Yes, yes and more yes... Oh how I wish I had moderator points today... I had them two days ago, nothing interesting, and now this... Gun Control... oh how I'd like to mod your post up...
It so very much comes down to the whole point of the 'moment'... people who are otherwise fantastic people can have moments where they really want to hurt someone else... it may be due to alcohol, it may be due to them having some real anger management issues... but the thing is... if they don't have a handy gun or other weapon on them, then the worst that will probably happen is the other party gets a black eye or broken nose... when the agressor comes to his senses he may have ruined a friendship, or maybe can even make up with the other party... if it were a gun toting angry person, then the other person is dead... no way to make it up to them, no way to mend your mistakes, because they're dead.
You can carry a gun all your life but choose to never use it.
So why carry it then?
A gun is very safe when it's locked up. OK, so you're carrying it everywhere and having it locked up for what reason? If you're not going to ever use it, then why even have it? Why can't you have no gun and choose to never use one? It'll save you money, and give you the peace of mind that no-one could take yours from you in a fight, and also you'd never have the ability to shoot someone either accidentally, or in a momentary fit of rage that you'd regret for the rest of your life.
Whether you're more likely to kill someone because you carry a gun. Sure you are. So, how about not carrying one? Maybe part of the problem is that those in the USA put so damn little value on human life, that they are fine and dandy with killing someone... as long as they're still alive, then all is ok... Damn that's sick.
Whether you're more likely to get killed because you carry a gun? Debate that all you like, but if you have it, you have the choice whether to use it.
And didn't you just say that you could choose to never use it? So why even have it, then you won't kill anyone with it, and you're also less likely to be shot as that false bravado that 'packing heat' brings with it can really put you in those positions that result in you being killed when all that may have happened was the loss of a wallet or a bit of pride...
Here where I live, there have been several recent home invasion robberies and frequent car jackings. I am from L.A. originally and know what it's like to be in a gang zone. So yeah, my neighborhood is that dangerous and I have felt the need to be armed, 'just in case'.
OK... but did any of them involve deaths? Did any of those involve anything but property theft? If not, why up the ante by involving deadly weapons?
However, that isn't the issue. Do you buy insurance? If so, what is the difference between that and having a gun?
Well, I can't really think of a way I could accidently kill someone with my insurance. Or have my insurance lying around the house and have someone at a party use it to kill someone. (Perhaps a nasty paper cut from the insurance form)
Well, assuming I am responsible and teach my kids about guns, how to use them and when not to use them, I can honestly say that the former is more likely. Education is the key to safety. Whether it be driving a car, plugging in an electrical device or handling a gun. It is not that difficult.
Somewhat true... indeed education is almost always the best course of action, but it's just too easy to accidently kill with a gun. Oh sure, you can do the same with the others, probably mostly the car, but again, cars are a bit easier to dodge than a bullet... slightly slower.
Re:They don't *WANT* to make money?!?!
on
AMD's 64-bit Plot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the problem was that no-one actually read the story... just the sensationlist Slashdot article.
All the article said was that AMD saw the ridiculous waste of time in simply jacking up the speed of processes continually... We're up to 3GHz now... and what actually requires that? Not much... so why not spend the time building COOLER chips that can be cooled in a QUIETER way... in fact, why not ship your chips with a QUIET fan, like really QUIET (why am I shouting the word QUIET? Oh yeah, so I can be heard over my AMD with noisy FAN!)...
Cooler... damn that would be nice... my media server, sitting in my entertainment cabinet... pumps out a lot of heat... it's ridiculous really... I got a relatively lowly Duron 1GHz and it's pouring the heat out.
Surely, now that they're up at 3GHz... rather than screaming towards 4GHz like mad things, why don't they work on making the 2GHz and lower cooler?
It's the refresh rate... on both IMAX 3D movies, and these computer based ones, the problem comes from these shutters in front of your eyes flicking on and off 60 or so times a second (Don't know what IMAX's is)... there's only so much of that your brain can take... if they made it a lot faster, then the headaches would probably cease, as off/on cycles would be so quick as to become a blur to the mind's eye... as it stands, the brain has to cope with the flicker and hence the pain...
"I'm torn between my hatred for the heavy-handed M$ action"
Oh, come on... why is this heavy handed? how can this POSSIBLY be construed as heavy handed?
MS is offering a service for online play using their XBox. People with said XBox can play to their heart's content (As long as they reign in their language... fair enough really, who needs a 12 yr old telling you 'your mum f*cks goats' or whatever). People with machines other than XBoxes can't use the service... people with a modified XBox, therefore really not an XBox anymore, but moreso something that began life as one but is now changed (Perhaps an ExBox?) can't use it either.
How is unfair to run an area with some rules as to what you are and aren't allowed to use while you're there? How is it different to a painball/skirmish arena where they say you have to use their armour and their paintball guns while you're there, you're not allowed to come in with your own uzi 9mm? Or perhaps, to be more accurate in the analogy, a paintball gun from the park that has been modified to shoot 10000 rounds a second...
