I almost forgot to give you a link to some useful data. I wish they'd take the time to plug the most recent UCRs into their algorithms and calculate the most recent years. I just might have to do that myself.
It works out the same either way. Six of one, half a dozen. Our crime rate ranking in a fixed number of states should be equal to that of our population. If we have the 32nd largest population of 50 we should have the 32nd largest crime rate of 50. Having a crime rate greater that 32nd indicates we have a below average TCI. A crime rate above 32nd (which our's is) mean we have an above average TCI. All things being equal, if crime was consistent and ever X person committed Y amount of crime across the US then population would parallel TCI. Make sense? You could take the ratio route, how 1 in Z people commit crime in state ABC. You're representing the same data in another manner. It all says the same thing in the end. The ratio approach makes it more difficult to compare all 50 states at once though. You have to calculate each state's ratio and list them in numbered order to determine who ranks above someone else. That's the benefit of the ranking system. 32nd and 19th obviously don't match.:-)
Thank you for your sensible post. Far too many people don't think before they buy or use a firearm. Myself, I own nearly a dozen. I grew up around them and learned to use them safely at an early age. I'm planning on becoming a certified NRA instructor when I get the free time. Few people have the luxury of learning as a child and need the professional instruction. I wish more people took advantage of the opportunities that are out there when buying their first firearms.
Personally I also recommend shotguns for home defense. I don't recommend a long shotgun like a Remington 1100 or a Savage 755A. There are numerous short alternatives though. I also don't recommend pumps to novices. An auto is much more practical, easier to use, and safer in the long run thanks to their lack of complexity (from a usage standpoint in an urgent situation). You can't beat a scatter gun for home defense IMHO.
Many folks want a pistol though. I always recommend the same thing. A Glock. Quite frankly it's idiot proof. There no way in hell you're not going to be able to use it right once you pop in a mag and work the slide. Forget the traditional safeties like a button that locks the trigger or hammer or a lever that rotates the firing pin. Glock's 3 safeties are as idiot proof as you can get. All 3 have to be operated in succesion for the gun to be fireable. To operate the safeties you have to pull the trigger, thus releasing the trigger safety. I can't get any more simple. Revolvers are impractical for all novices IMHO. You have to be an experienced shooter to operate a revolver safely IMHO. I own a 6" Anaconda. I wouldn't recommend it or any other revoler to anyone other than an experienced shooter. It's just not safe. I can see someone holding the gun wrong and burning the piss out of their hand. It's a common novice mistake. I'd only recommend a Glock to a novice wanting a pistol. Thinking about the gun novices I know, I can't think of a single novice that wouldn't be horribly confused by my Beretta. It's not that complicated of a gun but I can see them all being horribly confused. One too many levers perhaps.
Rifles make a horrible personal defense weapon. It's impossible to effectively aim in tight quarters such as in a bedroom or hallway. All but the lightest rounds chambered for a rifle are almost certainly going to be a through and through, likely penetrating a wall and another member of your house or a neighbor. Save the rifles for long ranged plinking and deer hunting. Stick with the shotguns for personal defense. Everything else you said was right on the money.
You don't have to own and carry a firearm in a state that does issue concealed carry permits. You do however benefit from those that do utilize their permits whether you realize it or not. The criminal doesn't know if you are one of the citizens licensed to defend themselves effectively or not. (unless your home town newspaper editor and sheriff thinks they'll rock the boat by publishing the names of all licensed citizens in their area; this has happened before).
Remember credit cards are YOU borrowing money from someone else.
Not necessarily. Don't forget about the extremely common bank debit cards with the Visa logo on them. As far as a place like PP (pee pee) are concerned, it's a credit card. Therefore the money they are handling for you is YOUR money, not someone else's.
I STRONGLY recommend against giving PP access to a debit card or any other sorts of card that is directly tied to your personal funds. PP has a bad habit of taking back money from your account they think you owe them. They've been caught with one hand in the cookie jar and the other in their pants on many an occasion. Don't be a schmuck; use a real CC when dealing with PP.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
I just want to point out that felons can not own a gun anyhow. They lose that right along with many other rights when they become a felon. I'd love to jump in and debate in this article but I don't have the energy to combat all the leftist extremist attitudes on Slashdot. I'm way more left than right I don't do not believe in gun control beyond limit access to felons (something which has been done for decades anyhow). Gun control does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those that would commit a crime. It only stands to prevent innocent civilians from defending themselves.
