I already spend more than enough time around people with guns, thank you very much. Mostly, they are the thugs and criminals that terrorize us, either directly or indirectly, on a daily basis. Like the group of junior high school punks who stuck one in my face while they releived me of my backpack and wallet. If I had a gun at the time, they would have releived me of that too. Unless you have a gun constantly on display and at the ready, you will always be vulnerable at some time or another, and that is the opportunity that criminals will exploit.
The idea that a gun makes you invulnerable to even casual attack is simply wrong. And if they don't provide protection, what do we have to weigh against the tremendous amount of harm that they do and the fear amongst law-abiding peace loving citizens that they create?
You're right, there are a lot of smart people with guns (incidentally, there are also a lot of smart people who are criminals). However, I don't see how putting more guns in the hands of the stupid, as gun prolifertion advocates want, will improve the situation.
I wondered about this myself. Specifically, I wondered if more passengers will take the stance that pilots do. If they don't beleive that they can save their own lives, will they sacrifice themselves to prevent destruction on the ground?
It sounds like this is what happened on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and while those passengers didn't know it, they probably prevented an even greater tragedy.
Terrorists rely on the fact that their hostages beleive that they can walk away from the ordeal if they cooperate. Paradoxically, the more that they terrorize their victims, the more likely their victims are to fight back.
I hope that turning a hijacking into this order of tragedy will make it more difficult for a few terrorists to take control of entire planes. I am sure that there were many on these flights who would have fought back without hesititation if they knew what the ultimate aim of their attackers was.
And what do you think is going to happen when a fire-fight breaks out on an airplane, especially one where the fuselage doubles as fuel storage?
1)Airplane full of dead passengers.
2)Civilians on the ground in danger of being hit by flaming wreckage.
That is quite and improvement over the currant situation. All a terrorist needs to do to crash a plane is shout "I have a gun!" and wait for geniuses like you to shoot it down from the inside out.
When are you gun nuts going to realize that:
1)They are not going to protect you from a determined attack.
2)They make you a threat to everyone else, criminal and bystander alike.
You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards.
The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world. We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.
Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.
This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.
We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.
IE used to have the ability to turn off JavaScript
In IE (I'm using 5.5), just go to Internet Options > Security > Custom and disable "Active Scripting", Java and Active X options. This prevents pop-ups, status bar nonsense and just about every other client side annoyance that I have encountered. The only drawback is that an occasional page won't load properly.
unlike America, the rest of the world's communities like to share with one another.
Bull. The only difference between the U.S. and the the rest of the world is that we at least pay lip service to equality. And as thin as our claim of "liberty and justice for all" may be, it is a lot more than you'll find in most of rest of the world, where the gap between the rich and the poor is far greater.
Do you really thing that the average person in South Africa or Brazil wouldn't give up their portion of the crumbs they are tossed to "share" amongst themselves in a heartbeat for a chance to move to America? Do you really think that their lives are more stable, secure, enriched, rewarding, fruitful, happy?
How many women will stand for that(even pr0n stars)?
Dude, they are porn stars!! They are well paid for what they do, and I don't begrudge them the right to make their living. However, assuming they were paid at some point, why would you assume that they would object to this?
Moreover there is likely no representation that the CD will play on a computer 'anonymously'.
Where does is it represented on any CD that it will play anonymously on any equipment? Or at all? By your logic, they could simply sell an empty case or a blank CD, and no-one could complain. Rarely does it explicitly say that there is a CD inside, or that it will actually play music.
By selling it in a music store, on the same shelves as non-protected CDs, they imply that it can be used in the same ways as the others.
My apologies. Your argument refers to a large subset of the minority (now stipulated) to whom you have been exposed? Gee, that's much better. Again, thanks for sharing.
So I must base my assertions on my experience.
Oh really?
My argument is based on a small subset of the total, which makes up the majority of those to whom I've been exposed. As yours must as well.
This assertion is based entirely on an assumption on your part. It is based in no part on any experience or knowledge specific to me. And let's not forget the little gem that started this: "you think Australia is like Texas??? Now I haven't been to either, but it is my strong impression . .." [yes, emphasis added].
Rather than have one person choose to publish this thing, what if many many thousand did, and then politely asked to be arrested for breaking an immoral law? I think the impact of that would be much more interesting...
I agree with the idea here, but isn't that what happened with DeCSS? Yet, it doesn't seem to have helped. I am not sure that moral suasion can counter the degree to which the corporate bottom line has corrupted our society.
