... where sometimes the hype is so great that they score gigantic initial sales and most of those people say it sucks.
I'm not really sure that "most" people actually would say it sucks. In real life (i.e. ignoring Metacritic, Diablo forums, and Amazon) I haven't met anyone who actually thinks it sucks, or is nearly as bad as the internet makes it seem. Same goes for most of the people I've met in random public games. Hell, actually playing it, I can't say it sucks (not as good as some things, much better than others).
Part of the problem is that their audience is much, much, bigger than when their "classic" games came out. And much of the internet is a very different, and much more idiotic and hostile place. A lot of that new audience are WoW players, and thats what they wanted, or expected. A lot of it is nostalgia trumping clarity; "it isn't as good as Diablo 2, therefore it sucks". This ignores that fact that Diablo 2 had a fair share of problems on launch, and also wasn't actually the shining pinacle of gaming that everyone remembers. Nothing can beat nostalgia. It also isn't Diablo 2.5, since they decided to actually try new systems for once. Part of it is that people have philosophical differences with where Blizzard is going (no LAN, real money auction house). Inferno (the end game) is too hard... Classes aren't balanced (its a single player/coop game, who cares?).
There are also a lot of silly conspiracy theories running around, and a lot of uncorroborated group think (the "hacks" scandal). I've actually never seen anything quite like the vocal brouhaha that followed the release of the game. Especially considering that many people HATE the game, but put in 180 hours. I don't think I've actually ever played a game that much, especially in a period of time less than a month, since I was 15. And meanwhile Blizzard is laughing their way to the bank.
There is too much ire to be simply people not liking it, or merely sucking. There are thousands of games that suck, that die in obscurity. But for some reason this one needs the internet to run around making mouth noises about it. Playing the game, and ignoring my shining memory of Diablo 2, I can honestly say that it is a pretty damn decent game.
Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in the whole software industry; the very recent example of Diablo 3's utter failure to live up to hype, even though it's now the fastest-selling game in history, can largely be attributed to management changes in Activision [teamliquid.net].
Er... you realize you have a contradiction in that statement, right? "Utter failure to live up to hype" and "fastest selling game in history" don't really work together. Also you ignore the fact that the Blizzard side of Activision-Blizzard, and the Activision side of it are separate, and wholly autonomous. Or at least I haven't seen a single credible, informed, source stating otherwise. Even your link amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory, linking disparate facts into a structure without any actual evidence towards the premise. Yes, there might be the same masters (which Blizzard has had before), but this doesn't really mean much since you don't actually know whats going on. For all we know they are hands-off of Blizzard since they are the most profitable game company in existence so they must be doing something right (as evident from Diablo 3, which is justifiably making money hand over fist).
That said, and back on topic: I think MS has a behemoth problem, they are so large, and their fingers are in so many pies, that they lack the ability to quickly adapt to anything. I'm going to get flamed here, but many of their "failures" have actually been pretty decent, but they failed to grasp the market, or marketing, needed to make it work. They try to win by sheer weight, and not by finesse. This works sometimes (Office, the IE domination of yore, Exchange), but generally fails in a non-business arena. The iPod and the Zune weren't really that different, with one being better in some areas, and the other in others, but the Zune completely died because you can't compete on pure specs, especially with Apple (the masters of image and sexy). I suppose this does boil down to managment, but also to the fact that they are MS... Its hard to say "Microsoft" (insert picture of Bill Gates/Balmer)" and "sexy" in the same breath, much less sell it to the masses.
One study, using NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, estimated that in 2007 in the United States, about 34,000 new cases of cancer in men (4 percent) and 50,500 in women (7 percent) were due to obesity.
Or power hungry politicians would twist opposition to those laws into ways to get reelected.
I am a lefty... A FAR lefty. A lot of my friends (almost all of them) are pretty far to the left as well. And I don't know, nor have I ever met, anyone who wanted to ban guns. Hell, a ton of my fellow lefties OWN guns. Sure, some of us want to pass laws to restrict some weapons, or restrict some behaviors. This does not equal a "ban", it equals a normal political disagreement. Those are actually healthy, and good for Democracy. I'm sure there are some crackpots out there who do want to completely ban firearms. We recognize those people as crazy, and they are pretty much powerless (quiz: have gun laws been getting A) more liberal, or B) more restrictive over time?).
I've come to the point where the "they're gonna take all our guns" crowd is pretty much a bunch of irrational conspiracy theorists, about on par (as per grounding in reality) as the Illuminati/New World Order/Elders of Zion bunch.
I'm not going to argue about any "right" in particular here, so please don't get defensive. Why do I get "rights", a philosophical construct, as a human? Where did they come from, and how did we find out what they were, especially considering that most of these "rights" didn't even exist 300 years ago, and that while our "founders" were waving their hands about over them, a vast population in the country didn't have them. Hell, we still don't recognize these rights of a significant portion of people in the world (i.e. only Americans in America have them).