Damn people, stop bashing MS just for the sake of bashing MS... there's nothing wrong with what they're doing here... in fact I applaud them for it.
There seems to be enough articles about them... every time they make something new... article on Slashdot.
We could expand the segment: * Give the guys an idea for a lego model (My guess 95% will be for Star Wars or LOTR models... the other 5% will be nude women) * See what they do with the rest of their time (My guess is weird little contraptions around the house)
and maybe
* Live webcam updates of them building... in realtime... never miss a second of the thrilling lego building action!
Exactly, after seeing this on the news last week, I was less than impressed by the speed of it...
Robot: "WOOF!" Thief: "Oh crap! A robot dog!" *Robot dog slowly lumbers towards intruder, looking more like a drunk and invalid spider with half its legs than a scary intruder deterant* T: "Oh... is that all you've got... so if I walk over... like... here... I would loose you..." R: "WOOF!" T: "I'll just be in the other room if you can be bothered walking through" R: "Wimper..."
Look at the user history, look at how low his user number is, look at his user name, think about whether the Slashdot guys would let someone continue to use that name for so long and pose as John... look also at the official stories that have had comments by John, from that user id...
And one would have to say... 'Who gives a f*cking shit about first posting?'
For god's sake, there's hell of a lot of things more worthy things to get excited about... and posting 'first' on a website such as this is not one of them... god damn...
And the other guy to get angry over it... f*cking hell... get a damn life people... get a life...
1. I did rant a bit in that first post there didn't I? I apologise for my bluntness.
2. I would probably agree that churches cause crime... but that's probably to do with me thinking that religion does more to breed intolerance than almost anything else.
3. I spelt plane as plain! Oh my...:) (Unless it was a plain plane, then that'd be alright)
OK, I give you that higher density populations can cause a higher level of crime... but what about Japan? With half the USA's population in one WAY smaller country... what's it's murder rate like?
Let's look at some more figures... (Aren't these fun?) (1999 data from here: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa012599.htm)
North America - 32 people/sq.mi South America - 73 people/sq.mi Europe - 134 people/sq.mi Asia - 203 people/sq.mi Africa - 65 people/sq.mi Australia and Oceania - 9 people/sq.mi
Ok... so we have Asia with about 630% higher population density than the USA. (Granted, you've got the same thing as Australia, of having some damn large areas with bugger all population in them, and some smaller areas with much higher density, but still)
So, we have Japan, with a ridiculously high population density, and what is their murder rate? About 1 in 100,000... So... um... high density, moreso than American cities... yet very low murder rate... hmmm.
Now, I've just taken Japan as an example, as I knew it would be an extreme one, as I know that their culture has something to do with the low murder rate. But then again so does their very strict gun control measures.
So, population density is NOT a nice, easy excuse for needing guns... There are many things, and I think one of the greater ones you'd find in common with the cities you mention is poverty. There are some extremely poor communities in these cities, and in large numbers too. This coupled with the ready availability of guns does not a happy community make.
It comes down to community attitude & community idealologies... In the US it's far too swayed over to the "Well the bad guys have guns, so I damn well will have them too, just so I can protect myself"
Well, that's great, except by having easy access to guns, that means more of the 'bad guys' get them, which means more of the 'good guys' feel they need to have them to be safe, which effectively means that everyone ends up being armed... as has on a number of occasions, children at school.
Basically I don't think that either of us is going to convince the other that they are right. There are a LOT of studies out there that proport to support each side of the argument, and in fact a single report can end up being read both ways by just focusing in on particular figures...
Basically what it comes down to is that I hate guns, they are far too quick a way to kill someone with far too little effort, meaning that far too often people end up doing so in a moment of rage, panic or just through plain bad luck, that ends up destroying one life and quite often making the survivor's one full of remorse and sorrow...
Oh, and I have travelled to LA (Including Compton, Inglewood etc), Mexico, London etc... and I have felt somewhat 'unsafe' in some of these areas, but have I ever felt the need to arm myself?
Not for a moment... it never even crossed my mind.
Bloody hell! There aren't neighbourhoods in Australia that are really considered 'unsafe'... there are not nice ones, there are ones where crime is higher, but there's NOTHING like South Central LA or countless other extremely dangerous areas like in the US.
Why?
Because Australia has tough gun laws, therefore, while the bad areas are not nice, generally any type of violence that there may be is limited to beatings and knife attacks etc... which you're MUCH more likely to survive than a gun attack.
But... what about the OTHER statistic with damn guns? What about the ACCIDENTS?
Lets have a look at some statistics shall we. (All from here 1990-95 study)
Country | Accidents with Firearms per 100,000
Canada 63
Australia 18
New Zealand 4
USA 1,441!
Oooh, yeah, guns are good.
Or what about some actual crime figures, if the ridiculous number of firearm accidents doesn't matter?:
Country | Homicides per 100,000
Canada 2.2
Australia 1.8
New Zealand 2.6
USA 9.8!
