I like that satelite argument! But really, though, I think you'd need some evidence that RF radiation from a satelite was potentially harmful -- doubtful -- and that by monitoring it and displaying it that way could somehow be used to mitigate the harm. Which is even more unlikely, since you probably get a whole lot more radiation from a TV screen in the same room than from a satelite hundreds of miles above you.;-)
You have only stated that such laws exist, not argued that they are constitutional or pointed to any court finding them constitutional.
Of course I only stated that the laws exists -- I certainly didn't mean to say I was in favor of them!
The state scanner-in-car laws probably are constitutional, since they regulate what goes on in the car, in the state. Without the car restriction, the states could still probably argue that listening to a within-state police transmission is not "interstate commerce" thus the restriction is constitutional.
I would still oppose it though. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean it should be passed!
I believe it is FCC regulations, not courts, which prevent you from divulging what you hear when you listen to a radio transmission not meant for you (e.g., police scanners).
IN GENERAL, there is a "right to reception" in the U.S., but there are exceptions. A few states prohibit radar detectors, and a few prohibit listening to police scanners while in a car.
Also, it's illegal to make a device to receive cell phone frequencies... but if you have an old device from before that law was passed, you can still use it (but not divulge what you hear). I'm not sure anyone's ever been prosecuted for this -- a few years ago someone eavesdropped on (and taped!) a cellphone conference call between Republican House leaders, and sent the tape to a top Democrat. No prosecution when you eavesdrop on Republicans!
Right, but the world of people likely to be able to make anthrax not kill you is fairly small. They all know each other, and how to make/get anthrax already. Thus, there is no benefit to putting it in the library where anybody can get it. It's not like programmers and software, where there are thousands of us out there who might figure out how to plug the vulnerability.
I agree that the theory is the same, but the theory depends on assumptions that hold in the world of software (lots of programmers) but don't hold in biochemistry.
It's the same argument used to prevent security disclosures from being published.
No, it's NOT the same! People can patch their software systems, but they can't patch basic biology and chemistry.
The argument for publishing COMPUTER security holes is that it enourages people to develop and apply patches to eliminate the vulnerabilities and make tme irrelevant. There is no way that publishing say, how to make anthrax, will get people to "patch" their bodies to be immune to it!
The definitive study of gun control laws in the U.S. is "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns" by John R. Lott, Jr. and David Mustard, published in the Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997). This article was eventually expanded into the book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (University
of Chicago Press, 1998).
Lott and Mustard's basic finding is that when is permitted, crime rates go down for crimes that involve victim contact (murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, etc.). On the other hand, criminals switch to crimes without victim contact -- for example, auto theft increases.
A later study by Lott and William Landes found that concealed-carry prevents mass shootings. This study is available online here. There is also a list of his non-academic articles here and a brief bio here.
Gary Kleck has also done many studies on the issue of guns, crime, and self-defense. There is a good introduction and an interview with him here, a summary of his work here, and a his own home page here.
It might be worth noting that none of the above studies were funded by gun advocacy groups, gun control groups, gun manufacturers, or any other special interests. They are politically balanced -- John Lott is an iconoclastic conservative/libertarian, and Gary Kleck is a lifelong liberal Democrat. (I don't know David Mustard's affiliation.)
Also, they have impeccable credentials. John Lott got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and David Mustard at University of Chicago. Gary Kleck got his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana.
There is an extensive list of articles on gun control here. The folks running this site are against it, but they don't seem to be connected to pro- or anti-gun groups. They have, among other things, an excellent chart showing gun ownership rising as gun crime stays steady and then falls here.
This should be enough to get you started -- feel free to post follow-up for sent me e-mail if you have any questions!
--Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
rbook "AT" pobox.com
They have had two journalists arrested and charged for writing/saying "insulting" things. How do they get ranked #5, ahead of the U.S. where this never happens?
