My prediction was that they would find, gasp, human remains.
They opened the sealed Sarcophagus, and guess what they found? The bones of a human being. Still, a significant find, compared to the next item.
Item 2: The Blocked Shaft
My prediction was, uh, more shaft, debris, or a wall.
They drilled a hole through the "door" (it was less than 4 inches thick) and poked a camera/light source through the hole. What did they find? A short space, and then, a wall (contrary to Dr. Hawass' statement that it was "another door!").
Where're the alien artifacts? The treasure? The buried long-lost knowledge of the lost civilization?
While it was interesting, it would have been 1000% better if the mummy would've sucked the juices out of the co-hosts and just let Dr. Hawass narrate the show; even if he is a putz, he's vastly more interesting and entertaining than they could ever hope to be. I mean, come on, this is National Geographic we are talking about here, not RealTV.
All in all, I give it a 5/10, if only to see Dr. Hawass getting heart palpitations from running full tilt from the Great Pyramid to the Pyramid City Administrator's tomb and back again to keep on Fox's "Live" schedule.
Generally, gases like methane and hydrogen, though plausible for a biological organism to create, store, and ignite, don't fit the concept of the "fire-breathing" drake very well, IMO. Gases are tough to store in any real quantity, which would mean that a dragon utilizing such a substance would get maybe one or two weak "breaths" (more just a big puff of flame) before being expended.
Also, someone suggested that the gas would be mixed in the lungs and then ignited during exhalation. Talk about a big bang! If the gas was already mixed with oxygen on the inside, then, upon ignition, you'd have dragon innards all over the place. In the context of this discussion, I think that such an arrangement could be considered a "fatal mutation".
The fire-breath-weapon substance of choice in my draconic designs is something akin to Greek Fire. Essentially a petroleum-based liquid, it could also be produced by biological processes and a great deal more could be stored in the body of the dragon. It would also have a higher potential energy density per unit volume than hydrogen or methane gas. It wouldn't even need to be ignited, as it spontaneously combusts on contact with air (but it still could be, if the substance did not possess this intrinsic quality).
Of course, that sword-thrust into the liquid fire bladder would make things VERY BAD for both the dragon and the hapless knight; being completely doused with greek fire would ruin anyone's day.
Get the word out. Don't buy movies, CDs, software, hardware, whatever from anyone pushing political agendas you don't agree with.
Nothing is worse than someone who says "I HATE RIAA (or whoever)", and ponies up the money for the latest n'sync tripe. Capitalists have a HUGE chink in their armor; it's called "the Bottom Line". Yeah, they bigger ones are gonna take more than a couple of blows to kill, but don't let that daunt you. After all, your future, and the future of our progeny rests in OUR hands.
For several years, I followed the progress of Terastor, which was developing magneto-optical disk drive technologies and products using near-field, crescent recording, and evanescent coupling technologies. They kept promising to bring a 10GB and later a 20GB drive to market for under $600 and $1000, respectively. Unfortunately, it appears they did not succeed in finding a way to bring the technology to the consumer from the laboratory, as they kept revising their release dates for three years.
Now, they are licensing their IP. They claim over 90 patents related to optical recording and storage technologies. It is likely that the researchers from this article have expanded on this work, but the question still remains: can they get it into mass production somehow?
1) Only allow access by mirrors and those ACTUALLY working on the kernel (ie, the kernel maintainers).
2) Get more mirrors. We're talking like several thousand here. As an ISP, I know I would not mind hosting a mirror, but I cannot afford $25,000/month in bandwidth. Splitting up the load using a large number of mirrors would make it MUCH cheaper to mirror the kernel files.
3) Use a highly-efficient load-sharing/balancing mechanism to direct people to mirror sites. Make it so the user can browse/select the files from the main kernel.org site, but the downloads are redirected from there to the mirrors.
4) Use a better patch process to reduce the size of the average download: 1) The x.x.0 release is the only full download, 2) use a patch system that downloads all the necessary updates, applies them to the x.x.0 version (or whatever the version the user already has) to get the latest version, and 3) MD5 checksums EVERY file to verify that it was patched correctly.
>Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to
>upgrade it.
Yeah, there are a lot of people in that same situation. All together, they are what drives the creation and marketing of dead-end tech. Uneducated consumers (along with the corporations who exploit them, or innovate through litigation) ultimately ruin the market of good products for everyone else.
>(I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember
>that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)
Nope. I never saw ANY such video. In fact, I SERIOUSLY doubt you did, either. The smoke erupting from the chip in the aforementioned video was not from the CPU itself, but the EXCESSIVE amount of crappy thermal paste left on it when they removed the heat sink. The "fire" that some people say they saw was a reflection of the non-contact thermal probe (which emits an ornage-reddish light).
Even so, how many houses have reportedly burned down from the heat sink falling off? In fact, how many heat sinks have reportedly "fell" off while the machine was running and not being moved around? Hmmmm?
I remember years ago, where there were these things called BBSes; a place run by a tireless, yet enthusiastic, person, dedicated to a one or more areas of interest (of that individual, usually). People would wait hours to get on on the single line (occasionally a second line was available, but not for the vast majority of 'em) to participate in the "virtual community" created by the sysops for the users, usually for free (or the cost of a toll call).
All sarcasm aside, the WWW version of the BBS, now called a "community website" still has a long way to go to even come close to the level of interpersonal communications that BBSland provided its users. Of course, now you can have more people online at the same time for little to no cost, but there is not much going on besides a few forums on most "community websites". Occasionally, you have a chatroom or two, rarely any files, and more rarely, games.
As time goes on, I look at what the BBS that I ran provided to the users and figure that there must be a way to use all of this technology to bring back the "personal" interaction level that I always enjoyed as a Sysop and a user of BBSes.
Maybe I will get around to finishing that BBS of Doom project that sits occupying a few megabytes of my development drive... someday.
At any rate, the point I am attempting to make is that there is a lot to the BBS model that can be "borrowed" from in order to add the missing dimensions necessary to make any simple enthusiast web site into a wonderfully interactive and interpersonal (let alone friendly) experience.
Just my $0.02.
Former Sysop of Iconian Gateway, WWIVNet Node 4401.
I contracted to a company who configured and installed the "kits" (router, switch, access points, UPS, etc) into the Starbucks' stores. The problem was inverse-pyramidal management with far too many layers of outsourcing.
I think the chain of outsourcing went something like this:
Starbucks contracted with
Compaq, who contracted with
MobileStar, who contracted with
NEC and IBM, who contracted with
Netcom (not the ISP), who contracted with
my company.
The management was FAR too top heavy and inefficient. The actual bottleneck was up the line a bit; Netcom did everything it could to make sure kits got out the door on time and installed under Draconian schedules. There was a schedule originally planned, but the folks up the chain couldn't get configurations and equipment to Netcom on time to meet it, and then (I believe) tried to put the blame on Netcom for not meeting deadlines.
I think you are not making the implied distinction between "no Right" and "no right".
The former implies a formal Right, as declared and documented in something like the Constitution, for example.
The latter is simply a statement of obvious truth: ie, complaining about the state of affairs that one took no active part in shaping is as pointless as one complaining about the weather. IE, you have no more right to complain about it and I have EVERY reason to ignore it.