That's over 400% more than Canada, and you share a border!
WHEN are people going to realise that having f&*king guns does not make you safer! It DOESN'T, look at the number of damn accidents! These are the kids who accidently kill a friend with dad's gun, the scared homeowner at night who shoots their kid coming in late because they thought they were a burgular... If they had no gun, THESE THINGS WOULDN'T HAPPEN.
And putting them on a plain... yeah top f&*king idea... just great, I really want this f*&king gun culture in an enclosed space where tensions tend to get high at the best of times... yes please.
But it's not even a particularly new/clever/well presented/information rich example of a sub woofer either... the same type of sub design has been shown many, many times before... so why was this one posted on Slashdot?
I'm sorry, but is "Lilo and Stitch being the notable exception" supposed to mean that it was a good movie?
Oh god what a pile of shite that was, a contrived plot, a mis-defined lead creature, a vomit worthy feel good tale of broken families being 'A-OK', and quite poorly tacked on musical numbers.
Just because they are catching criminals doesn't mean the system is working.
What about the people on death row that are innocent? There have been numbers of cases of people being found innocent just in the nick of time... or worse, after the execution.
Do you call that system 'working'?
What about if you were classed as a terrorist due to your heritage, your religion, and you went to school with someone who turned out to be a terrorist? (Maybe you never even knew them)
Is that a system that 'works'?
What about if, as someone from the article suggests, that these systems were privatised (That's damn scary)... then really, what is to stop these private companies 'delaying' a few members of some particular activist group that may be threatening their activities in some part of the world?
Who decides what ranks you highly as a terrorist?
Who decides who gets to see this conglomeration of information?
Who ensures that the information that is used in these rankings is accurate?
How long does your 'terror' ranking stick for? If you took part in some protest march, are you unable to fly anywhere for the next 5 years?
This all just sounds damn close to so many grim Sci Fi Movies...:(
And I will be the bigger dick who points out that you ignored his statement of: "Of course, that doesn't mean that we have no spelling or grammatical errors -- it simply means that we try to communicate our ideas using grammar that is correct"
Urgh... more damn 'get thin quick' diets... And more people saying that the increase in obesity is due to people cutting out fat too much...
Crud.
There are more fat people about because the vast majority of people do NOT eat healthily, relying far too much on junk food which have high levels of fat and sugar (Which becomes fat if you don't use it) and low levels of anything actually useful for the body.
They don't execise enough... Most people's lifestyles are becoming more and more sedatory... we work at computers or desks, we get our entertainment from sitting in front of a TV... it used to be that work was primarily composed of manual labour jobs, and recreation was from DOING things rather than watching them on TV.
No food is bad, just the amounts that people choose to eat of one sort of food is.
The amount of f&*king Coke and Mountain Dew etc that some people drink is absolutely ridiculous! How can people not expect to put on weight when they guzzle litres of the stuff every day... mmmm, sugar... mmmm, not using it while I sit at this computer, mmmmm... I'm putting on weight! That's not fair.
Oh bah and humbug... eat a more balanced diet, try actually cooking some healthy food yourself, and excercise a bit... even if it's just some walking each day... hell, I choose to walk to the train station, and from that to work everyday just to keep a bit of excersise in my daily routine, and it works... I feel fitter and more alert for it...
The same people who look for the 'get thin quick' diets are the same people who go for the 'get rich quick' schemes.
People HAVE mentioned it before... from the very site you link to "This 1981 British movie is comprised of scenes from the serialized TV version of Hitchhiker's Guide."
So, it's not really a movie but a condensed version of the tv series.
I don't really know why I'm bothering, but this can be fun...
* Region coding - I object to it on principle, but there is also lack of information - for example, both Europe and Japan are region 2, but if I buy an NTSC disc from Japan, would it play on a European player? Also, does buying a code-free DVD player break the law where I live? I don't know, therefore I won't buy one
Yes indeed, region coding is the devil's work, it is ridiculous, it is stupid... However:
In Australia it's completely legal to sell a region free DVD player thanks to our ACCC deciding it was anti-competitive for the system to exist. This is the start of a worldwide trend...It's going to disappear... it will eventually be no more... and then all will be good. And really, has it hampered me in getting films from whatever 'region' I want? No... I have plenty of US DVDs, cause I bought a very easy to find MultiRegion player and can do so...
* Already have a laserdisc player - and a *lot* of laserdiscs. Sorry, but I'm not about to switch formats to gain, at most, a slight improvement. We're not talking HDTV here, we're talking primarily YUV component colourspace instead of PAL encoded composite colourspace.
You're hardly in the majority there, at least on a world scale. And aside from picture and sound quality differences, you've also got the HUGE benefit of the size and versatility of the format... Having to turn over multiple 12" discs during a movie is hardly my idea of an easy to use movie format.