Do you have any proof that the US has the highest immigration in the world? Last time I checked, Canada had more immigrants (unless you count illegal mexicans crossing into Texas).
For making the point, you should count the "illegal mexicans crossing into Texas." If life in the U.S. were so horrible, why would they go to such trouble to sneak in?
C. they did not preface their findings by "Scientists say..." which usually is shorthand for, "You're stupid, they're smart, we're quoting them, so believe whatever we tell you."
If you change that to "Stupid, politically biased 'scientists' say,...," then it's probably true!
But this is a Federal trial, and the Federal government is denying the visa!
I know the Justice Dept. and the State Dept. are separate and probably don't communicate much, but it is the "United States" that is the party to the prosecution, and the "United States" denying the visa.
The article says Sklyarov's lawyers are protesting the visa denial. Isn't that backwards? Why not go to the court and say, "Our client can't show up because the government -- which is prosecuting him -- is denying him a visa. Therefore, the government can't both prosecute charges and prevent him from answering them, so all charges must be dropped!"
I am not a lawyer, but maybe someone who is could tell us if this argument is valid.
The one thing electronic voting will never be able to overcome is that there is always the possibility that ANY electronic system could be either cracked, hacked, or subverted by a corrupt programmer -- AND THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO FIND OUT!!! .
With paper, or some other physical object, even if some hacker corrupts the computerized counting machine, you can always do a manual recount. Plus, if power goes out and the computer loses count... the paper stays the same.
Sure, in 2000 Florida showed us that paper isn't perfect either -- but with electronic voting, there could be just as many foulups, but never a recount.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected!
I like that satelite argument! But really, though, I think you'd need some evidence that RF radiation from a satelite was potentially harmful -- doubtful -- and that by monitoring it and displaying it that way could somehow be used to mitigate the harm. Which is even more unlikely, since you probably get a whole lot more radiation from a TV screen in the same room than from a satelite hundreds of miles above you. ;-)
You have only stated that such laws exist, not argued that they are constitutional or pointed to any court finding them constitutional.
Of course I only stated that the laws exists -- I certainly didn't mean to say I was in favor of them!
The state scanner-in-car laws probably are constitutional, since they regulate what goes on in the car, in the state. Without the car restriction, the states could still probably argue that listening to a within-state police transmission is not "interstate commerce" thus the restriction is constitutional.
I would still oppose it though. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean it should be passed!
I believe it is FCC regulations, not courts, which prevent you from divulging what you hear when you listen to a radio transmission not meant for you (e.g., police scanners).
... but if you have an old device from before that law was passed, you can still use it (but not divulge what you hear). I'm not sure anyone's ever been prosecuted for this -- a few years ago someone eavesdropped on (and taped!) a cellphone conference call between Republican House leaders, and sent the tape to a top Democrat. No prosecution when you eavesdrop on Republicans!
IN GENERAL, there is a "right to reception" in the U.S., but there are exceptions. A few states prohibit radar detectors, and a few prohibit listening to police scanners while in a car.
Also, it's illegal to make a device to receive cell phone frequencies
You can get money on Kazaa?!?!?!?
What does Ctrl-S do in Windows? In Linux/Unix, it pauses the screen-scroll.... do you need that in Windows?
Right, but the world of people likely to be able to make anthrax not kill you is fairly small. They all know each other, and how to make/get anthrax already. Thus, there is no benefit to putting it in the library where anybody can get it. It's not like programmers and software, where there are thousands of us out there who might figure out how to plug the vulnerability.
I agree that the theory is the same, but the theory depends on assumptions that hold in the world of software (lots of programmers) but don't hold in biochemistry.
No, it's NOT the same! People can patch their software systems, but they can't patch basic biology and chemistry.
The argument for publishing COMPUTER security holes is that it enourages people to develop and apply patches to eliminate the vulnerabilities and make tme irrelevant. There is no way that publishing say, how to make anthrax, will get people to "patch" their bodies to be immune to it!