Except that I said for the most part, which is not equivalent to saying that all. How is your comment about "most liberals" any different? Is this the kind of hypocracy that you are so pained by?
Anyone who disputes the figures that show African-Americans are involved in a disproportionate amount of crime in some areas is in denial. So is anyone who disputes the fact that African-Americans receive a disproportionate amount of punishment, or that crimes commited more often by African-Americans receive disproportionatly harsh enforcement and sentencing (rock vs. powder cocaine, for example).
I seems to me that the author of this paper was prepared to reject any argument.
Exactly. In order for this excercise to be worth participating in, I would have to beleive that US Copyright Office and lawmakers actually care about representing my rights as a citizen over the interests of their corporate sponsorers. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the DMCA in the first place!
I have been to both, and I can assure you that for the most part they are both barely habitable no-mans-lands populated by backward thinking red-necks.
You've probably heard that Texas is about freedom because their talk is as big as they claim everything else is down there.
The Soviets always had great R&D. But their production could never produce high-tech in quantity. Hence, even to this day, their labs churn out great ideas, which their industry simply CANNOT produce.
Kind of like the cars and consumer electronics that were developed in the US but are now produced in higher quantity (and better quality) overseas?
Consloes are loss-leaders by their very nature. I doubt that Microsoft is at all concerned about making a quick profit on early XBox sales. (Frankly, I doubt that is possible anyway). Making a profit on games is all about moving software, and you need to have as big an installed base as possible to maximise the number of software units sold. As such, they are focusing on the markets where they can deliver the most units and hopefully get the most sales.
At any rate, Microsoft will be losing money hand over fist on consoles for a long time to come. Mid to long term software sales are where the money will be.
No, those two systems are part of a line of consoles that continues today. Each successor was built on the success of its predecessor.
The fact that there is no decendent of the Amiga still on the market and competing with Nintendo and Sony is what makes it a flop. Apparently, it wasn't successful enough to build a following as consoles evolved.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you not read point two?
I already spend more than enough time around people with guns, thank you very much. Mostly, they are the thugs and criminals that terrorize us, either directly or indirectly, on a daily basis. Like the group of junior high school punks who stuck one in my face while they releived me of my backpack and wallet. If I had a gun at the time, they would have releived me of that too. Unless you have a gun constantly on display and at the ready, you will always be vulnerable at some time or another, and that is the opportunity that criminals will exploit.
The idea that a gun makes you invulnerable to even casual attack is simply wrong. And if they don't provide protection, what do we have to weigh against the tremendous amount of harm that they do and the fear amongst law-abiding peace loving citizens that they create?
You're right, there are a lot of smart people with guns (incidentally, there are also a lot of smart people who are criminals). However, I don't see how putting more guns in the hands of the stupid, as gun prolifertion advocates want, will improve the situation.
I wondered about this myself. Specifically, I wondered if more passengers will take the stance that pilots do. If they don't beleive that they can save their own lives, will they sacrifice themselves to prevent destruction on the ground?
It sounds like this is what happened on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and while those passengers didn't know it, they probably prevented an even greater tragedy.
Terrorists rely on the fact that their hostages beleive that they can walk away from the ordeal if they cooperate. Paradoxically, the more that they terrorize their victims, the more likely their victims are to fight back.
I hope that turning a hijacking into this order of tragedy will make it more difficult for a few terrorists to take control of entire planes. I am sure that there were many on these flights who would have fought back without hesititation if they knew what the ultimate aim of their attackers was.
And what do you think is going to happen when a fire-fight breaks out on an airplane, especially one where the fuselage doubles as fuel storage?
1)Airplane full of dead passengers.
2)Civilians on the ground in danger of being hit by flaming wreckage.
That is quite and improvement over the currant situation. All a terrorist needs to do to crash a plane is shout "I have a gun!" and wait for geniuses like you to shoot it down from the inside out.
When are you gun nuts going to realize that:
1)They are not going to protect you from a determined attack.
2)They make you a threat to everyone else, criminal and bystander alike.
Thanks for making it obvious who the real threat to humanity is.
You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards.
The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world. We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.
Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.
This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.
We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.
IE used to have the ability to turn off JavaScript
In IE (I'm using 5.5), just go to Internet Options > Security > Custom and disable "Active Scripting", Java and Active X options. This prevents pop-ups, status bar nonsense and just about every other client side annoyance that I have encountered. The only drawback is that an occasional page won't load properly.
unlike America, the rest of the world's communities like to share with one another.