Pseudo-tactile feedback can be achieved with sounds effects and just getting used to the layout. Same thing applies to pretty much every other controller out there.
In addition, you don't (I would not / do not) put time-critical functions on it; those are for your joystick/spaceorb/mouse/trackball/etc where your hand usually stays during melee combat.
I have an advanced form of this: I have a 15" LCD touchscreen computer that is designed to do exactly the same thing. I use a spaceball/trackball combo with the TSC just below the front of my screen and my keyboard below that. I can program the TSC to provide a template with all the menus/controls I need to play a particular game. Primarily, I put non-combat functions on the TSC (like the inventory loadouts and the (V)oice actions in Tribes 2). Switching weapons, firing, throwing grenades, jumping, jetting, etc are on my spaceball/trackball. Pretty soon I will be adding a set of foot switches as well (might as well get the rest of my limbs in on the action); I'll probably assign jumping, jetting, running, etc to those.
I have no problem with someone making a profit off an new computer program or even a codec.
Neither do I. I write software all the time for customers and get paid for it. Why do I need a patent for that? It offers me no protection whatsoever.
If it is that good then they deserve to get paid for it.
No problem there. People should get paid for their efforts so they can pay the mortgage, buy food and clothes for themselves and their families, etc.
If that means requiring a patent then so be it.
Woops! I can't agree with you there. The only thing a patent should be used to protect is SERIOUS amounts of research in areas where none have yet trodded. IE, the various criteria for the existence of patents as intended by the Constitution has been met fully and unambiguously.
Right now, I have some customers who want to do e-commerce sites. They want the purchasing experience to be as simple as possible for the user, with the least amount of effort. I want to implement the VERY obvious steps of storing the customer information once and letting them select and purchase products directly from the catalog; "impulse buy", if you will. They select the product by clicking on it and it will be put in-process as an order to be shipped to them.
Oooops! Now, I'm in trouble. I am infringing a PATENT on what would otherwise be common programmer sense. The patent holder, in a fit of spite, sues me and my company completely out of existence. Why? Because they have been given the power to control something which they have absolutely NO right to control by a broken system.
It doesn't help them; it doesn't help me; it doesn't help the rest of the Internet community. It is simple abuse of a broken system, and they will be damned for it by me and everyone else I know until they return what they have stolen from the public commons.
Life isn't free, and just because you want something doesn't mean you deserve access to it for free.
It has nothing to do with what "I" want for myself. All I want for myself is the right to implement a solution in code to a problem for a) myself and b) people who want me to use my expertise to do the same for them because they lack it; all so that I can a) enjoy working on things that pique my interest, and b) make money so *I* can pay my mortgage, feed and clothe myself, etc.
Nowadays, writing ANY software as a solution to ANY contemporary IT problem is almost guaranteed to be in violation of some stupid lame-ass patent and open oneself up to the possibility of being sued out of existence for your trouble (yes, even for implementing it just for yourself).
I know that I sure would hate it if I wrote a Call-back verifier program back in the BBS days and sold many registrations to it before some jerk came along and waved his PATENT on the same idea that he received a few months earlier in my face. Even outside of that situation, do you think I would need a patent to protect my revenue stream on such a concept?
Get off this socialistic attitude people, if things lose their value whats the point of striving to make it better.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with a little Socialism, just as there is nothing wrong with a little Capitalism, Marxism, Democracy, Totalitarianism, etc. What makes each one of them dangerous is wholesale devotion to the ideal each embodies to the EXCLUSION of all others. Life is an experiment in averages. Extremes are very rare and usually threaten the very existence of life.
Secondly, the labor of creation will never lose its value to the creator and anyone he first sells it to. Beyond that, its value diminishes greatly and using artificial means to protect it creates a dangerous situation not too far from what we have today.
That thing is one of the worst router implementations I have seen. It is loaded with a crapload of proprietary software and is nearly impossible to mass-configure a bunch of them within the span of several eons (no config "load/store" capability across two routers; backup/restore, yes, but one router's backed-up config will break the other router when restored to it because of the proprietary crap).
I/we used to be the Atlanta AC for WWIVNet/IceNet/WWIVLink. I still have all of my files from ym BBS/mailserver, which were current as of 12/93.
I sent Jason the list, plus a couple of G-files with some other Altanta BBSs.
The only problem is that the network lists do not show when each BBS started operation, nor do they show who ran them. They are pretty much just node#, name, telephone#, and speed.
I don't agree. The difference is pretty minor, being the "compiler" which takes VM code and translates it to native code. There were third-party products which did similar things with UCSD p-Code (I know, I was working on something similar in 1987, plus some college study in 1985-6, which is why patenting this shit pisses me off; it is a priori; ie, too freaking obvious to patent).
The only thing unique about the Taos project is the specifics of the VM itself. Unfortunately, the patent isn't about that, it's about the entire concept of compiling to a portable object format and then using a platform dependent compiler to translate the Portable OF to the Native OF of that machine. So, it can easily encompass the UCSD p-System with a third-party NOF translator (which predates it by over a decade), Java, and two of the projects I worked / am working on right now. No, I am not happy about it.
Yeah, I read that page before I posted the comment.
I guess I may be dense so, if you don't mind, please direct me to the section of the online license agreement you linked to where it identifies the license as APPLICABLE to the SDK I purchased.
If it doesn't explicitly refer to the particular product it applies to, then the original license CAN hold up in court.
In the meantime, I have been advised to take the matter up with Amiga directly and have them clarify the issue, since nothing I have seen here or on their web site adequately addresses the issue.
Well, I *am* a developer who purchased the SDK, curious to see where they were going with it. However, I didn't get much farther than the ridiculous license agreement which has some pretty serious implications for software built with it in terms of "royalties". 10% ($3.00 min)per copy of any app purchased/downloaded, unless you get "special permission" via a "freeware exemption".
Talk about throwing a bucket of ice water on people hot to do something really interesting with the SDK! That and the fact that the Elate OS stuff is heavily patent-encumbered (I wonder if the guy who developed/patented the VM ever heard of UCSD p-code) leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh well, it is interesting to look at until the next SDK from someone completely different is released with a more developer-friendly attitude (and license!). Fortunately, it didn't cost too much, so I don't feel cheated. I'll get my $80 out of it at some point.
Note- yes, I realize that there is a license on their web site that does not contain the royalty requirements. However, that license is not properly written to supercede the one on the disk. First, it does not reference any particular product (the "product listed above" is not listed at all). Second, the original license says that the royalty requirements may change and those changes are to be found at http://www.amigadev.net/royalties, which does not exist. Thus, I don't see, legally, how the royalty requirement has been dispensed with (properly). It doesn't matter if they claim that they won't sue for royalties; as long as the legal loophole exists, developers are at risk.
I wonder how many of the other 14,999 developers are feeling the same way. Further, I also am curious how many of them don't realize that they are at risk of being sued for said royalties, if "Amiga" decides to be nasty about it.
OK. I read about 90% of the patent. I didn't look at the figures, however.
Where is the "invention"? Who *HASN'T* done this? This is the same RTOS design that was being taught in college when I was there nearly 20 years ago.
You subordinate a non-real-time OS (or its services) underneath a RTE. Duh.
Is the guy patenting the Linux implementation of this ancient paradigm? Is this really worth a patent?