The whole damned thing is going to hell in a hand basket. Injustices happen all the time. Slowly each lesser degree becomes the norm and some greater than the previous lesser is then recognized as the current lesser. And so on and so on until there is no greater and everyone wishes for the days of lessers. Sad but it's happening. It's human nature I'm afraid.
I've seen it wielded. I've never had to be on the receiving end. Still even their jacked up justice (or lack thereof) is not absolute. Courts can overturn any decision by an SGA or any other disciplinary board. And you can always sue for damages. The only unfortunate thing is that it costs money. Lots of money. That prevents many folks from being able to defend themselves effectively. The system is biased agains those without $$. Sad but true.
What they other guy said so I won't repeat his comment. A contract can not deprive you of your rights. There are some things even a contract can't take away. The contract could say that you give them permission to use your vehicle as they see fit or on every Feb 29 you are sold into 24 bondage. It may be in the contract but they are both rights you can't sign away.
Funny but similar story. In Wichita, KS Boeing is one of the major employers. It owns a fair chunk of earth in the area. At the southernmost end of its property it put up a steel building to lease to contractors it used often. That way their equipment could be stored onsite. Well, needless to say they leased it to one of their contractors. At some point the contractor no longer needed the building. Rather than let it stand empty the contractor sub-leased. The building now houses Jezebels, a strip club. The Boeing workers named their buildings easy to remember names (not sure where they really came from; a map perhaps). It goes something like IPV1, IPV2, etc.. IIRC Jezebels is either IPV5 or IPV6. Side point but humorous and somewhat related.:-)
I think you may have a fundemental misunderstanding of federal law. If I *own* a building, and can set the rules, pretty much regardless. That doesn't mean I take someone to court if they break them, it means they signed a contract and I can legally throw them out for not abiding my my rules.
Actually you can't. The law explicitly states what rights are your's and what rights are the tenants'. Depending on the state in which you live, rights not explicitly granted to the landlord are granted to the tenant. A contract for a residential rental unit can only contain very specific things. Clauses that open holes for arbitrary changes almost always invalidate rental contracts (or they have in every case I've ever researched in my state which would be dozens).
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Again, no it's not legal. It would in fact be illegal. If the law doesn't explicitly state what items the landlords can ban (firearms for example) then the landlord can not ban them.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
Irrelevant. Their intention does not trump their action. What they're doing is still illegal, even if it is in the name of security.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
Ah. Another person who didn't bother to read the article before attempting to talk out their ass like an expert. The university does not own the property. It's owned by a private entity (not the unv). The Unv installed APs to provide 'Net access to its residents (who are mostly Unv students). The APs in question by the residents do not connect to the campus network but instead connect to a commercial ISP's network (such as ComCast which explicitly permits such things). There university's TOS and AUP do not apply to these residents since the residents are not using the campus network.
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Logic and intentions have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of law. The university is trying to tell a neighbor's friends that they can't do something on the neighbor's property. That's not the univerisity's right.
Obviously you didn't read the article. So allow me the opportunity to say "read the fucking article or shut up." Ah. Much better now.
The university installed APs in another person's commercial property that is adjacent to their campus (and thus commoningly used by students). The university does not own the property nor does it have any contracts with the residents in those residential rental units. That would be irrelevant even if they did since they can not regulate an unregulated airspace. Doing so would be illegal. There's that very special word again. Illegal. Only the FCC can regulate their unregulated airspace.
Allow me to say it one more time, "read the fucking article or shut up."
They probably don't want to use the university's restricted 'Net access. The university probably limits the amount of data they can send, prohibits servers, assigns private IPs (to prohibit most servers), etc. I imagine the students would rather use an unrestricted service than a restricted one. I know I would if I was in their shoes.
Actually no. The university can not say what can and can't be done in their dorm rooms. Those rooms are rental units and thus regulated by the state and federal laws that pertain to residential rental units. In Kansas this is called the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It gives both parties specific and limited rights and a process by which to settle grievances. The university is a landlord and does not have the right to restrict an unlicensed spectrum in their rental units, nor do they have the right to tell you what device you can and can not have in that rental that is not explicitly granted to them under the law. There is no grey area here folks. Places like UoT do things like this (this **AA) because they have size, prestige, and money behind their whims. That doesn't (or shouldn') give them any more legal standing in a courtroom. They are still a landlord and their actions are controlled by the law.
Using the logic that they don't want you operating your own APs because they interfere with the the school's AP, would suggest they would also tell you to not use 2.4GHz cordless phones (which is actually feasible if they have a digital phone system, and provide the students with their own phone).