* MPEG artifacts - analogue artifacts like dot crawl don't bother me much at all - they look natural now. Blocky digital artifacts bother me a lot, they jump out and scream, 'hello I am a compression artifact' at me, (not really, but you see what I mean).
Yes, MPEG/digital artifacts can be pretty darn horrible to look at... but have I seen any on any DVD that I own? Once... and that was on some extra documentary that was compressed to much... have I seen it on any actual movie? Not one single one...
* Sillyness - 'must watch' chapters on DVD, no, sorry, I'm not going to pay for that, forget it. 10 second copyright notice is possibly tollerable, but not adverts - no way.
Yup, they are stupid, ridiculous and hardly desireable... but do any of my over 100 DVDs have this (Other than copywrite info)... Nope... so it's hardly widespread.
* VHS is a lot better than it used to be - sorry, but it's true, in the early 80s, VHS was a terrible format, but modern machines are better than my 1970s U-Matic decks. It's not as good as laser, or DVD, but frankly, I don't cry my eyes out because I have to watch something on VHS.
OK, so because a shite format is slightly less shite than it used to be, you think that it's preferable to watching it on DVD? Oh lord how you lost me here... How many problems are there with this format?
* It wears out... the first and biggest on of the lot, the thing I hate most about analogue technology (Same as why I loath LPs)... it wears out... it gets hissy, develops dropouts, noise, and basically becomes more an more unwatchable as time wears on.
* Aural magnificance... Oh the joy of low frequency range Dolby Pro Logic Sound... weeee... I should through away my DTS amplifier now, cause I don't need no more than this! Did I mention the hiss?
* The resolution sucks... it sucks a lot, a widescreen movie on a VHS tape is really crap, there's no other way to describe it. (Well there is... quite a few ways actually, none of them nice though)
* Watching fewer films now anyway - this is actually a major reason for not buying DVD. I am getting seriously bored of watching rubbish. The last film I saw at the cinema was Deep Impact - nothing has appealed to me since.
So, this would actually be the biggest reason for you really... you just don't like films now... fair enough... although saying that Deep Impact was a good film, and that nothing since has been better... erm... ooooo kkkkk, each to their own.
* Compressed audio - there was NO excuse for compressing the audio on DVD. I hate compressed audio, and don't want it. I want uncompressed, 2 or more channels of 48 Kbps 16-bit PCM, or nothing. It's bad enough that the cinemas are using these stupid compressed soundsystems, but don't let it invade the consumer market. Oh, you have. Another reason why I don't have a DVD player.
Ok then... so keep watching those VHS tapes then, they'll sound SOOOO much better...
So, to sum up, I don't have a DVD player, and I don't want one.
Which is fair enough, but your reasons seem very flawed... well, except for not liking any movies of late... that's fair enough if that's what your taste dictates...
From the rest of your comments you seem to have either had a really bad DVD experience at some stage, or have just been reading a lot about DVD, filtering out all the good stuff, picking the reasons why you can say you don't want it, and not actually seeing or hearing what the format is capable of... Never have I enjoyed movies as much as when I watch DVDs on my system at home... I get so much joy from the supurb presentation, and the ability to get completely lost in a film... it's really fantastic, and I'm sorry that you've lost the joy you obviously used to have for movies...:(
"Any suggestion that unknown or plainly obvious foreign policy decisions led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that these attacks were somehow justified because of such corrupt foreign policy, is completely assanine."
He's not saying it's justified, he's just putting it in context in the same way that the US bombings on Japan were in context.
In the US's eyes it was completely justifiable to destroy two entire cities in Japan due to their attacks on the US. In OBL's eyes it was completely justifiable to destroy the WTC due to the US's policies and actions in many countries around the world.
There aren't many people who would agree with the actions of OBL, or say that he was justified on committing these acts, but by the same token, you are condemning a far too wide group of people to death because of the actions of a few. In just the same way, it could have been argued that all Americans should have been killed because of their bombing of Japan.
He was drawing parallels, and quite well. There absolutely is no "good" and "bad", there are only varying degrees of grey... and it all depends on just how close to black you're willing to get as to what side you decide to play on.
Myself? I abhor what was done on that day, I was in San Francisco at the time (I'm from Australia), and was absolutely stunned, shocked and horrified by what happened, it was truly horrific. However, while there is no way to defend what they did, I can see some of the reasons why they did, and I don't agree with everything that the US has done in terms of supplying arms to countries, siding with countries based on their own, internal and political agendas etc. I also feel exactly the same way about Australia and its foreign and internal policies.
The point is... far too many people take the easy option of painting OBL et al as pure evil and America and her allies as pure, shining good... it just ain't like that folks... I would go to war to defend Australia, and most likely the US if need be... because I agree, in an overall view, with their vision for what a country should be... it's just always screwed up by individual politicians and industry...