Obviously these rights are not a priori, and obviously they aren't really natural (unless they evolved with us, meaning chimps have more rights than lemurs). Sure, we can ascribe them to a creator, but that is a meaningless statement since it isn't provable, and that would mean that I, personally, don't have to give you rights since I don't have a creator (and my mom and dad certainly don't give a shit). So what the hell do we mean when we talk about "rights?"
Sadly, I'm pretty sure they are merely social convention, nothing more. If they weren't, I'm sure we'd see some flavor of historically consistent universal rights.
Also, what the hell is up with our current "founder worship" stuff. Arguing by them is nothing but an argument by authority. There is nothing precluding them from being wrong, they lack divine infallibility or authority, being mere humans like us. Hell, they argued greatly among themselves, and our current government (ignoring the 90% of it that came to be after Washington) is pretty much nothing but a compromise between largely diverging views. Historical context makes it hard to hold them as infallible.
The same goes for the Constitution. More so, since our knowledge of it is largely interpretive now. Notice that in this topic, and every other 2nd Amendment debate, people always forget the bit before the comma. Or when they don't, they have no clue what the term "militia" meant in the context of the 18th century, same goes for the use of "People" versus "Persons" (not synonyms). People also (depending on their idiotic subjective political slants) also forget the whole "General Welfare" bit (government isn't about YOU, but about US, society), or misinterpret it to mean we need more food stamps and public assistance.
For some reason we also NEVER, EVER, talk about responsibility, which is the important counterpart to rights. Just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean you should. And if you misuse a "right", you should be forced to face consequences. If you misuse your fire arm, then you should be punished. If you lack responsibility, then you don't get your gun anymore. For some reason this is socially acceptable with felons, but not morons misusing their guns (or speech... or...).
Don't get me wrong, I do think there are more external influences out there today than previously. And I do think they do play some part in elevated rates of cancer (just like our horrible diet plays a roll in increased rates of coronary issues). But I think that we make a mistake when we attribute these elevated rates to solely external influences.
We're too quick, as a whole, to scream "chemicals!" whenever we see statistics like this, and ignore the fact that our ancestors didn't really live long enough to cancer or heart disease to be issues.
Part of the rise in cancer rates is related to the fact that we are less likely to die of other things. We live longer. After a certain point your DNA just fails, since there really isn't an evolutionary reason to debug past a certain time (no longer breeding = no selection pressures). The same goes for coronary problems.
Just because these are more prevalent doesn't mean that there is a novel environmental agent causing the increase.
I actually somewhat like the Metro look, at least more than the iOS look. Let me rephrase that; "I like the Metro look on portable devices more than...", since I still think Windows 8 is a horrible, horrible, idea. Both are better than the lack of unified style in Android devices. I never was a fan of the candy/glass high gloss look, though. Its old and old fad, and shows its age more and more. Metro, on the other hand, looks like a Mondarian, which amuses me. I also like the idea of someone taking tiling UI design and applying it to a portable device. It makes more sense there.
On my Android phone and tablet (one ICS and one Honeycomb) around a third of my screen is widgets, another third is icons, and the remaining third is essentially wasted, unusable, space. It makes sense to combine icons and widgets into one thing, and clear up most of the wasted space.
But then again taste is 100% subjective. I also can't stand the "smooth, white, rounded rectangle" thing Apples been bringing around for the last 10 years. Its boring, to me, personally. As I read someplace, its reminiscent of a used cough lozenge.
Again, aesthetics are subjective.
I'm intrigued by the x86 tablet, though the price will probably keep me from ever getting one. I would LOVE to be able to run Windows applications on something with the same convenience and form factor as my Transformer. There is a couple photography tools I would love to have access to on that form factor. Though I do wonder how hard it would be to get regular Windows programs (not "app store" crap) onto it.
As for the ARM tablet... Meh. Like the screen protector keyboard, sure. Like the looks, sure. But, I'm already locked into the Android ecosystem (most people who care are already in the same place, locked into Google or Apple markets). It doesn't seem to have any of the benefits of the x86 flavor. If they price it low enough to complete with mid-level Android devices, and last-gen iPads, then I can see it working. Maybe. If they price it as a premium device, then I smell failure in their future. The market doesn't really have much room left. All the hip kids and normal people have iPads, all the OSS folk, nerds, and bargain hunters have Android devices... and this leaves MS where?
Guns can already be identified by their barrel marks.
The difference is that with current forensics you need to have a gun to match the bullet to, with this you just need a casing.
So why would you think that isn't intentional?
What makes you think it is? Give me proof that the goal of this is to raise the price of firearms to prohibitive levels. I always err against nefarious conspiracies when given the lack of evidence.