No. I'm afraid that software patents, no matter how they are used, are B-A-D. It's like the chunk of evil in Time Bandits; there's just no proper way to handle it. You touch it, you die.
The main problem I have with them is that there is just no justification for the level of monopoly they grant. Software is mathematics at its base level; that is what Turing kept saying (computer algorithms are actually a subset of mathematics, which gives rise to the Turing Test because there are some mathematical problems computer algorithms can't solve, so far at least). As a result, anyone with half a brain and a small bit of perseverance can come up with these "inventions"; things that are obvious and logically deducible with some small amount of thought.
Then there is the issue of these hugely broad patents, like this one, which essentially lock out the entire base concept from an infinitum of possible implementations. It's like patenting transportation and then licensing every device (and these days, every method) developed to move people or things from one place to another.
Then there is the huge issue of prior art, which I think this patent (and soooooooo many others like it) treads upon heavily.
Ultimately, it is like the Amazon one-click bullsh*t patent. They knew that the patent system was broken. They knew that other people were abusing the hell out of it. Still, they went ahead and abused it themselves. There is no excuse for it. Period.
Now, if I continue work on my own OS kernel (which has RTOS structure in it), I will have to pay this person some ridiculous royalty if I want to sell it (or even use it, if he doesn't like the way I hold my mouth). No thanks. My work is independent and will stay unpatentable, even if by my own hand (by publishing the algorithms or the source or whatever).
Oh well. We all will go to Hell at some point in our lives. I was hoping Linux would be spared for a while yet at least.
C'est la vie.
Shawn Stamps Omega Microsystems, Inc. Nexus Internetworking Services
Though I think it is a good, mostly believable analogy, I have difficulties reconciling it with the real situation.
First and foremost, humans are not dogs. We have had the ability to reason for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. As such, we can learn to reason through our adversities rather than having to rely on our animal instincts to cope with them. Dogs do not have nearly the advantage we do in this area.
Secondly, physical violence goes a LOT farther than verbal abuse. If it had become this bad, then there are a lot of adults whose heads need to be put on the chopping block for incompetence in their guardianship.
Third, I find it hard to believe that a dog, "beaten regularly with a stick" fails to have a "propensity for violence" imperceptible by its owner/"guardian", regardless of its species.
Those who drive people to respond in an irrational manner must be held accountable for the fact that they increase the liklihood of such a response, espescially when what they are doing is ALREADY considered wrong.
It does not necessarily require another person to drive someone to act in an irrational manner. Life can sometimes, and for some people, provide impetus enough to react irrationally. The important issue is HOW they react.
You are right in that people still bear personal responsibilities for their actions. I think the teasing students probably deserved some form of punishment if they got out of hand (phyical violence; disobeying parent/teacher/official orders to cease, etc), but NOTHING justifies the response of the murderers.
"You reap what you sow, so make sure you only sow things that your ass is capable of reaping."
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
I think that those making counterpoints to your statements are right on. I have re-read your post several times, looking for some way to interpret it like you suggest. The only way to read it to come up with your rebuttals is to severely warp the English language or change the meaning of words drastically.
What I get out of this assertion, based on the post you responded to, is that the "major players" (ie, those with the lion's share of the responsibility for this senseless act of violence) are the ones who were teasing/taunting the murderers. If that is not correct, then I would suggest you rephrase your assertion and try again.
However, if it is correct, then I believe you could not be further off-base. I don't think there is person alive who wasn't taunted or teased by their peers when they are kids. Sure, violence (fistfights, etc) is a response to such behavior, but it is not the ONLY response, nor is it the most correct one.
Continuing on in your post and subsequent rebuttal, you still seem to be defending the actions of the murderers in the context of "that is what you get when you keep picking on people". I don't think there were many people more picked on in my Junior High and High School than me. I dealt with it the way I was taught to - ignore it. When the morons decided that it wasn't fun to pick on me because I wouldn't respond to them, they would usually leave me alone for the time being; sometimes they would try to escalate it. I ended up in a couple of hallway brawls, but there were other students and teachers who helped break up the fights and the morons were punished appropriately.
What sense is there to instill a sense of morality and decency in someone if OTHERS will not act accordingly?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes perverted into "Do unto others as they have done unto you".
Even though you claim differently, what you are saying DOES amount to "Do unto others as they do unto you" or, more accurately, "Do unto others with escalation and extreme prejudice before they do unto you again". Yes, it is perverse, but that is what you are defending. Again, if you are not, then you need to restate your position, because whether or not you meant to say it, your words definitely do say it.
When some people disregard other's freedom to enjoy so-called alternate lifestyles, they should not be surprised when their freedoms are totally disregarded in return.
I do not think that teasing/taunting in school amounts to disregarding the freedom of others. Schools are generally fairly strictly regulated environments, even these days. Freedoms are exercised by the leave of the school officials and school policies, because the students are still minors and, while they are on the premises, the teachers and other school officials are, effectively, guardians, and they have the right to control individual activities as they see fit. This control has been curtailed more and more in recent years, but the level of responsibility has not diminished that much.
"Disregarding freedoms" tends to imply that the taunters/teasers somehow prevented the murderers from exercising their "freedom". This is clearly not the case, no more than ridiculing someone's point-of-view in an on-line public forum prevents the target of the ridicule from exercising their freedom to respond. As a result, I don't see the equivalence you are trying to make between being taunted/teased and responding with borderline-sadistic murder.
The overblown response of murder to teasing is perfectly in-line with the reasoning that the best response is a strong one (and why the U.S. floundered in Vietnam and won in the Gulf).
Wow, that's a LONG stretch. So, the best response is a strong one, no matter what exactly the response is? Right. So you are saying that, using such reasoning, that a response of banding together and either seeking help from the school officials to stop the "harassment" or just ignoring it altogether is not sufficiently strong enough to be effective? Also, I don't get the connection in your reference to Vietnam and the Gulf War. We "lost"/"won" those conflicts for reasons that had little to do with just the "strength" of our "response". The point is that the best response may be a strong one, but not all strong responses are "best" or "right".
Is such a reaction right or justified? Certainly not, but the risk of it happening is to be expected. It is truely unfortunate that the response is directed so poorly at the instigators, but then again, who among is us innocent when we allow harrassment to persist?
I do not believe it is the responsibility of another person (or the government, for that matter) to get involved in a dispute between others unless one person or group is trying to deprive the other of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud. Harassment only passes this litmus test when its effects transcend into this realm. I do not believe that being insulted or verbally abused as a minor by other minors even comes close to qualifying. Sure, it is harassment, by definition, but where is it violating rights and freedoms?
The best premptive measures are those that serve to nip harrassment in the bud, and thus not giving rise to any form of retaliation, overblown or otherwise.
No, the best preemptive measures are those that teach kids that there people out there who are going to make life hard on them and to help them develop a means to cope with it. In addition, they should also be taught how to seek real, effective solutions to their problems and to take personal responsibility for their actions, on either the addressing or receiving end. Means to "nip harassment in the bud" are not always going to be available, so they MUST have some other way to deal with it that will not lead to ultimate, drastic measures, such as the ones seen in this tragedy.
While I do not advocate taking the law into one's own hands to settle a dispute, neither do I care much when the rights of those who are disrespectful of others are themselves trampled upon.
