terrorists seek political change from the status quo. the taliban was the status quo
so it accurate to call the taliban a brutal regime, but not terrorists. yes, terror was a tool they used: public executions, but that is not the traditional definition of terrorism: it's a not a surprise attack on innocents from a group not in power
yeah, bin Laden turned on his former allies. what is that supposed to prove?
i never understood this nonsense line of thought: "bin Laden once got stinger missiles from the CIA a long time ago in the Cold War, so the USA is responsible for everything he ever did since"
And make sure the evolving standard is backwards compatible with all past iterations (new tags and attributes merely ignored, rather than changing the behavior of existing tags and attributes) then the evolving standard is the way to go.
Improvements have to perfect layers of onion skin. Every new version in no way modifying impacting or touching the previous behavior. If attribute x drew a red square in ver 1.3, it cannot draw a blue square in ver 1.4. If a blue square is new functionality, you need a new attribute xx. Attribite x never changes.
It could get messy and very inelegant to remain backwards compatible.
they are a virtual monopoly. therefore their policies and procedures must pass public muster. you can't just go down the street to some other google with most of the marketshare for search online
the private company not subject to public rules idea only makes sense in a marketplace of roughly equivalent and multiple competitors. otherwise, they are basically serving a public function and should be subject to public rules. if the public doesn't have a choice, the private company better defend their decision, and the public will decide if it is acceptable or not, and accept their decision, or, if not, force the private company to reverse their decision
this concept of course only works in a country beholden to actual public interests, rather than large powerful private entities
either way, you yourself should really be on the side of the public here. unless your slashdot account is an example of this mythical corporate personhood i keep hearing about
that's like saying that people drive cars without licenses so its silly to license people to drive cars
of course people will still get guns illegally. the thoughtful careful ones. i'm more concerned with the casual hothead. the person for whom the hurdle of illegality is enough that a gun doesn't get in their hands. because they are casual, they aren't trying too hard
a gun is a privilege. it is a tool for taking a life. any responsible gun owner will say they take the matter seriously. so any responsible gun owner will have no problem making sure that their responsibility is safeguarded against those who don't take it seriously
more gun control. no to automatics. more background checks, more hoops to jump through to get one
the problem is the NRA has put out so much garbage half-truth "statistics" that i'm almost ready to excuse you for thinking the facts are not what they seem
the simple truth is that the USA has way more homicides and gun ownership than all other rich nations in the world
this is where you say "the culture..." or "the gun ownership isn't the same as the homicide..."
keep dancing around the obvious. it makes you look foolish
the sky is blue. water is wet. the USA has a lot more guns so we shoot a lot more people
however i fear the egotism of blind strident individualism just as much as egotism of herd behavior
it is the difference between this person (ok):
"i'm just exercising my personal freedom" (smokes weed)
and this person (not ok):
"i'm just exercising my personal freedom" (turns car ignition, drunk)
you can do whatever you please in this world, just as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. the "just as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" is something a lot of people have a problem grasping
freedom, and responsibility. there is not one, without the other
my whole point: threats of violence instead of civil discourse in civil life. and backed up by guns
thanks for being an example of the problem we face in this country: hot headed morons who seek violence instead of discourse, and they are armed with guns
more gun ownership results in more senseless deaths. far more than the rare scenarios in which it prevents carnage
less gun ownership means that, indeed, a handful of scenarios will result in death that could have been avoided had the victim had a gun. and these scenarios will be dwarfed by the thousands of scenarios in which a hot head, or a gang banger, or a loony toon didn't have a gun handy to create many many more deaths of innocents
BBCentral Coast, CalifNYT Pick Let's say patrons were allowed to carry guns. When one or more movie goers exiting the theatre reached for his/her gun to stop the first shooter, it would be unknown to the many bystanders whether they were acting in collusion. This is why the first armed individual who arrived on the scene of the Gaby Gifford's shooting didn't open fire. He did not want to be mistaken for a second gunman. While that was a wise choice on his part, it shows the fallacy of the "allowing everyone to carry arms is the only way to make us all safer" NRA position. Uncoordinated responses would more likely result in greater carnage. July 20, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.You recommended this491
JanetSalt Lake City, Utah Verified Everytime something like this happens, many of us ask ourselves how many more need to die before we have reasonable gun control laws in this country. Apparently not enough people have been killed. Perhaps a few more thousand?
In my area a 2-year-old shot and killed himself this week with a gun he found in his grandfather's bedroom.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be changed so that everyone knows without question or confusion that the amendment was intended to protect a state's right to have a militia. It does not mean that every person has a right to stock pile weapons and to use them at will to commit murder and mayhem.