We also need to remember that these markings wear off with use. What sort of maintenance will need to be done in order to remain in compliance with the law?
This is my main complaint, it won't be useful past a few firings. I doubt they thought of it, to be honest. Some politician thought it sounded good, and lined up with their value system, and that was as far as the thought took them. I also error towards stupidity, before I error towards conspiracy.
Obviously not since in my US, that didn't happen. Exaggeration doesn't help your case.
I already admitted I was mistaken earlier on. I stated that based on incomplete facts. If Slashdot let me edit, I would have struck that bit out.
Everyone is already exaggerating here, actually most of the objections are based on exaggerations ("no one will ever be able to afford guns!").
"My view is that the above law was a fairly transparent attempt to hinder law abiding gun owners and manufacturers "... I disagree with this. Its probably a (misguided) attempt to deal with an actual problem; gun violence....while simultaneously creating rent seeking opportunities for the manufacturer of the imprinting technology.... And, I agree with this 100%. Someone had a great idea to make some money off of a lucrative political issue. Probably started, again, with good intentions, but the whiff of profit must have been VERY strong. The gun lobby has tons of money, and love throwing it around.
I need to patent some anti-gun technology, and get some politicians to raise the hackles of the NRA...
It would be the poor people who feel a need for a low-cost, usable-quality gun to defend themselves in a sketchy neighborhood.
Gun shows and pawn shops will still exist. Someone, earlier in this topic, linked to a site selling $100 Soviet revolvers.
New firearms (outside of some rifles and shotguns) are already pretty expensive. My household is not poor, and we'd have a hard time justifying purchasing a new gun. Some of that is priorities, I suppose, but the fact remains that guns are priced as a luxury item already (without government intervention).
So, are you in favor of a law of marginal utility in solving crimes which will make it harder for the economically depressed to acquire guns for use in self-defense?
The question is meaningless, since I dispute the validity of one of its premises. The premise I don't dispute, though, is that this is of marginal utility. Even this premise might require a bit of thought though... My main complaint is that firing pins are high wear components, meaning these codes wouldn't last very long. There are ways around this, but they would be technically more difficult, and increase costs to a much higher degree. So this limits the utility. There also, conversely, the fact that most people (at least the demographics that this is intended to catch) don't shoot their guns that often, and probably don't properly maintain their firearms, much less swap out firing pins. This also ignores that criminals have access to the same used market as we do, also the black market. So why I some thug from the inner city going to go buy a new firearm for $x, when he can go to some guy down the street and buy a used on for $x/2, or a hot one for $x/4? Most likely he's going to commit a crime and ditch it or resell it.
Interesting issues. I don't really have a strong opinion until I research a bit (will it really increase costs prohibitively, and registration scheme is actually required?), and weight the usefulness and consequences. In theory, though, if a law was passed that increased the cost of new guns by less than 5%, which had marking that didn't wear out quickly, and didn't require much hassle to register (point of purchase, perhaps), I'd be in favor of it.
If Congress had a 10000 dollar tax on every firearm sale or transfer, I think it's safe to say that the courts would rule that law as being unconstitutional.
Yes. This would obviously be an end run around the Second Amendment. There is no evidence that the current law is, though. If there was a law (and there might very well already be one) that mandated that all non-revolver firearms produced or sold in the U.S. must have a safety mechanism; would this be as bothersome as the current topic?
What the hell makes you think this sort of thing is aimed at gun collectors? It's intended to raise the (hassle + cost) bar for lawful gun ownership for the general public as a way to reduce lawful gun ownership by the general public, not to inconvenience those who pursue collecting guns as a hobby.
It was a general observation, and intended to be somewhat snarky.
Also, as I've stated several times, not being able to afford something isn't a violation of your rights. Right now I can't excuse spending the money for a new pistol, should the government offer me a subsidy, or give me a free one, since I can't exercise my second amendment rights? And if we follow this rational, why not apply it to something more important, like food or healthcare?
I doubt most people would notice, honestly. Most people I know aren't gun people, and thus having to pay a bit more for a gun (if they really wanted/needed one) wouldn't be an issue, since they have no expectation of costs to begin with. There also, and this is something everyone is conveniently ignoring, the HUGE used market for firearms, which won't be effected by this in the slightest. Sure, a new pistol might cost a couple bucks more (temporarily, until things are retooled, and paid off), but I can still get a $100 revolver at my local gun show.
As for the actual tagging... How does it effect the lawful use of firearms at all? Especially for the average Joe who isn't 100% paranoid about every single action the Government could ever take?
In short: moronic thugs get caught, with little or no inconvenience to normal people.
Again, I've said this before, I'm not endorsing this law. I just think some people have gone overboard on the negative aspects, and some people have started to boil up tasty unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
I think his implication was that by making guns more expensive it makes them less accessible in practice, even if they remain unrestricted in theory.