They can't tell you that you can't use 2.4Ghz cordless phones either. That's not their right since they don't own that particular spectrum. Do you realize a licensed HAM takes precedence over all unlicensed users in the unregulated spectrums? A licensed HAM can legally interfere with the 2.4Ghz range, disrupting everyone else if they choose. If an unlicensed operator's device interferes with a HAM device (whether or not the HAM's device was built to the specs that deal with interference or not) the unlicensed operator is required by law to shut their device down. Did you know that? Doesn't matter whot he unlicensed operator, beit ma and pa farmer or bloated ego university. I was with a group of HAMs once that were talking about that. They pulled out the FCC reg that gave them that right too. Interesting as hell. I wish I had the time to be a HAM.
It isn't legal. Neither the university (if they were the actual landlord) nor the actual landlords can regulate federal airspace no matter what catch-all clauses are in their silly little contract.
Now, you can *waive* your rights and give them permission to do things that landlords ordinarily could not (such as searching your dorm) - that's what you are doing when you sign your housing agreement (which every university that I know of makes you do in order to live in the dorm) If you didn't sign the housing agreement and somehow ended up living in the dorm, then the university could do nothing that a landlord couldn't.
Actually a contract can not waive even those rights. Signing a college's silly little housing contract doesn't userp your rights granted to you by your state.
Actually they can't enter your room at any time regardless of whatever their lawyers put in their silly little contracts. You are renting that space from them and you and they are therefore bound to the laws governing residential rental units in your state. In Kansas those laws are found in the Kansas Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. To kick you out of your residential rental in Kansas takes approximately 90 days. They can't kick you out overnight like they'll tell you they can or like the TV shows depict. It is a rent unit and both parties do have rights under the rental laws that govern both parties.
Yeah, hateful little bastards like Miller turn my stomach. I've got to tell you though, I can think of one person that one-ups Miller. That would be Ann Coulter. How can I put it politely... Bitch? Political whore? I can think of a few worse things but frankly I think that gives you my general impression of the wench. Granted, she's not bad looking. Nice ass for sure. Slim like I like 'em. Still I'd rather sleep with Hillary or the bible-thumping holier-than-though Tipper than Coulter and that's not meant to compliment Coulter or the other women who I personally do not like. I've read he rants. I've heard her speak. I don't know what it is that makes people keep listening to her. Sexual attraction is the only thing I can think of. This site sums it up nicely. Biatch with a capital S.
How about "F***'ed your Fellow Vietnam Vets", or "French owned."
Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost forgot to give you a link to some useful data. I wish they'd take the time to plug the most recent UCRs into their algorithms and calculate the most recent years. I just might have to do that myself.
It works out the same either way. Six of one, half a dozen. Our crime rate ranking in a fixed number of states should be equal to that of our population. If we have the 32nd largest population of 50 we should have the 32nd largest crime rate of 50. Having a crime rate greater that 32nd indicates we have a below average TCI. A crime rate above 32nd (which our's is) mean we have an above average TCI. All things being equal, if crime was consistent and ever X person committed Y amount of crime across the US then population would parallel TCI. Make sense? You could take the ratio route, how 1 in Z people commit crime in state ABC. You're representing the same data in another manner. It all says the same thing in the end. The ratio approach makes it more difficult to compare all 50 states at once though. You have to calculate each state's ratio and list them in numbered order to determine who ranks above someone else. That's the benefit of the ranking system. 32nd and 19th obviously don't match. :-)
Personally I also recommend shotguns for home defense. I don't recommend a long shotgun like a Remington 1100 or a Savage 755A. There are numerous short alternatives though. I also don't recommend pumps to novices. An auto is much more practical, easier to use, and safer in the long run thanks to their lack of complexity (from a usage standpoint in an urgent situation). You can't beat a scatter gun for home defense IMHO.
Many folks want a pistol though. I always recommend the same thing. A Glock. Quite frankly it's idiot proof. There no way in hell you're not going to be able to use it right once you pop in a mag and work the slide. Forget the traditional safeties like a button that locks the trigger or hammer or a lever that rotates the firing pin. Glock's 3 safeties are as idiot proof as you can get. All 3 have to be operated in succesion for the gun to be fireable. To operate the safeties you have to pull the trigger, thus releasing the trigger safety. I can't get any more simple. Revolvers are impractical for all novices IMHO. You have to be an experienced shooter to operate a revolver safely IMHO. I own a 6" Anaconda. I wouldn't recommend it or any other revoler to anyone other than an experienced shooter. It's just not safe. I can see someone holding the gun wrong and burning the piss out of their hand. It's a common novice mistake. I'd only recommend a Glock to a novice wanting a pistol. Thinking about the gun novices I know, I can't think of a single novice that wouldn't be horribly confused by my Beretta. It's not that complicated of a gun but I can see them all being horribly confused. One too many levers perhaps.