I think it'd be most cool if it didn't work. If the machine thumped down onto the poor box, smashed it, yet it kept working... if the server continued to plug away after having the hammer smashed through its case I'd love it!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes and more yes... Oh how I wish I had moderator points today... I had them two days ago, nothing interesting, and now this... Gun Control... oh how I'd like to mod your post up...
It so very much comes down to the whole point of the 'moment'... people who are otherwise fantastic people can have moments where they really want to hurt someone else... it may be due to alcohol, it may be due to them having some real anger management issues... but the thing is... if they don't have a handy gun or other weapon on them, then the worst that will probably happen is the other party gets a black eye or broken nose... when the agressor comes to his senses he may have ruined a friendship, or maybe can even make up with the other party... if it were a gun toting angry person, then the other person is dead... no way to make it up to them, no way to mend your mistakes, because they're dead.
So why carry it then?
A gun is very safe when it's locked up.
OK, so you're carrying it everywhere and having it locked up for what reason? If you're not going to ever use it, then why even have it? Why can't you have no gun and choose to never use one? It'll save you money, and give you the peace of mind that no-one could take yours from you in a fight, and also you'd never have the ability to shoot someone either accidentally, or in a momentary fit of rage that you'd regret for the rest of your life.
Whether you're more likely to kill someone because you carry a gun. Sure you are.
So, how about not carrying one? Maybe part of the problem is that those in the USA put so damn little value on human life, that they are fine and dandy with killing someone... as long as they're still alive, then all is ok... Damn that's sick.
Whether you're more likely to get killed because you carry a gun? Debate that all you like, but if you have it, you have the choice whether to use it.
And didn't you just say that you could choose to never use it? So why even have it, then you won't kill anyone with it, and you're also less likely to be shot as that false bravado that 'packing heat' brings with it can really put you in those positions that result in you being killed when all that may have happened was the loss of a wallet or a bit of pride...
OK... but did any of them involve deaths? Did any of those involve anything but property theft? If not, why up the ante by involving deadly weapons?
However, that isn't the issue. Do you buy insurance? If so, what is the difference between that and having a gun?
Well, I can't really think of a way I could accidently kill someone with my insurance. Or have my insurance lying around the house and have someone at a party use it to kill someone. (Perhaps a nasty paper cut from the insurance form)
Well, assuming I am responsible and teach my kids about guns, how to use them and when not to use them, I can honestly say that the former is more likely. Education is the key to safety. Whether it be driving a car, plugging in an electrical device or handling a gun. It is not that difficult.
Somewhat true... indeed education is almost always the best course of action, but it's just too easy to accidently kill with a gun. Oh sure, you can do the same with the others, probably mostly the car, but again, cars are a bit easier to dodge than a bullet... slightly slower.
I think the problem was that no-one actually read the story... just the sensationlist Slashdot article.
All the article said was that AMD saw the ridiculous waste of time in simply jacking up the speed of processes continually... We're up to 3GHz now... and what actually requires that? Not much... so why not spend the time building COOLER chips that can be cooled in a QUIETER way... in fact, why not ship your chips with a QUIET fan, like really QUIET (why am I shouting the word QUIET? Oh yeah, so I can be heard over my AMD with noisy FAN!)...
Cooler... damn that would be nice... my media server, sitting in my entertainment cabinet... pumps out a lot of heat... it's ridiculous really... I got a relatively lowly Duron 1GHz and it's pouring the heat out.
Surely, now that they're up at 3GHz... rather than screaming towards 4GHz like mad things, why don't they work on making the 2GHz and lower cooler?
It's the refresh rate... on both IMAX 3D movies, and these computer based ones, the problem comes from these shutters in front of your eyes flicking on and off 60 or so times a second (Don't know what IMAX's is)... there's only so much of that your brain can take... if they made it a lot faster, then the headaches would probably cease, as off/on cycles would be so quick as to become a blur to the mind's eye... as it stands, the brain has to cope with the flicker and hence the pain...
Oh, come on... why is this heavy handed? how can this POSSIBLY be construed as heavy handed?
MS is offering a service for online play using their XBox. People with said XBox can play to their heart's content (As long as they reign in their language... fair enough really, who needs a 12 yr old telling you 'your mum f*cks goats' or whatever). People with machines other than XBoxes can't use the service... people with a modified XBox, therefore really not an XBox anymore, but moreso something that began life as one but is now changed (Perhaps an ExBox?) can't use it either.
How is unfair to run an area with some rules as to what you are and aren't allowed to use while you're there? How is it different to a painball/skirmish arena where they say you have to use their armour and their paintball guns while you're there, you're not allowed to come in with your own uzi 9mm? Or perhaps, to be more accurate in the analogy, a paintball gun from the park that has been modified to shoot 10000 rounds a second...
Damn people, stop bashing MS just for the sake of bashing MS... there's nothing wrong with what they're doing here... in fact I applaud them for it.
There seems to be enough articles about them... every time they make something new... article on Slashdot.