Where is it stated that anyone has a right to receive respect? What about the right not to be offended by someone else? You keep going on and on about "trampled rights" and "disregarded freedoms". WHERE? The only rights that been trampled and freedoms that have been disregarded are those of the victims of these murderers, who did not die because they teased and taunted their attackers, but because their murderers were ill-equipped as human beings to deal with the minor adversities of life.
I believe the people who REALLY are at fault here, beyond the murderers themselves, are their parents and the other adults closely involved (or maybe not closely involved enough) in their lives. Unfortunately, our society has so cheapened and demeaned the role of parents and "social elders" that it is no surprise that things like this are coming to pass. It happened in ancient times as well. In this context, ancient Greece is a perfect parallel.
"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."
Lessee, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... isn't that the job of the armed forces?
Two points here. First, it is only the job of the armed forces as long as that is what the people want. If the people want the government to organize and maintain standing militia units to help perform this function, fine. Ultimately, though, the responsibility of maintaining the security of a free state rests on the shoulders of the people. Second, when the Next Revolution comes (I don't think it is a matter of "if" anymore), it is reasonable to expect that the government will do everything in its power, including using the standing militia units we allowed it to organize and maintain, to quell it. Our forefathers knew this well and thus gave us the ONLY tool possible for the people to win such a struggle. What a gift!
And, tell me where the following "translation" fails...
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't think your translation "fails", as it says basically the same thing. However, your continued misunderstanding of what it means hasn't changed.
Lessee, you claim that your interpretation is backed up by statements by the Founders. Thanks for backing up one of my points... This amendment was drafted over 200 years ago. Times have changed. 200 years ago, you didn't have a person walking down the street, or into a public building and start firing randomly. There wasn't a need for strict gun control. People knew how to control themselves. Ideally, we *should* be able to act in the same way. Unfortunately, we aren't. Thus, something needs to be done.
Wow, this one is so full of holes I don't know where to begin. Let's start with time. Sure, TIME has changed; more accurately, it has passed. In addition, many things have changed along with it, but many things also have remained the same. Human nature is a perfect example of something which HAS NOT changed in 200 years. I find it highly unlikely that there were no random acts of violence 200 years ago. In fact, I believe the opposite is more likely true. Ideally, human beings should have been able to grow out of their natural tendency to react to adverse situations with violence. It didn't happen 200 years ago, nor is it likely to happen now or anytime in the near future. I find that a very flimsy argument for your statement "something needs to be done" when it comes to gun control. Some people have been, are now, and will probably always use violence to solve their problems. As it is stated, your entire discourse proves that now, more than ever, is the time when we need more armed citizens, not less.
But, what is the purpose of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? To kill people. Don't tell me you need 30+ rounds a second to take down Bambi... there won't be much left to eat at that point.
What is wrong with that? You already said that you support responsible gun ownership, albeit in reference to hunting for sustenance. Does responsible gun ownership not include utilizing a gun to kill someone who is threatening your life or that of your family? Why does it matter what the exact form of the weapon is? What if a significantly-sized group of people were bent on killing you and/or your family? A big enough group to make it dicey whether or not you would survive with a simple handgun or rifle? Generally speaking, weapons, guns in particular, are for KILLING.
Of course, we are still just bantering about in terms of self-defense. I don't think the second amendment really deals directly with this topic. Instead, I believe it deals with the much more weighty and important topic of armed resistance by the people to tyranny of the government. The self-defense angle was probably omitted because it is a logical extrapolation. Again, human nature has not changed over the millenia. Throughout history, it has been proven time and time again that tyranny grows and thrives from even the humblest of human institutions. Thus, citizens of a free state must always be vigilant against it, with the risk of their own peril at their failure. Granted there are other tools that we have (and use on a daily basis) to keep it in check but, at some point, the only tool left will be that of the last resort: armed resistance. It has happened before, it will happen again. Only the most naive can believe that it won't.
It should be illegal for a citizen to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Keep them in the armed services, where people are properly trained in their use, and *when* to use them. Srticter control of handguns is needed. At this point, it would be useless to ban them. There are too many of them, and it is too easy to obtain one. However, more thorough background checks, and mandatory supervised instruction should be required. Same for rifles and shotguns. Point of sale of these firearms should be more tightly controlled.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I think you are still missing one important point. If what you desire comes to pass, who will be the "certifying authority" for all of this? The Government. And, if we fail to use all other methods at our disposal in our vigilance against that same government becoming a tyranny, what is going to prevent the government from altering the requirements, making the oppressed citizenry even less able to resist, until they can no longer resist? Can you say "Kosovo"? Sure, people will resist, but with inferior weaponry, they will either be crushed under the boot of the government or become refugees, ousted from their homes, tortured, and/or outright slaughtered. No, thank you very much. Not for me.
I do agree with you, but in a more general way, that people who have abused their rights should lose them, temporarily or permanently. Minors should also not be permitted to partake in exclusively adult priviledges, at the very least without parental consent and supervision. However, mandatory instruction before you can get a gun bothers me. Not because it is something that every gun owner should do anyway, but because it takes something that is a basic and necessary right for a citizen of this free state and makes it into a priviledge. It cannot be compared to a driver's license or driver training because driving a car is neither a "necessary" function nor a right.
Directly, I think the best thing the government can do in relation to the issue is to keep the responsible adult citizens as well-armed and well-trained as possible. Those who abuse their right should be dealt with quickly and harshly.
Indirectly, we as citizens and, more importantly, parents need to take a more proactive role in improving the moral fiber of ourselves and our progeny. That includes taking full personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences thereof. Ultimately, this is the root of the entire problem. Mucking about with gun control laws and imperiling our free state will amount to no more than putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The final result will be no different; an ineffective solution leading to our eventual decline and death.
"Freedom is not free. Its price is its responsible use."
So, from your posts, I am supposed to believe that opinions that are backed up with serious statistics are 100% biased and that your unsupported rantings are not? Give me a break. What do you consider a serious statistic anyway? Only statistics that support YOUR views?
All of the real hard evidence out there (that I have seen, anyway) which supports gun ownership and debunks gun control stands up to intense scrutiny and is independently verifiable by anyone. The opposite is rarely, if ever, true.
About the only thing your "opinions" move me to is pity - for you. If you cannot debate without resorting to ANYTHING other than ad hominem attacks on your "opponents", why bother?
Wait, let me answer that: you do not really HAVE any valid points; you are just posting emotionalisms in the place of REAL evidence because you otherwise cannot contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, but you so sincerely desire to express your emotional outrage, regardless of how ridiculous it makes you look. Fortunately, you can hide behind the nameless, faceless mask of an AC so you don't have to bear any accountability for what you say. How appropriate.
Fortunately, your post is so patently typical of logical fallacy that I am not too worried about anyone who can reason their way out of a wet paper bag taking it seriously.
Here's a piece of advice for you that I am SURE you will not take advantage of, but I could be wrong: find some REAL evidence to support your opinions and USE it to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow!
:O)
/. !
Congratulations!
Ironically, I just turned 38 today, too.
Oh, to be 5 years old again... *sigh*.
I think I will celebrate Slashdot's birthday instead.
Happy Birthday,
Item 1: The Sarcophagus
My prediction was that they would find, gasp, human remains.
They opened the sealed Sarcophagus, and guess what they found? The bones of a human being. Still, a significant find, compared to the next item.