Rifles make a horrible personal defense weapon. It's impossible to effectively aim in tight quarters such as in a bedroom or hallway. All but the lightest rounds chambered for a rifle are almost certainly going to be a through and through, likely penetrating a wall and another member of your house or a neighbor. Save the rifles for long ranged plinking and deer hunting. Stick with the shotguns for personal defense. Everything else you said was right on the money.
This very thing is a critical premise behind the effectiveness of the concealed carry of firearms which is legal in all but . Studies based on interviews with convicted felons both in and out of prison have shown that criminals are more concerned with encountering an armed civilian than they are encounting an on-duty police officer. That fear of trying to rob the wrong person (an armed person) keeps the crime rate in shall-issue states noticeably lower than what their average should be. My state, Kansas, had the 32 highest population in 2000 and yet ranked the 19th highest total crime index (TCI or crime rate) in the country. That's right, little old Kansas. Land of Oz, wheatfields, large flat plains, and cattle ranchers. And we have a crime rate significantly above average per populus. Those numbers are hard to beat.
You don't have to own and carry a firearm in a state that does issue concealed carry permits. You do however benefit from those that do utilize their permits whether you realize it or not. The criminal doesn't know if you are one of the citizens licensed to defend themselves effectively or not. (unless your home town newspaper editor and sheriff thinks they'll rock the boat by publishing the names of all licensed citizens in their area; this has happened before).
I don't suppose your wife has a single, good-lookin' sister with a bass boat by chance, does she? 8-)
Keep honking; I'm reloading.
Gun control means hitting your target.
Not necessarily. Don't forget about the extremely common bank debit cards with the Visa logo on them. As far as a place like PP (pee pee) are concerned, it's a credit card. Therefore the money they are handling for you is YOUR money, not someone else's.
I STRONGLY recommend against giving PP access to a debit card or any other sorts of card that is directly tied to your personal funds. PP has a bad habit of taking back money from your account they think you owe them. They've been caught with one hand in the cookie jar and the other in their pants on many an occasion. Don't be a schmuck; use a real CC when dealing with PP.
I just want to point out that felons can not own a gun anyhow. They lose that right along with many other rights when they become a felon. I'd love to jump in and debate in this article but I don't have the energy to combat all the leftist extremist attitudes on Slashdot. I'm way more left than right I don't do not believe in gun control beyond limit access to felons (something which has been done for decades anyhow). Gun control does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those that would commit a crime. It only stands to prevent innocent civilians from defending themselves.
The whole damned thing is going to hell in a hand basket. Injustices happen all the time. Slowly each lesser degree becomes the norm and some greater than the previous lesser is then recognized as the current lesser. And so on and so on until there is no greater and everyone wishes for the days of lessers. Sad but it's happening. It's human nature I'm afraid.
I've seen it wielded. I've never had to be on the receiving end. Still even their jacked up justice (or lack thereof) is not absolute. Courts can overturn any decision by an SGA or any other disciplinary board. And you can always sue for damages. The only unfortunate thing is that it costs money. Lots of money. That prevents many folks from being able to defend themselves effectively. The system is biased agains those without $$. Sad but true.
What they other guy said so I won't repeat his comment. A contract can not deprive you of your rights. There are some things even a contract can't take away. The contract could say that you give them permission to use your vehicle as they see fit or on every Feb 29 you are sold into 24 bondage. It may be in the contract but they are both rights you can't sign away.
Funny but similar story. In Wichita, KS Boeing is one of the major employers. It owns a fair chunk of earth in the area. At the southernmost end of its property it put up a steel building to lease to contractors it used often. That way their equipment could be stored onsite. Well, needless to say they leased it to one of their contractors. At some point the contractor no longer needed the building. Rather than let it stand empty the contractor sub-leased. The building now houses Jezebels, a strip club. The Boeing workers named their buildings easy to remember names (not sure where they really came from; a map perhaps). It goes something like IPV1, IPV2, etc.. IIRC Jezebels is either IPV5 or IPV6. Side point but humorous and somewhat related. :-)
Actually you can't. The law explicitly states what rights are your's and what rights are the tenants'. Depending on the state in which you live, rights not explicitly granted to the landlord are granted to the tenant. A contract for a residential rental unit can only contain very specific things. Clauses that open holes for arbitrary changes almost always invalidate rental contracts (or they have in every case I've ever researched in my state which would be dozens).