We could expand the segment:
* Give the guys an idea for a lego model (My guess 95% will be for Star Wars or LOTR models... the other 5% will be nude women)
* See what they do with the rest of their time (My guess is weird little contraptions around the house)
and maybe
* Live webcam updates of them building... in realtime... never miss a second of the thrilling lego building action!
Exactly, after seeing this on the news last week, I was less than impressed by the speed of it...
Robot: "WOOF!"
Thief: "Oh crap! A robot dog!"
*Robot dog slowly lumbers towards intruder, looking more like a drunk and invalid spider with half its legs than a scary intruder deterant*
T: "Oh... is that all you've got... so if I walk over... like... here... I would loose you..."
R: "WOOF!"
T: "I'll just be in the other room if you can be bothered walking through"
R: "Wimper..."
Look at the user history, look at how low his user number is, look at his user name, think about whether the Slashdot guys would let someone continue to use that name for so long and pose as John... look also at the official stories that have had comments by John, from that user id...
:)
Man... you've just stuck your foot in it.
And one would have to say... 'Who gives a f*cking shit about first posting?'
For god's sake, there's hell of a lot of things more worthy things to get excited about... and posting 'first' on a website such as this is not one of them... god damn...
And the other guy to get angry over it... f*cking hell... get a damn life people... get a life...
1. I did rant a bit in that first post there didn't I? I apologise for my bluntness.
:) (Unless it was a plain plane, then that'd be alright)
:)
2. I would probably agree that churches cause crime... but that's probably to do with me thinking that religion does more to breed intolerance than almost anything else.
3. I spelt plane as plain! Oh my...
4. I still don't like guns...
OK, I give you that higher density populations can cause a higher level of crime... but what about Japan? With half the USA's population in one WAY smaller country... what's it's murder rate like?
9 .htm)
Let's look at some more figures... (Aren't these fun?) (1999 data from here: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa01259
North America - 32 people/sq.mi
South America - 73 people/sq.mi
Europe - 134 people/sq.mi
Asia - 203 people/sq.mi
Africa - 65 people/sq.mi
Australia and Oceania - 9 people/sq.mi
Ok... so we have Asia with about 630% higher population density than the USA. (Granted, you've got the same thing as Australia, of having some damn large areas with bugger all population in them, and some smaller areas with much higher density, but still)
So, we have Japan, with a ridiculously high population density, and what is their murder rate? About 1 in 100,000... So... um... high density, moreso than American cities... yet very low murder rate... hmmm.
Now, I've just taken Japan as an example, as I knew it would be an extreme one, as I know that their culture has something to do with the low murder rate. But then again so does their very strict gun control measures.
So, population density is NOT a nice, easy excuse for needing guns... There are many things, and I think one of the greater ones you'd find in common with the cities you mention is poverty. There are some extremely poor communities in these cities, and in large numbers too. This coupled with the ready availability of guns does not a happy community make.
It comes down to community attitude & community idealologies... In the US it's far too swayed over to the "Well the bad guys have guns, so I damn well will have them too, just so I can protect myself"
Well, that's great, except by having easy access to guns, that means more of the 'bad guys' get them, which means more of the 'good guys' feel they need to have them to be safe, which effectively means that everyone ends up being armed... as has on a number of occasions, children at school.
Basically I don't think that either of us is going to convince the other that they are right. There are a LOT of studies out there that proport to support each side of the argument, and in fact a single report can end up being read both ways by just focusing in on particular figures...
Basically what it comes down to is that I hate guns, they are far too quick a way to kill someone with far too little effort, meaning that far too often people end up doing so in a moment of rage, panic or just through plain bad luck, that ends up destroying one life and quite often making the survivor's one full of remorse and sorrow...
Oh, and I have travelled to LA (Including Compton, Inglewood etc), Mexico, London etc... and I have felt somewhat 'unsafe' in some of these areas, but have I ever felt the need to arm myself?
Not for a moment... it never even crossed my mind.
Bloody hell! There aren't neighbourhoods in Australia that are really considered 'unsafe'... there are not nice ones, there are ones where crime is higher, but there's NOTHING like South Central LA or countless other extremely dangerous areas like in the US.
Why?
Because Australia has tough gun laws, therefore, while the bad areas are not nice, generally any type of violence that there may be is limited to beatings and knife attacks etc... which you're MUCH more likely to survive than a gun attack.
But... what about the OTHER statistic with damn guns? What about the ACCIDENTS?
Lets have a look at some statistics shall we. (All from here 1990-95 study)
Country | Accidents with Firearms per 100,000
Canada 63
Australia 18
New Zealand 4
USA 1,441!
Oooh, yeah, guns are good.
Or what about some actual crime figures, if the ridiculous number of firearm accidents doesn't matter?:
Country | Homicides per 100,000
Canada 2.2
Australia 1.8
New Zealand 2.6
USA 9.8!
That's over 400% more than Canada, and you share a border!