Item 2: The Blocked Shaft
My prediction was, uh, more shaft, debris, or a wall.
They drilled a hole through the "door" (it was less than 4 inches thick) and poked a camera/light source through the hole. What did they find? A short space, and then, a wall (contrary to Dr. Hawass' statement that it was "another door!").
Where're the alien artifacts? The treasure? The buried long-lost knowledge of the lost civilization?
While it was interesting, it would have been 1000% better if the mummy would've sucked the juices out of the co-hosts and just let Dr. Hawass narrate the show; even if he is a putz, he's vastly more interesting and entertaining than they could ever hope to be. I mean, come on, this is National Geographic we are talking about here, not RealTV.
All in all, I give it a 5/10, if only to see Dr. Hawass getting heart palpitations from running full tilt from the Great Pyramid to the Pyramid City Administrator's tomb and back again to keep on Fox's "Live" schedule.
Generally, gases like methane and hydrogen, though plausible for a biological organism to create, store, and ignite, don't fit the concept of the "fire-breathing" drake very well, IMO. Gases are tough to store in any real quantity, which would mean that a dragon utilizing such a substance would get maybe one or two weak "breaths" (more just a big puff of flame) before being expended.
Also, someone suggested that the gas would be mixed in the lungs and then ignited during exhalation. Talk about a big bang! If the gas was already mixed with oxygen on the inside, then, upon ignition, you'd have dragon innards all over the place. In the context of this discussion, I think that such an arrangement could be considered a "fatal mutation".
The fire-breath-weapon substance of choice in my draconic designs is something akin to Greek Fire. Essentially a petroleum-based liquid, it could also be produced by biological processes and a great deal more could be stored in the body of the dragon. It would also have a higher potential energy density per unit volume than hydrogen or methane gas. It wouldn't even need to be ignited, as it spontaneously combusts on contact with air (but it still could be, if the substance did not possess this intrinsic quality).
Of course, that sword-thrust into the liquid fire bladder would make things VERY BAD for both the dragon and the hapless knight; being completely doused with greek fire would ruin anyone's day.
No, don't run away from it. FIGHT IT!
Get the word out. Don't buy movies, CDs, software, hardware, whatever from anyone pushing political agendas you don't agree with.
Nothing is worse than someone who says "I HATE RIAA (or whoever)", and ponies up the money for the latest n'sync tripe. Capitalists have a HUGE chink in their armor; it's called "the Bottom Line". Yeah, they bigger ones are gonna take more than a couple of blows to kill, but don't let that daunt you. After all, your future, and the future of our progeny rests in OUR hands.
For several years, I followed the progress of Terastor, which was developing magneto-optical disk drive technologies and products using near-field, crescent recording, and evanescent coupling technologies. They kept promising to bring a 10GB and later a 20GB drive to market for under $600 and $1000, respectively. Unfortunately, it appears they did not succeed in finding a way to bring the technology to the consumer from the laboratory, as they kept revising their release dates for three years.
Now, they are licensing their IP. They claim over 90 patents related to optical recording and storage technologies. It is likely that the researchers from this article have expanded on this work, but the question still remains: can they get it into mass production somehow?
Founded by California intellectual property lawyer Scott Draeker
I think that says it all.
1) Only allow access by mirrors and those ACTUALLY working on the kernel (ie, the kernel maintainers).
2) Get more mirrors. We're talking like several thousand here. As an ISP, I know I would not mind hosting a mirror, but I cannot afford $25,000/month in bandwidth. Splitting up the load using a large number of mirrors would make it MUCH cheaper to mirror the kernel files.
3) Use a highly-efficient load-sharing/balancing mechanism to direct people to mirror sites. Make it so the user can browse/select the files from the main kernel.org site, but the downloads are redirected from there to the mirrors.
4) Use a better patch process to reduce the size of the average download: 1) The x.x.0 release is the only full download, 2) use a patch system that downloads all the necessary updates, applies them to the x.x.0 version (or whatever the version the user already has) to get the latest version, and 3) MD5 checksums EVERY file to verify that it was patched correctly.
>Ahh well, I'm just grumpy b/c I convinced my mom to buy a P4T/Rambus-based P4 1.7Ghz, and now I have to ditch the Ram/Mobo/CPU to
>upgrade it.
Yeah, there are a lot of people in that same situation. All together, they are what drives the creation and marketing of dead-end tech. Uneducated consumers (along with the corporations who exploit them, or innovate through litigation) ultimately ruin the market of good products for everyone else.
>(I'd have given her an Athlon but the dustbunnies at her place are such that I'd be afraid of her burning the place down... remember
>that THG vid of the flaming Athlons?)
Nope. I never saw ANY such video. In fact, I SERIOUSLY doubt you did, either. The smoke erupting from the chip in the aforementioned video was not from the CPU itself, but the EXCESSIVE amount of crappy thermal paste left on it when they removed the heat sink. The "fire" that some people say they saw was a reflection of the non-contact thermal probe (which emits an ornage-reddish light).
Even so, how many houses have reportedly burned down from the heat sink falling off? In fact, how many heat sinks have reportedly "fell" off while the machine was running and not being moved around? Hmmmm?
I remember years ago, where there were these things called BBSes; a place run by a tireless, yet enthusiastic, person, dedicated to a one or more areas of interest (of that individual, usually). People would wait hours to get on on the single line (occasionally a second line was available, but not for the vast majority of 'em) to participate in the "virtual community" created by the sysops for the users, usually for free (or the cost of a toll call).
All sarcasm aside, the WWW version of the BBS, now called a "community website" still has a long way to go to even come close to the level of interpersonal communications that BBSland provided its users. Of course, now you can have more people online at the same time for little to no cost, but there is not much going on besides a few forums on most "community websites". Occasionally, you have a chatroom or two, rarely any files, and more rarely, games.
As time goes on, I look at what the BBS that I ran provided to the users and figure that there must be a way to use all of this technology to bring back the "personal" interaction level that I always enjoyed as a Sysop and a user of BBSes.
Maybe I will get around to finishing that BBS of Doom project that sits occupying a few megabytes of my development drive... someday.
At any rate, the point I am attempting to make is that there is a lot to the BBS model that can be "borrowed" from in order to add the missing dimensions necessary to make any simple enthusiast web site into a wonderfully interactive and interpersonal (let alone friendly) experience.
Just my $0.02.
Former Sysop of Iconian Gateway, WWIVNet Node 4401.
I contracted to a company who configured and installed the "kits" (router, switch, access points, UPS, etc) into the Starbucks' stores. The problem was inverse-pyramidal management with far too many layers of outsourcing.
I think the chain of outsourcing went something like this:
Starbucks contracted with
Compaq, who contracted with
MobileStar, who contracted with
NEC and IBM, who contracted with
Netcom (not the ISP), who contracted with
my company.
The management was FAR too top heavy and inefficient. The actual bottleneck was up the line a bit; Netcom did everything it could to make sure kits got out the door on time and installed under Draconian schedules. There was a schedule originally planned, but the folks up the chain couldn't get configurations and equipment to Netcom on time to meet it, and then (I believe) tried to put the blame on Netcom for not meeting deadlines.
Typical (mis)management.
I think you are not making the implied distinction between "no Right" and "no right".