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Again, no it's not legal. It would in fact be illegal. If the law doesn't explicitly state what items the landlords can ban (firearms for example) then the landlord can not ban them.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
Irrelevant. Their intention does not trump their action. What they're doing is still illegal, even if it is in the name of security.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
Ah. Another person who didn't bother to read the article before attempting to talk out their ass like an expert. The university does not own the property. It's owned by a private entity (not the unv). The Unv installed APs to provide 'Net access to its residents (who are mostly Unv students). The APs in question by the residents do not connect to the campus network but instead connect to a commercial ISP's network (such as ComCast which explicitly permits such things). There university's TOS and AUP do not apply to these residents since the residents are not using the campus network.
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Logic and intentions have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of law. The university is trying to tell a neighbor's friends that they can't do something on the neighbor's property. That's not the univerisity's right.
The university installed APs in another person's commercial property that is adjacent to their campus (and thus commoningly used by students). The university does not own the property nor does it have any contracts with the residents in those residential rental units. That would be irrelevant even if they did since they can not regulate an unregulated airspace. Doing so would be illegal. There's that very special word again. Illegal. Only the FCC can regulate their unregulated airspace.
Allow me to say it one more time, "read the fucking article or shut up."
Hmm... -----_----..... You're right. I believe you're right! By george I think he's got it! ;-)
They probably don't want to use the university's restricted 'Net access. The university probably limits the amount of data they can send, prohibits servers, assigns private IPs (to prohibit most servers), etc. I imagine the students would rather use an unrestricted service than a restricted one. I know I would if I was in their shoes.
Actually no. The university can not say what can and can't be done in their dorm rooms. Those rooms are rental units and thus regulated by the state and federal laws that pertain to residential rental units. In Kansas this is called the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It gives both parties specific and limited rights and a process by which to settle grievances. The university is a landlord and does not have the right to restrict an unlicensed spectrum in their rental units, nor do they have the right to tell you what device you can and can not have in that rental that is not explicitly granted to them under the law. There is no grey area here folks. Places like UoT do things like this (this **AA) because they have size, prestige, and money behind their whims. That doesn't (or shouldn') give them any more legal standing in a courtroom. They are still a landlord and their actions are controlled by the law.
They can't tell you that you can't use 2.4Ghz cordless phones either. That's not their right since they don't own that particular spectrum. Do you realize a licensed HAM takes precedence over all unlicensed users in the unregulated spectrums? A licensed HAM can legally interfere with the 2.4Ghz range, disrupting everyone else if they choose. If an unlicensed operator's device interferes with a HAM device (whether or not the HAM's device was built to the specs that deal with interference or not) the unlicensed operator is required by law to shut their device down. Did you know that? Doesn't matter whot he unlicensed operator, beit ma and pa farmer or bloated ego university. I was with a group of HAMs once that were talking about that. They pulled out the FCC reg that gave them that right too. Interesting as hell. I wish I had the time to be a HAM.
It isn't legal. Neither the university (if they were the actual landlord) nor the actual landlords can regulate federal airspace no matter what catch-all clauses are in their silly little contract.
Actually a contract can not waive even those rights. Signing a college's silly little housing contract doesn't userp your rights granted to you by your state.
Actually they can't enter your room at any time regardless of whatever their lawyers put in their silly little contracts. You are renting that space from them and you and they are therefore bound to the laws governing residential rental units in your state. In Kansas those laws are found in the Kansas Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. To kick you out of your residential rental in Kansas takes approximately 90 days. They can't kick you out overnight like they'll tell you they can or like the TV shows depict. It is a rent unit and both parties do have rights under the rental laws that govern both parties.
Yeah, hateful little bastards like Miller turn my stomach. I've got to tell you though, I can think of one person that one-ups Miller. That would be Ann Coulter. How can I put it politely... Bitch? Political whore? I can think of a few worse things but frankly I think that gives you my general impression of the wench. Granted, she's not bad looking. Nice ass for sure. Slim like I like 'em. Still I'd rather sleep with Hillary or the bible-thumping holier-than-though Tipper than Coulter and that's not meant to compliment Coulter or the other women who I personally do not like. I've read he rants. I've heard her speak. I don't know what it is that makes people keep listening to her. Sexual attraction is the only thing I can think of. This site sums it up nicely. Biatch with a capital S.
Thanks. That's exactly what I was thinking but I wasn't sure where to look.
Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.
Adaware. The free version will do most everything you need. There are other tools that do similiar things and more. It's a good place to start though.