WHEN are people going to realise that having f&*king guns does not make you safer! It DOESN'T, look at the number of damn accidents! These are the kids who accidently kill a friend with dad's gun, the scared homeowner at night who shoots their kid coming in late because they thought they were a burgular... If they had no gun, THESE THINGS WOULDN'T HAPPEN.
And putting them on a plain... yeah top f&*king idea... just great, I really want this f*&king gun culture in an enclosed space where tensions tend to get high at the best of times... yes please.
But it's not even a particularly new/clever/well presented/information rich example of a sub woofer either... the same type of sub design has been shown many, many times before... so why was this one posted on Slashdot?
I'm sorry, but is "Lilo and Stitch being the notable exception" supposed to mean that it was a good movie?
Oh god what a pile of shite that was, a contrived plot, a mis-defined lead creature, a vomit worthy feel good tale of broken families being 'A-OK', and quite poorly tacked on musical numbers.
It was shite, pure and simple.
Just because they are catching criminals doesn't mean the system is working.
:(
What about the people on death row that are innocent? There have been numbers of cases of people being found innocent just in the nick of time... or worse, after the execution.
Do you call that system 'working'?
What about if you were classed as a terrorist due to your heritage, your religion, and you went to school with someone who turned out to be a terrorist? (Maybe you never even knew them)
Is that a system that 'works'?
What about if, as someone from the article suggests, that these systems were privatised (That's damn scary)... then really, what is to stop these private companies 'delaying' a few members of some particular activist group that may be threatening their activities in some part of the world?
Who decides what ranks you highly as a terrorist?
Who decides who gets to see this conglomeration of information?
Who ensures that the information that is used in these rankings is accurate?
How long does your 'terror' ranking stick for? If you took part in some protest march, are you unable to fly anywhere for the next 5 years?
This all just sounds damn close to so many grim Sci Fi Movies...
And I will be the bigger dick who points out that you ignored his statement of: "Of course, that doesn't mean that we have no spelling or grammatical errors -- it simply means that we try to communicate our ideas using grammar that is correct"
It was a mistake... we all make them... geeze..
His point was a damn good one.
Urgh... more damn 'get thin quick' diets... And more people saying that the increase in obesity is due to people cutting out fat too much...
Crud.
There are more fat people about because the vast majority of people do NOT eat healthily, relying far too much on junk food which have high levels of fat and sugar (Which becomes fat if you don't use it) and low levels of anything actually useful for the body.
They don't execise enough... Most people's lifestyles are becoming more and more sedatory... we work at computers or desks, we get our entertainment from sitting in front of a TV... it used to be that work was primarily composed of manual labour jobs, and recreation was from DOING things rather than watching them on TV.
No food is bad, just the amounts that people choose to eat of one sort of food is.
The amount of f&*king Coke and Mountain Dew etc that some people drink is absolutely ridiculous! How can people not expect to put on weight when they guzzle litres of the stuff every day... mmmm, sugar... mmmm, not using it while I sit at this computer, mmmmm... I'm putting on weight! That's not fair.
Oh bah and humbug... eat a more balanced diet, try actually cooking some healthy food yourself, and excercise a bit... even if it's just some walking each day... hell, I choose to walk to the train station, and from that to work everyday just to keep a bit of excersise in my daily routine, and it works... I feel fitter and more alert for it...
The same people who look for the 'get thin quick' diets are the same people who go for the 'get rich quick' schemes.
People HAVE mentioned it before... from the very site you link to "This 1981 British movie is comprised of scenes from the serialized TV version of Hitchhiker's Guide."
So, it's not really a movie but a condensed version of the tv series.
* Region coding - I object to it on principle, but there is also lack of information - for example, both Europe and Japan are region 2, but if I buy an NTSC disc from Japan, would it play on a European player? Also, does buying a code-free DVD player break the law where I live? I don't know, therefore I won't buy one
Yes indeed, region coding is the devil's work, it is ridiculous, it is stupid...
However:
In Australia it's completely legal to sell a region free DVD player thanks to our ACCC deciding it was anti-competitive for the system to exist. This is the start of a worldwide trend...It's going to disappear... it will eventually be no more... and then all will be good. And really, has it hampered me in getting films from whatever 'region' I want? No... I have plenty of US DVDs, cause I bought a very easy to find MultiRegion player and can do so...
* Already have a laserdisc player - and a *lot* of laserdiscs. Sorry, but I'm not about to switch formats to gain, at most, a slight improvement. We're not talking HDTV here, we're talking primarily YUV component colourspace instead of PAL encoded composite colourspace.
You're hardly in the majority there, at least on a world scale. And aside from picture and sound quality differences, you've also got the HUGE benefit of the size and versatility of the format... Having to turn over multiple 12" discs during a movie is hardly my idea of an easy to use movie format.
* MPEG artifacts - analogue artifacts like dot crawl don't bother me much at all - they look natural now. Blocky digital artifacts bother me a lot, they jump out and scream, 'hello I am a compression artifact' at me, (not really, but you see what I mean).