And we need to hold the gun and bullet manufacturers accountable for the murders they make possible. Every employee at those companies are accessories to the murders in Aurora. July 20, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.REPLYYou recommended this370
PauloSan Francisco I beg to differ, I don't believe there is a really a "gun culture" in America. I think most Americans are actually for gun control, but we have been held hostage to a minority who will stop at nothing to prevent gun control legislation. July 20, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.You recommended this333
TsultrimCO I think it was in the Times I read that 4% of gun owners belong to the NRA. With such a small percentage, why do we support this group? Why do we allow them such power? When ordinary citizens carry guns, we get this. We get Trayvon Martin. We get Columbine. In my 60 years I have never heard of a gun carried by a citizen protecting anyone. Only story after story of a child killed by accident, a shooting by a disturbed person, a wife killed by a violent husband. Isn't it clear yet that we need to remove the weapons from our society? They do not provide protection from anything. They are a nightmare, born of some stupid fear people embrace, inflamed by the rhetoric of a few. I believe our right to live peacefully and safely trumps the "rignt" to carry a weapon out of some macho fear and need. I live in this state. I know exactly where that theatre is--downtown in a populated, busy area. The terrorism in our society today comes from within ourselves. July 20, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.REPLYRECOMMEND292
WMNYCNYT Pick I live in Madrid now. No handguns.
Last week, both my iPad and my iPhone were stolen in the subway.
In response to the loss of my property (about which I was violently angry), a friend in the States wrote, "Don't you wish you'd had had a gun so you could've shot them?", to which I replied, "As angry as I am, stuff is just stuff, and nothing is worth a human life."
I don't think most Americans realize what it's like to live in a culture in which there is zero fear of gun violence, as opposed to one in which people are legally armed and able to act immediately on their reptilian instincts with deadly force.
It's just crazy. Completely crazy. July 20, 2012 at 8:07 a.m.REPLYRECOMMEND277
billcoleSitges It would be better if everyone carried a gun. No, wait: TWO guns. Or even better: a few guns, a bazooka, a couple of rocket-propelled grenades.
ideologically motivated moderation is alive and well on slashdot
but you won't know about it. because you won't see this comment
it will be moderated into oblivion by those who think the second amendment is a religious text, and all who oppose their quasireligion need to be squelched
weep for my country. it is held hostage by idiots who think guns are the answer, and loony tunes, hot heads, and gang bangers continue to practice their mayhem on innocents, enabled by the gun lovers
are you trying to tell me a guy firing off rounds in a wide area is less lethal than a guy with, let's go extreme here: a well sharpened samurai sword?
you point, you click, the person is hit
a sword requires you to be near the person
are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that a gun is less lethal than a sword?
so you're going to stand against all military history? LOL
seriously, you don't even care about common sense do you?
it's like arguing with a creationist. since when did the second amendment become a religious text?
one maniac with a gun can kill 10x the amount of one maniac with a knife
"Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves"
this is a myth. if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient. giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. why wasn't she protected? because the idea a gun at your side will protect form a loony toons with a gun is a myth
Slashdot Mirror
it's called propaganda
see: Fox News
because thy were the rulers at the time
terrorists seek political change from the status quo. the taliban was the status quo
so it accurate to call the taliban a brutal regime, but not terrorists. yes, terror was a tool they used: public executions, but that is not the traditional definition of terrorism: it's a not a surprise attack on innocents from a group not in power
yeah, bin Laden turned on his former allies. what is that supposed to prove?
i never understood this nonsense line of thought: "bin Laden once got stinger missiles from the CIA a long time ago in the Cold War, so the USA is responsible for everything he ever did since"
ridiculous
And make sure the evolving standard is backwards compatible with all past iterations (new tags and attributes merely ignored, rather than changing the behavior of existing tags and attributes) then the evolving standard is the way to go.
Improvements have to perfect layers of onion skin. Every new version in no way modifying impacting or touching the previous behavior. If attribute x drew a red square in ver 1.3, it cannot draw a blue square in ver 1.4. If a blue square is new functionality, you need a new attribute xx. Attribite x never changes.
It could get messy and very inelegant to remain backwards compatible.
We. Hate. This. Ummm... Blah blah blah. Im so cool like Machiavelli I can tell it's stupid shit.
they are a virtual monopoly. therefore their policies and procedures must pass public muster. you can't just go down the street to some other google with most of the marketshare for search online
the private company not subject to public rules idea only makes sense in a marketplace of roughly equivalent and multiple competitors. otherwise, they are basically serving a public function and should be subject to public rules. if the public doesn't have a choice, the private company better defend their decision, and the public will decide if it is acceptable or not, and accept their decision, or, if not, force the private company to reverse their decision
this concept of course only works in a country beholden to actual public interests, rather than large powerful private entities
either way, you yourself should really be on the side of the public here. unless your slashdot account is an example of this mythical corporate personhood i keep hearing about
that's like saying that people drive cars without licenses so its silly to license people to drive cars
of course people will still get guns illegally. the thoughtful careful ones. i'm more concerned with the casual hothead. the person for whom the hurdle of illegality is enough that a gun doesn't get in their hands. because they are casual, they aren't trying too hard
a gun is a privilege. it is a tool for taking a life. any responsible gun owner will say they take the matter seriously. so any responsible gun owner will have no problem making sure that their responsibility is safeguarded against those who don't take it seriously
more gun control. no to automatics. more background checks, more hoops to jump through to get one
so my solution is to crack down on gun ownership, limit the types of guns people can get and make them jump through more hoops to get them
what is your solution?