The former implies a formal Right, as declared and documented in something like the Constitution, for example.
The latter is simply a statement of obvious truth: ie, complaining about the state of affairs that one took no active part in shaping is as pointless as one complaining about the weather. IE, you have no more right to complain about it and I have EVERY reason to ignore it.
SS
Pseudo-tactile feedback can be achieved with sounds effects and just getting used to the layout. Same thing applies to pretty much every other controller out there.
In addition, you don't (I would not / do not) put time-critical functions on it; those are for your joystick/spaceorb/mouse/trackball/etc where your hand usually stays during melee combat.
I have an advanced form of this: I have a 15" LCD touchscreen computer that is designed to do exactly the same thing. I use a spaceball/trackball combo with the TSC just below the front of my screen and my keyboard below that. I can program the TSC to provide a template with all the menus/controls I need to play a particular game. Primarily, I put non-combat functions on the TSC (like the inventory loadouts and the (V)oice actions in Tribes 2). Switching weapons, firing, throwing grenades, jumping, jetting, etc are on my spaceball/trackball. Pretty soon I will be adding a set of foot switches as well (might as well get the rest of my limbs in on the action); I'll probably assign jumping, jetting, running, etc to those.
I have no problem with someone making a profit off an new computer program or even a codec.
Neither do I. I write software all the time for customers and get paid for it. Why do I need a patent for that? It offers me no protection whatsoever.
If it is that good then they deserve to get paid for it.
No problem there. People should get paid for their efforts so they can pay the mortgage, buy food and clothes for themselves and their families, etc.
If that means requiring a patent then so be it.
Woops! I can't agree with you there. The only thing a patent should be used to protect is SERIOUS amounts of research in areas where none have yet trodded. IE, the various criteria for the existence of patents as intended by the Constitution has been met fully and unambiguously.
Right now, I have some customers who want to do e-commerce sites. They want the purchasing experience to be as simple as possible for the user, with the least amount of effort. I want to implement the VERY obvious steps of storing the customer information once and letting them select and purchase products directly from the catalog; "impulse buy", if you will. They select the product by clicking on it and it will be put in-process as an order to be shipped to them.
Oooops! Now, I'm in trouble. I am infringing a PATENT on what would otherwise be common programmer sense. The patent holder, in a fit of spite, sues me and my company completely out of existence. Why? Because they have been given the power to control something which they have absolutely NO right to control by a broken system.
It doesn't help them; it doesn't help me; it doesn't help the rest of the Internet community. It is simple abuse of a broken system, and they will be damned for it by me and everyone else I know until they return what they have stolen from the public commons.
Life isn't free, and just because you want something doesn't mean you deserve access to it for free.
It has nothing to do with what "I" want for myself. All I want for myself is the right to implement a solution in code to a problem for a) myself and b) people who want me to use my expertise to do the same for them because they lack it; all so that I can a) enjoy working on things that pique my interest, and b) make money so *I* can pay my mortgage, feed and clothe myself, etc.
Nowadays, writing ANY software as a solution to ANY contemporary IT problem is almost guaranteed to be in violation of some stupid lame-ass patent and open oneself up to the possibility of being sued out of existence for your trouble (yes, even for implementing it just for yourself).
I know that I sure would hate it if I wrote a Call-back verifier program back in the BBS days and sold many registrations to it before some jerk came along and waved his PATENT on the same idea that he received a few months earlier in my face. Even outside of that situation, do you think I would need a patent to protect my revenue stream on such a concept?
Get off this socialistic attitude people, if things lose their value whats the point of striving to make it better.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with a little Socialism, just as there is nothing wrong with a little Capitalism, Marxism, Democracy, Totalitarianism, etc. What makes each one of them dangerous is wholesale devotion to the ideal each embodies to the EXCLUSION of all others. Life is an experiment in averages. Extremes are very rare and usually threaten the very existence of life.
Secondly, the labor of creation will never lose its value to the creator and anyone he first sells it to. Beyond that, its value diminishes greatly and using artificial means to protect it creates a dangerous situation not too far from what we have today.
That thing is one of the worst router implementations I have seen. It is loaded with a crapload of proprietary software and is nearly impossible to mass-configure a bunch of them within the span of several eons (no config "load/store" capability across two routers; backup/restore, yes, but one router's backed-up config will break the other router when restored to it because of the proprietary crap).
Grr. No, I am not happy with Nokia at present.
I/we used to be the Atlanta AC for WWIVNet/IceNet/WWIVLink. I still have all of my files from ym BBS/mailserver, which were current as of 12/93.
I sent Jason the list, plus a couple of G-files with some other Altanta BBSs.
The only problem is that the network lists do not show when each BBS started operation, nor do they show who ran them. They are pretty much just node#, name, telephone#, and speed.
Shawn
I don't agree. The difference is pretty minor, being the "compiler" which takes VM code and translates it to native code. There were third-party products which did similar things with UCSD p-Code (I know, I was working on something similar in 1987, plus some college study in 1985-6, which is why patenting this shit pisses me off; it is a priori; ie, too freaking obvious to patent).
The only thing unique about the Taos project is the specifics of the VM itself. Unfortunately, the patent isn't about that, it's about the entire concept of compiling to a portable object format and then using a platform dependent compiler to translate the Portable OF to the Native OF of that machine. So, it can easily encompass the UCSD p-System with a third-party NOF translator (which predates it by over a decade), Java, and two of the projects I worked / am working on right now. No, I am not happy about it.
Yeah, I read that page before I posted the comment.
I guess I may be dense so, if you don't mind, please direct me to the section of the online license agreement you linked to where it identifies the license as APPLICABLE to the SDK I purchased.
If it doesn't explicitly refer to the particular product it applies to, then the original license CAN hold up in court.
In the meantime, I have been advised to take the matter up with Amiga directly and have them clarify the issue, since nothing I have seen here or on their web site adequately addresses the issue.
Thus, my comment still stands.
Talk about throwing a bucket of ice water on people hot to do something really interesting with the SDK! That and the fact that the Elate OS stuff is heavily patent-encumbered (I wonder if the guy who developed/patented the VM ever heard of UCSD p-code) leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh well, it is interesting to look at until the next SDK from someone completely different is released with a more developer-friendly attitude (and license!). Fortunately, it didn't cost too much, so I don't feel cheated. I'll get my $80 out of it at some point.
Note- yes, I realize that there is a license on their web site that does not contain the royalty requirements. However, that license is not properly written to supercede the one on the disk. First, it does not reference any particular product (the "product listed above" is not listed at all). Second, the original license says that the royalty requirements may change and those changes are to be found at http://www.amigadev.net/royalties, which does not exist. Thus, I don't see, legally, how the royalty requirement has been dispensed with (properly). It doesn't matter if they claim that they won't sue for royalties; as long as the legal loophole exists, developers are at risk.
I wonder how many of the other 14,999 developers are feeling the same way. Further, I also am curious how many of them don't realize that they are at risk of being sued for said royalties, if "Amiga" decides to be nasty about it.
OK. I read about 90% of the patent. I didn't look at the figures, however.
Where is the "invention"? Who *HASN'T* done this? This is the same RTOS design that was being taught in college when I was there nearly 20 years ago.
You subordinate a non-real-time OS (or its services) underneath a RTE. Duh.