Yes, MPEG/digital artifacts can be pretty darn horrible to look at... but have I seen any on any DVD that I own? Once... and that was on some extra documentary that was compressed to much... have I seen it on any actual movie? Not one single one...
* Sillyness - 'must watch' chapters on DVD, no, sorry, I'm not going to pay for that, forget it. 10 second copyright notice is possibly tollerable, but not adverts - no way.
Yup, they are stupid, ridiculous and hardly desireable... but do any of my over 100 DVDs have this (Other than copywrite info)... Nope... so it's hardly widespread.
* VHS is a lot better than it used to be - sorry, but it's true, in the early 80s, VHS was a terrible format, but modern machines are better than my 1970s U-Matic decks. It's not as good as laser, or DVD, but frankly, I don't cry my eyes out because I have to watch something on VHS.
OK, so because a shite format is slightly less shite than it used to be, you think that it's preferable to watching it on DVD? Oh lord how you lost me here... How many problems are there with this format?
* It wears out... the first and biggest on of the lot, the thing I hate most about analogue technology (Same as why I loath LPs)... it wears out... it gets hissy, develops dropouts, noise, and basically becomes more an more unwatchable as time wears on.
* Aural magnificance... Oh the joy of low frequency range Dolby Pro Logic Sound... weeee... I should through away my DTS amplifier now, cause I don't need no more than this! Did I mention the hiss?
* The resolution sucks... it sucks a lot, a widescreen movie on a VHS tape is really crap, there's no other way to describe it. (Well there is... quite a few ways actually, none of them nice though)
* Watching fewer films now anyway - this is actually a major reason for not buying DVD. I am getting seriously bored of watching rubbish. The last film I saw at the cinema was Deep Impact - nothing has appealed to me since.
So, this would actually be the biggest reason for you really... you just don't like films now... fair enough... although saying that Deep Impact was a good film, and that nothing since has been better... erm... ooooo kkkkk, each to their own.
* Compressed audio - there was NO excuse for compressing the audio on DVD. I hate compressed audio, and don't want it. I want uncompressed, 2 or more channels of 48 Kbps 16-bit PCM, or nothing. It's bad enough that the cinemas are using these stupid compressed soundsystems, but don't let it invade the consumer market. Oh, you have. Another reason why I don't have a DVD player.
Ok then... so keep watching those VHS tapes then, they'll sound SOOOO much better...
So, to sum up, I don't have a DVD player, and I don't want one. Which is fair enough, but your reasons seem very flawed... well, except for not liking any movies of late... that's fair enough if that's what your taste dictates... :(
From the rest of your comments you seem to have either had a really bad DVD experience at some stage, or have just been reading a lot about DVD, filtering out all the good stuff, picking the reasons why you can say you don't want it, and not actually seeing or hearing what the format is capable of... Never have I enjoyed movies as much as when I watch DVDs on my system at home... I get so much joy from the supurb presentation, and the ability to get completely lost in a film... it's really fantastic, and I'm sorry that you've lost the joy you obviously used to have for movies...
He's not saying it's justified, he's just putting it in context in the same way that the US bombings on Japan were in context.
In the US's eyes it was completely justifiable to destroy two entire cities in Japan due to their attacks on the US. In OBL's eyes it was completely justifiable to destroy the WTC due to the US's policies and actions in many countries around the world.
There aren't many people who would agree with the actions of OBL, or say that he was justified on committing these acts, but by the same token, you are condemning a far too wide group of people to death because of the actions of a few. In just the same way, it could have been argued that all Americans should have been killed because of their bombing of Japan.
He was drawing parallels, and quite well. There absolutely is no "good" and "bad", there are only varying degrees of grey... and it all depends on just how close to black you're willing to get as to what side you decide to play on.
Myself? I abhor what was done on that day, I was in San Francisco at the time (I'm from Australia), and was absolutely stunned, shocked and horrified by what happened, it was truly horrific. However, while there is no way to defend what they did, I can see some of the reasons why they did, and I don't agree with everything that the US has done in terms of supplying arms to countries, siding with countries based on their own, internal and political agendas etc. I also feel exactly the same way about Australia and its foreign and internal policies.
The point is... far too many people take the easy option of painting OBL et al as pure evil and America and her allies as pure, shining good... it just ain't like that folks... I would go to war to defend Australia, and most likely the US if need be... because I agree, in an overall view, with their vision for what a country should be... it's just always screwed up by individual politicians and industry...
And then I was showing my lack of spelling, by writing grammer instead of grammar... humph :p
Erm... hang on... your example is wrong too... if we were to expand it, it would be:
"You are post exhibits your lack of grammer"
It would have been better to use, for example, the following:
"You're showing your lack of knowledge of grammer in your post"
I think it'd be most cool if it didn't work. If the machine thumped down onto the poor box, smashed it, yet it kept working... if the server continued to plug away after having the hammer smashed through its case I'd love it!
I hope mine doesn't sound anything like Brittany Spears!