Anybody know where I can get some 5.25" floppy drives compatible with Linux? ;-)
You can partly get around this by using your own computer at another location.
For example, get an account on some trusted friend's box, or at freeshell.org. It's not perfect, but better than storing on a stranger's box.
A later study by Lott and William Landes found that concealed-carry prevents mass shootings. This study is available online here. There is also a list of his non-academic articles here and a brief bio here.
Gary Kleck has also done many studies on the issue of guns, crime, and self-defense. There is a good introduction and an interview with him here, a summary of his work here, and a his own home page here.
It might be worth noting that none of the above studies were funded by gun advocacy groups, gun control groups, gun manufacturers, or any other special interests. They are politically balanced -- John Lott is an iconoclastic conservative/libertarian, and Gary Kleck is a lifelong liberal Democrat. (I don't know David Mustard's affiliation.)
Also, they have impeccable credentials. John Lott got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and David Mustard at University of Chicago. Gary Kleck got his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana.
There is an extensive list of articles on gun control here. The folks running this site are against it, but they don't seem to be connected to pro- or anti-gun groups. They have, among other things, an excellent chart showing gun ownership rising as gun crime stays steady and then falls here.
This should be enough to get you started -- feel free to post follow-up for sent me e-mail if you have any questions! --Robert A. Book, Ph.D. rbook "AT" pobox.com
Which is it?
Who buys this stuff?
;-)
People who like WordPerfect and don't like MS-Word. Like me, for example.
I've bought both the Windows version and the Linux version.
Then why did Bill Gates contribute so heavily to the Gore campaign?
So where does the money come from?
Print it, using open-source tools!
What about the people who come from Southeast Asia in leaky boats? Is that because of the "US/Laos border," too?
...anyone who responded to the survey.
They have had two journalists arrested and charged for writing/saying "insulting" things. How do they get ranked #5, ahead of the U.S. where this never happens?
Your example is backwards. If you're CNN, Israel can do no right, unless they walk themselved into the gas chambers...
Do you have any proof that the US has the highest immigration in the world? Last time I checked, Canada had more immigrants (unless you count illegal mexicans crossing into Texas).
For making the point, you should count the "illegal mexicans crossing into Texas." If life in the U.S. were so horrible, why would they go to such trouble to sneak in?
C. they did not preface their findings by "Scientists say..." which usually is shorthand for, "You're stupid, they're smart, we're quoting them, so believe whatever we tell you."
... ," then it's probably true!
If you change that to "Stupid, politically biased 'scientists' say,
But this is a Federal trial, and the Federal government is denying the visa!
I know the Justice Dept. and the State Dept. are separate and probably don't communicate much, but it is the "United States" that is the party to the prosecution, and the "United States" denying the visa.
The article says Sklyarov's lawyers are protesting the visa denial. Isn't that backwards? Why not go to the court and say, "Our client can't show up because the government -- which is prosecuting him -- is denying him a visa. Therefore, the government can't both prosecute charges and prevent him from answering them, so all charges must be dropped!"
I am not a lawyer, but maybe someone who is could tell us if this argument is valid.
Isn't that always the case? ;-)
The one thing electronic voting will never be able to overcome is that there is always the possibility that ANY electronic system could be either cracked, hacked, or subverted by a corrupt programmer -- AND THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO FIND OUT!!! .
... the paper stays the same.
With paper, or some other physical object, even if some hacker corrupts the computerized counting machine, you can always do a manual recount. Plus, if power goes out and the computer loses count
Sure, in 2000 Florida showed us that paper isn't perfect either -- but with electronic voting, there could be just as many foulups, but never a recount.
> > "On AVERAGE a degree benefits most people financially"
>
> Sure after you've paid off your loans 10 to 20 years later.
True, but life expectancy is high enough that most people live more than 20 years after college.
Also, costs are different for different people. There are cheap colleges and expensive colleges, and some people get scholarships.
In the end, most people benefit. Not everybody, but most.