Is the guy patenting the Linux implementation of this ancient paradigm? Is this really worth a patent?
No. I'm afraid that software patents, no matter how they are used, are B-A-D. It's like the chunk of evil in Time Bandits; there's just no proper way to handle it. You touch it, you die.
The main problem I have with them is that there is just no justification for the level of monopoly they grant. Software is mathematics at its base level; that is what Turing kept saying (computer algorithms are actually a subset of mathematics, which gives rise to the Turing Test because there are some mathematical problems computer algorithms can't solve, so far at least). As a result, anyone with half a brain and a small bit of perseverance can come up with these "inventions"; things that are obvious and logically deducible with some small amount of thought.
Then there is the issue of these hugely broad patents, like this one, which essentially lock out the entire base concept from an infinitum of possible implementations. It's like patenting transportation and then licensing every device (and these days, every method) developed to move people or things from one place to another.
Then there is the huge issue of prior art, which I think this patent (and soooooooo many others like it) treads upon heavily.
Ultimately, it is like the Amazon one-click bullsh*t patent. They knew that the patent system was broken. They knew that other people were abusing the hell out of it. Still, they went ahead and abused it themselves. There is no excuse for it. Period.
Now, if I continue work on my own OS kernel (which has RTOS structure in it), I will have to pay this person some ridiculous royalty if I want to sell it (or even use it, if he doesn't like the way I hold my mouth). No thanks. My work is independent and will stay unpatentable, even if by my own hand (by publishing the algorithms or the source or whatever).
Oh well. We all will go to Hell at some point in our lives. I was hoping Linux would be spared for a while yet at least.
C'est la vie.
Shawn Stamps
Omega Microsystems, Inc.
Nexus Internetworking Services
A one-in-5 chance that Dr. Satcher is talking about himself.
Hmmmm....
SS
Though I think it is a good, mostly believable analogy, I have difficulties reconciling it with the real situation.
First and foremost, humans are not dogs. We have had the ability to reason for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. As such, we can learn to reason through our adversities rather than having to rely on our animal instincts to cope with them. Dogs do not have nearly the advantage we do in this area.
Secondly, physical violence goes a LOT farther than verbal abuse. If it had become this bad, then there are a lot of adults whose heads need to be put on the chopping block for incompetence in their guardianship.
Third, I find it hard to believe that a dog, "beaten regularly with a stick" fails to have a "propensity for violence" imperceptible by its owner/"guardian", regardless of its species.
Those who drive people to respond in an irrational manner must be held accountable for the fact that they increase the liklihood of such a response, espescially when what they are doing is ALREADY considered wrong.
It does not necessarily require another person to drive someone to act in an irrational manner. Life can sometimes, and for some people, provide impetus enough to react irrationally. The important issue is HOW they react.
You are right in that people still bear personal responsibilities for their actions. I think the teasing students probably deserved some form of punishment if they got out of hand (phyical violence; disobeying parent/teacher/official orders to cease, etc), but NOTHING justifies the response of the murderers.
"You reap what you sow, so make sure you only sow things that your ass is capable of reaping."
Maybe your trasnmitter is on the blink. :-)
Er, no. The major players here are those whose teasing and taunts drove someone to lash back.
I think that those making counterpoints to your statements are right on. I have re-read your post several times, looking for some way to interpret it like you suggest. The only way to read it to come up with your rebuttals is to severely warp the English language or change the meaning of words drastically.
What I get out of this assertion, based on the post you responded to, is that the "major players" (ie, those with the lion's share of the responsibility for this senseless act of violence) are the ones who were teasing/taunting the murderers. If that is not correct, then I would suggest you rephrase your assertion and try again.
However, if it is correct, then I believe you could not be further off-base. I don't think there is person alive who wasn't taunted or teased by their peers when they are kids. Sure, violence (fistfights, etc) is a response to such behavior, but it is not the ONLY response, nor is it the most correct one.
Continuing on in your post and subsequent rebuttal, you still seem to be defending the actions of the murderers in the context of "that is what you get when you keep picking on people". I don't think there were many people more picked on in my Junior High and High School than me. I dealt with it the way I was taught to - ignore it. When the morons decided that it wasn't fun to pick on me because I wouldn't respond to them, they would usually leave me alone for the time being; sometimes they would try to escalate it. I ended up in a couple of hallway brawls, but there were other students and teachers who helped break up the fights and the morons were punished appropriately.
What sense is there to instill a sense of morality and decency in someone if OTHERS will not act accordingly?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" becomes perverted into "Do unto others as they have done unto you".
Even though you claim differently, what you are saying DOES amount to "Do unto others as they do unto you" or, more accurately, "Do unto others with escalation and extreme prejudice before they do unto you again". Yes, it is perverse, but that is what you are defending. Again, if you are not, then you need to restate your position, because whether or not you meant to say it, your words definitely do say it.
When some people disregard other's freedom to enjoy so-called alternate lifestyles, they should not be surprised when their freedoms are totally disregarded in return.
I do not think that teasing/taunting in school amounts to disregarding the freedom of others. Schools are generally fairly strictly regulated environments, even these days. Freedoms are exercised by the leave of the school officials and school policies, because the students are still minors and, while they are on the premises, the teachers and other school officials are, effectively, guardians, and they have the right to control individual activities as they see fit. This control has been curtailed more and more in recent years, but the level of responsibility has not diminished that much.
"Disregarding freedoms" tends to imply that the taunters/teasers somehow prevented the murderers from exercising their "freedom". This is clearly not the case, no more than ridiculing someone's point-of-view in an on-line public forum prevents the target of the ridicule from exercising their freedom to respond. As a result, I don't see the equivalence you are trying to make between being taunted/teased and responding with borderline-sadistic murder.
The overblown response of murder to teasing is perfectly in-line with the reasoning that the best response is a strong one (and why the U.S. floundered in Vietnam and won in the Gulf).
Wow, that's a LONG stretch. So, the best response is a strong one, no matter what exactly the response is? Right. So you are saying that, using such reasoning, that a response of banding together and either seeking help from the school officials to stop the "harassment" or just ignoring it altogether is not sufficiently strong enough to be effective? Also, I don't get the connection in your reference to Vietnam and the Gulf War. We "lost"/"won" those conflicts for reasons that had little to do with just the "strength" of our "response". The point is that the best response may be a strong one, but not all strong responses are "best" or "right".
Is such a reaction right or justified? Certainly not, but the risk of it happening is to be expected. It is truely unfortunate that the response is directed so poorly at the instigators, but then again, who among is us innocent when we allow harrassment to persist?
I do not believe it is the responsibility of another person (or the government, for that matter) to get involved in a dispute between others unless one person or group is trying to deprive the other of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud. Harassment only passes this litmus test when its effects transcend into this realm. I do not believe that being insulted or verbally abused as a minor by other minors even comes close to qualifying. Sure, it is harassment, by definition, but where is it violating rights and freedoms?
The best premptive measures are those that serve to nip harrassment in the bud, and thus not giving rise to any form of retaliation, overblown or otherwise.
No, the best preemptive measures are those that teach kids that there people out there who are going to make life hard on them and to help them develop a means to cope with it. In addition, they should also be taught how to seek real, effective solutions to their problems and to take personal responsibility for their actions, on either the addressing or receiving end. Means to "nip harassment in the bud" are not always going to be available, so they MUST have some other way to deal with it that will not lead to ultimate, drastic measures, such as the ones seen in this tragedy.