statistics do support it
the problem is the NRA has put out so much garbage half-truth "statistics" that i'm almost ready to excuse you for thinking the facts are not what they seem
the simple truth is that the USA has way more homicides and gun ownership than all other rich nations in the world
this is where you say "the culture..." or "the gun ownership isn't the same as the homicide..."
keep dancing around the obvious. it makes you look foolish
the sky is blue. water is wet. the USA has a lot more guns so we shoot a lot more people
however i fear the egotism of blind strident individualism just as much as egotism of herd behavior
it is the difference between this person (ok):
"i'm just exercising my personal freedom" (smokes weed)
and this person (not ok):
"i'm just exercising my personal freedom" (turns car ignition, drunk)
you can do whatever you please in this world, just as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. the "just as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" is something a lot of people have a problem grasping
freedom, and responsibility. there is not one, without the other
we should. we can profile the moderations people make, and seek patterns. we can implement that rule
i know you were being sarcastic. but jokes on you, as you support something clearly wrong in your partisan hotheaded blindness
or you could just shoot me
and whose point would that prove?
my whole point: threats of violence instead of civil discourse in civil life. and backed up by guns
thanks for being an example of the problem we face in this country: hot headed morons who seek violence instead of discourse, and they are armed with guns
more gun ownership results in more senseless deaths. far more than the rare scenarios in which it prevents carnage
less gun ownership means that, indeed, a handful of scenarios will result in death that could have been avoided had the victim had a gun. and these scenarios will be dwarfed by the thousands of scenarios in which a hot head, or a gang banger, or a loony toon didn't have a gun handy to create many many more deaths of innocents
i in fact agree that gun toting individuals have and will continue to save lives
it is just that for every experience like yours, there are 10x more experiences of tragedy due to easy access to guns
therefore, guns should be strictly controlled to prevent needless bloodshed
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html#commentsContainer
now mod me down, gun lovers
this comment of mine was at a 5 rating, with 15 responses:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2993071&cid=40711611
then suddenly it shot to 0
how did that happen?
ideologically motivated moderation is alive and well on slashdot
but you won't know about it. because you won't see this comment
it will be moderated into oblivion by those who think the second amendment is a religious text, and all who oppose their quasireligion need to be squelched
weep for my country. it is held hostage by idiots who think guns are the answer, and loony tunes, hot heads, and gang bangers continue to practice their mayhem on innocents, enabled by the gun lovers
are you trying to tell me a guy firing off rounds in a wide area is less lethal than a guy with, let's go extreme here: a well sharpened samurai sword?
you point, you click, the person is hit
a sword requires you to be near the person
are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that a gun is less lethal than a sword?
so you're going to stand against all military history? LOL
seriously, you don't even care about common sense do you?
it's like arguing with a creationist. since when did the second amendment become a religious text?
i do prefer those. they are a lot less lethal
one maniac with a gun can kill 10x the amount of one maniac with a knife
"Especially because those people have zero chance of defending themselves"
this is a myth. if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient. giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. why wasn't she protected? because the idea a gun at your side will protect form a loony toons with a gun is a myth
yes, in the arena of war, on the periphery
not in the city council meeting, at the cash register, or at the bank
i'm certain the criminal masterminds will have guns in any society
what i am worried about are the hot heads, the gang bangers, the loony tunes. people for whom gun control laws prove a problem
"If more responsible people carried guns, events like this would never occur. "
this is a ridiculous myth. how many ways do you want me to dismantle it?
giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. but there is no protection from a crazy person, you aren't omniscient
furthermore, if someone starts shooting, and good people start shooting back in the confusion, what do you get? more senseless death
you reduce gun deaths by making guns harder to get
you increase gun deaths by making guns easier to get
see if your mind can embrace this common sense
countries with sane gun control laws have much lower gun death rates than the USA
what does that fact mean to you?
the problem is easy access to the tool
have less senseless gun deaths
end of common sense observation
would you like to put up a dozen more data points from other industrialized countries with stricter gun control laws?
thanks
does it matter? in the USA, it's easy for anyone to get
every country has senseless gun deaths. only in the USA do they reach such high rates, because guns are so easy to get
if we controlled guns, of course senseless gun deaths would still happen. but at a lower rate. that's the point
why does the 2nd amendment mean we can't put some controls on who gets a gun? why can't it be harder to get a gun?
why do some people say we only live in a free society only when it easy for any gangbanger, looney toon, or hot head to easily procure a gun?
make guns harder to get!
every country has senseless gun deaths, but not at the rate of the USA, because the USA makes guns too easy to get
now mod me troll and get back to worshipping your holy gun
sad, pathetic