solution. Poverty in one place is an asset for others with economic interrest. And since your debunking of my argument relied one paragraph and one idea, so will mine of yours.
Should the government pay for tests for breast cancer genes (which don't always lead to breast cancer), or should the government try to reduce heart disease in women? Heart disease kills far more women than breast cancer does.
... or was it just one.
Your argument about breast cancer is not about money, but about human resources. The government is not a corporation. A corporation developing a drug is not trying to save lives, but to make money. I'm sure the actual developers (the people working) are trying to do good, but not the financers. Besides, if it was deemed all-important to find all breast cancer growths, the government could force all doctors do check people for free. People have been drafted for worse ends. I hardly see anybody except the company who designed the "idea" losing money if they aren't paid.
If you take away patent protection, medical research by for-profit companies will dry up overnight.
Riiiight... just like the media and software business will die without Draconian Copyright Laws. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that perhaps there should be more non-profit research and less for-profit.
I do realize that this is a rather unpopular method and has it's problems. However, patents are only good as long as they are respected. If someone was to develop The Super Drug (TM) that cured everything, and wanted $100 000 a pop, I really doubt anyone would listen.
No matter what, it is still each sovereign country's own damn business how they choose to enforce their laws, so if a government feels that an international patent is not valid within the borders of that country, well, it isn't.
More importantly, the company can hire a decent lawyer, and slap the provincial government with a big lawsuit, and quickly win lots of money that could otherwise be used to provide health care.
Yes, there are some places in the world where this is possible.
Just because the system seems to be working right now doesn't mean it's the best, or even a good one.
Perhaps developing life-saving "technology", like genes, should not be done by coprations striving only for profit for their shareholders? People who are sick or perhaps dying will not listen stupid analogies about cars being stolen. According to some, I seem to remember, the business of a state was to see after the well being of it's citizens, not the well-being patent-driven pharamceutical companies located in other countries.
If you can give me any example or argument where money is more important than life, I will eat my hat.
Sure is. I bet America can do just fine with that attitude, since you don't really need other people or other places and you surely don't need any natural resources outside of your borders. Oh, wait...
Wow, what an argument. Of course we are thieves, it can't be the site's owners fault that he publishes his stuff in a medium that can't enforce ad-watching. I also steal everyday when I don't read every ad in the morning paper.
For all companies that started up on hype and don't have a sound business model: please, belly up, like, immediately. That means you too, anti-leech.com...
Couldn't you use LDAP as a centralized authentication service? I think that's the way we're going at work with our Windows/*nix password synchronization.
proxies?