While I do not advocate taking the law into one's own hands to settle a dispute, neither do I care much when the rights of those who are disrespectful of others are themselves trampled upon.
Where is it stated that anyone has a right to receive respect? What about the right not to be offended by someone else? You keep going on and on about "trampled rights" and "disregarded freedoms". WHERE? The only rights that been trampled and freedoms that have been disregarded are those of the victims of these murderers, who did not die because they teased and taunted their attackers, but because their murderers were ill-equipped as human beings to deal with the minor adversities of life.
I believe the people who REALLY are at fault here, beyond the murderers themselves, are their parents and the other adults closely involved (or maybe not closely involved enough) in their lives. Unfortunately, our society has so cheapened and demeaned the role of parents and "social elders" that it is no surprise that things like this are coming to pass. It happened in ancient times as well. In this context, ancient Greece is a perfect parallel.
"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."
Lessee, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... isn't that the job of the armed forces?
Two points here. First, it is only the job of the armed forces as long as that is what the people want. If the people want the government to organize and maintain standing militia units to help perform this function, fine. Ultimately, though, the responsibility of maintaining the security of a free state rests on the shoulders of the people. Second, when the Next Revolution comes (I don't think it is a matter of "if" anymore), it is reasonable to expect that the government will do everything in its power, including using the standing militia units we allowed it to organize and maintain, to quell it. Our forefathers knew this well and thus gave us the ONLY tool possible for the people to win such a struggle. What a gift!
And, tell me where the following "translation" fails...
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't think your translation "fails", as it says basically the same thing. However, your continued misunderstanding of what it means hasn't changed.
Lessee, you claim that your interpretation is backed up by statements by the Founders. Thanks for backing up one of my points... This amendment was drafted over 200 years ago. Times have changed. 200 years ago, you didn't have a person walking down the street, or into a public building and start firing randomly. There wasn't a need for strict gun control. People knew how to control themselves. Ideally, we *should* be able to act in the same way. Unfortunately, we aren't. Thus, something needs to be done.
Wow, this one is so full of holes I don't know where to begin. Let's start with time. Sure, TIME has changed; more accurately, it has passed. In addition, many things have changed along with it, but many things also have remained the same. Human nature is a perfect example of something which HAS NOT changed in 200 years. I find it highly unlikely that there were no random acts of violence 200 years ago. In fact, I believe the opposite is more likely true. Ideally, human beings should have been able to grow out of their natural tendency to react to adverse situations with violence. It didn't happen 200 years ago, nor is it likely to happen now or anytime in the near future. I find that a very flimsy argument for your statement "something needs to be done" when it comes to gun control. Some people have been, are now, and will probably always use violence to solve their problems. As it is stated, your entire discourse proves that now, more than ever, is the time when we need more armed citizens, not less.
But, what is the purpose of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? To kill people. Don't tell me you need 30+ rounds a second to take down Bambi... there won't be much left to eat at that point.
What is wrong with that? You already said that you support responsible gun ownership, albeit in reference to hunting for sustenance. Does responsible gun ownership not include utilizing a gun to kill someone who is threatening your life or that of your family? Why does it matter what the exact form of the weapon is? What if a significantly-sized group of people were bent on killing you and/or your family? A big enough group to make it dicey whether or not you would survive with a simple handgun or rifle? Generally speaking, weapons, guns in particular, are for KILLING.
Of course, we are still just bantering about in terms of self-defense. I don't think the second amendment really deals directly with this topic. Instead, I believe it deals with the much more weighty and important topic of armed resistance by the people to tyranny of the government. The self-defense angle was probably omitted because it is a logical extrapolation. Again, human nature has not changed over the millenia. Throughout history, it has been proven time and time again that tyranny grows and thrives from even the humblest of human institutions. Thus, citizens of a free state must always be vigilant against it, with the risk of their own peril at their failure. Granted there are other tools that we have (and use on a daily basis) to keep it in check but, at some point, the only tool left will be that of the last resort: armed resistance. It has happened before, it will happen again. Only the most naive can believe that it won't.
It should be illegal for a citizen to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Keep them in the armed services, where people are properly trained in their use, and *when* to use them. Srticter control of handguns is needed. At this point, it would be useless to ban them. There are too many of them, and it is too easy to obtain one. However, more thorough background checks, and mandatory supervised instruction should be required. Same for rifles and shotguns. Point of sale of these firearms should be more tightly controlled.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I think you are still missing one important point. If what you desire comes to pass, who will be the "certifying authority" for all of this? The Government. And, if we fail to use all other methods at our disposal in our vigilance against that same government becoming a tyranny, what is going to prevent the government from altering the requirements, making the oppressed citizenry even less able to resist, until they can no longer resist? Can you say "Kosovo"? Sure, people will resist, but with inferior weaponry, they will either be crushed under the boot of the government or become refugees, ousted from their homes, tortured, and/or outright slaughtered. No, thank you very much. Not for me.
I do agree with you, but in a more general way, that people who have abused their rights should lose them, temporarily or permanently. Minors should also not be permitted to partake in exclusively adult priviledges, at the very least without parental consent and supervision. However, mandatory instruction before you can get a gun bothers me. Not because it is something that every gun owner should do anyway, but because it takes something that is a basic and necessary right for a citizen of this free state and makes it into a priviledge. It cannot be compared to a driver's license or driver training because driving a car is neither a "necessary" function nor a right.
Directly, I think the best thing the government can do in relation to the issue is to keep the responsible adult citizens as well-armed and well-trained as possible. Those who abuse their right should be dealt with quickly and harshly.
Indirectly, we as citizens and, more importantly, parents need to take a more proactive role in improving the moral fiber of ourselves and our progeny. That includes taking full personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences thereof. Ultimately, this is the root of the entire problem. Mucking about with gun control laws and imperiling our free state will amount to no more than putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The final result will be no different; an ineffective solution leading to our eventual decline and death.
"Freedom is not free. Its price is its responsible use."
Pathetic.
So, from your posts, I am supposed to believe that opinions that are backed up with serious statistics are 100% biased and that your unsupported rantings are not? Give me a break. What do you consider a serious statistic anyway? Only statistics that support YOUR views?
All of the real hard evidence out there (that I have seen, anyway) which supports gun ownership and debunks gun control stands up to intense scrutiny and is independently verifiable by anyone. The opposite is rarely, if ever, true.
About the only thing your "opinions" move me to is pity - for you. If you cannot debate without resorting to ANYTHING other than ad hominem attacks on your "opponents", why bother?
Wait, let me answer that: you do not really HAVE any valid points; you are just posting emotionalisms in the place of REAL evidence because you otherwise cannot contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, but you so sincerely desire to express your emotional outrage, regardless of how ridiculous it makes you look. Fortunately, you can hide behind the nameless, faceless mask of an AC so you don't have to bear any accountability for what you say. How appropriate.
Fortunately, your post is so patently typical of logical fallacy that I am not too worried about anyone who can reason their way out of a wet paper bag taking it seriously.
Here's a piece of advice for you that I am SURE you will not take advantage of, but I could be wrong: find some REAL evidence to support your opinions and USE it to do so.
C'mon, IMPRESS me.