Bull. The only difference between the U.S. and the the rest of the world is that we at least pay lip service to equality. And as thin as our claim of "liberty and justice for all" may be, it is a lot more than you'll find in most of rest of the world, where the gap between the rich and the poor is far greater.
Do you really thing that the average person in South Africa or Brazil wouldn't give up their portion of the crumbs they are tossed to "share" amongst themselves in a heartbeat for a chance to move to America? Do you really think that their lives are more stable, secure, enriched, rewarding, fruitful, happy?
Why invent a technology to solve a problem when an effective solution already exists?
Oh, sure. Kick the Internet Revolution while it's down.
How many women will stand for that(even pr0n stars)?
Dude, they are porn stars!! They are well paid for what they do, and I don't begrudge them the right to make their living. However, assuming they were paid at some point, why would you assume that they would object to this?
Moreover there is likely no representation that the CD will play on a computer 'anonymously'.
Where does is it represented on any CD that it will play anonymously on any equipment? Or at all? By your logic, they could simply sell an empty case or a blank CD, and no-one could complain. Rarely does it explicitly say that there is a CD inside, or that it will actually play music.
By selling it in a music store, on the same shelves as non-protected CDs, they imply that it can be used in the same ways as the others.
My apologies. Your argument refers to a large subset of the minority (now stipulated) to whom you have been exposed? Gee, that's much better. Again, thanks for sharing.
." [yes, emphasis added].
So I must base my assertions on my experience.
Oh really?
My argument is based on a small subset of the total, which makes up the majority of those to whom I've been exposed. As yours must as well.
This assertion is based entirely on an assumption on your part. It is based in no part on any experience or knowledge specific to me. And let's not forget the little gem that started this: "you think Australia is like Texas??? Now I haven't been to either, but it is my strong impression . .
Read the article here [salon.com].
(Better late than never.)
So your argument refers to a small subset of the minority (I assume) to whom you have been exposed?
Thanks for sharing.
Rather than have one person choose to publish this thing, what if many many thousand did, and then politely asked to be arrested for breaking an immoral law? I think the impact of that would be much more interesting...
I agree with the idea here, but isn't that what happened with DeCSS? Yet, it doesn't seem to have helped. I am not sure that moral suasion can counter the degree to which the corporate bottom line has corrupted our society.
Except that I said for the most part, which is not equivalent to saying that all. How is your comment about "most liberals" any different? Is this the kind of hypocracy that you are so pained by?
Anyone who disputes the figures that show African-Americans are involved in a disproportionate amount of crime in some areas is in denial. So is anyone who disputes the fact that African-Americans receive a disproportionate amount of punishment, or that crimes commited more often by African-Americans receive disproportionatly harsh enforcement and sentencing (rock vs. powder cocaine, for example).
I seems to me that the author of this paper was prepared to reject any argument.
Exactly. In order for this excercise to be worth participating in, I would have to beleive that US Copyright Office and lawmakers actually care about representing my rights as a citizen over the interests of their corporate sponsorers. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the DMCA in the first place!
I love how half the people who post to /. are too damn retarded to understand sarcasm.
You do?
buh.
Just curious: what do they drink? Are there any good Australian beers?
I have been to both, and I can assure you that for the most part they are both barely habitable no-mans-lands populated by backward thinking red-necks.
You've probably heard that Texas is about freedom because their talk is as big as they claim everything else is down there.
The Soviets always had great R&D. But their production could never produce high-tech in quantity. Hence, even to this day, their labs churn out great ideas, which their industry simply CANNOT produce.
Kind of like the cars and consumer electronics that were developed in the US but are now produced in higher quantity (and better quality) overseas?
nor could it ever be
Why not?
Consloes are loss-leaders by their very nature. I doubt that Microsoft is at all concerned about making a quick profit on early XBox sales. (Frankly, I doubt that is possible anyway). Making a profit on games is all about moving software, and you need to have as big an installed base as possible to maximise the number of software units sold. As such, they are focusing on the markets where they can deliver the most units and hopefully get the most sales.
At any rate, Microsoft will be losing money hand over fist on consoles for a long time to come. Mid to long term software sales are where the money will be.
No, those two systems are part of a line of consoles that continues today. Each successor was built on the success of its predecessor.
The fact that there is no decendent of the Amiga still on the market and competing with Nintendo and Sony is what makes it a flop. Apparently, it wasn't successful enough to build a following as consoles evolved.