Still don't see a problem, nor an overt intention to do so. Lots of people can't afford guns, and last I checked being broke isn't a violation of their rights.
Well, that's certainly not true, and it's the first time I hear someone raising a fuss about it, if true.
Shocking, but I was wrong, or at least the explicit example I had in mind was wrong. Nothing to see here, carry on. I was thinking of Arizona now allowing concealed weapons in bars. But they are still barred (har har) when a sign is posted by the owner, and still completely barred for non-permitted concealed weapons (which are legal, but somehow different). I blame the sensational local media here... that and my own lack of research and diligence.
At most, those can be called silly, but as it's not the government restricting you, the 2nd (or any other) amendment obviously does not apply.
Not really. Me and my girlfriend have a friend who drags his gun everywhere, he shows it off, he allows drunk people at parties to handle it (it's a Colt 1911, not anything terribly unique or special). One day when he was spending the night we manged to find it laying, unattended, in almost every room of our house at some point. Loaded, and excepting safety, unsecured. He isn't allowed to bring his gun to our house anymore, unless he leaves it in his car. For the record, we live in the suburbs, in one of the lowest crime areas in the city. Nothing silly there.
Guns are fine, irresponsible people with guns aren't (the same is true of everything, pretty much).
This might be a problem, but I don't see it here. Further, expense isn't a violation of rights. Not being able to afford a gun isn't a violation of the second amendment, if it was gun would have to be free since someone would always be "barred" access.
Ignoring certain practicalities, I see nothing wrong with this. It helps capture morons who misuse firearms, while not hindering the ability of everyone else to have them. If certain people can't afford a gun, I still would think its worth it to help curb some violent crime. Thats ignoring the fact that the used gun market is thriving, and this would do nothing to hinder it, since it only applies to new firearms.
I do, though, doubt the practicality of this, as I read it. Firing pins take abuse, and delicate engraving would be eliminated quickly in normal (hunting or hobby) use. Revolvers would obviously be immune. Off the top of my head I thought of some novel ways around this (firing pins with dot codes, the dots being harder alloys running through the length), but this probably would increase cost. Increase it enough so aftermarket (probably imported) pins would be a very nice alternative. That said, only a handful of gun owners I know have every actually replaced their pins, and most wouldn't have a clue as to how to do it.
The cost of microstamping guns is expected to be small, but it's not 0, and anything above 0 will probably lead to an incremental reduction in the number of guns sold.
Knowing most of the gun collectors I know, not-0 would would have to be pretty significant to effect their hobby. It could be an issue, though, I doubt very much it is some intentional conspiracy to hurt gun manufacturers or gun sales. If it raises percent, then sure, get mad about it, if not, live with it, we do for every other damn product in the world.
. Another reason is that it's a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once.
What rights are being chipped away here? You still run around bearing your arms to your hearts content.
...can paint their opponents as radicals who were unwilling to support "reasonable" gun control measures.
Do you live in the same America as I do? Anyone ever suggesting that we shouldn't put guns in Crackerjack boxes is shouted down these days. Hell, if I own a place of business, and decide that your not allowed to carry on my property, I'm now somehow trying to destroy the Second Amendment, blah blah. With guns, and everything else, we've thrown all moderation to the wind, and let the extremists win.
Which, coincidentally, is why this is the first time I've been on Slashdot in awhile, and thanks to this topic, it might be the last for awhile. I'm so goddamn sick of politics. I used to love them, but now there is no point. Everyone is 100% correct, and if anyone disagrees with them (or doesn't give them and there golden little opinion due reverence) they are a moron. No one is ever going to discuss anything, because obviously they are 100% right, and everyone else is 100% wrong.
Sugar isn't good for you in the amounts Americans consume high fructose corn syrup in.
Try not to consume too much sugar here. Shopping for ketchup or peanut butter is a complete pain in the ass, as HFCS is generally the second ingredient. Ditto for BBQ sauce, and many other like things. Americans love sugar to the point where it is in EVERYTHING. Hell, we even ruined sweet corn and tomatoes by making them so damn sweet that my jaw clenches.
Remember, though, that in certain fields your ability to advance is hindered past 37. Also, your life-long earning potential would be somewhat retarded by this.
Ideally we'd reign in inflated education costs (and force institutions to do the same), or realize as a culture that affordable, universal, education is in our best interest.
They also reject a useful education, either in favor of mooching off of their wealthy parents, or by studying a field that offers absolutely no job prospects and no real-world value.
Actually there used to be a time when people valued "non-useful" fields, but now we expect college to be a glorified trade school training purpose built drones. I went to school for philosophy, actually, and upon entering the program we got to see a nice graph showing that our entry level earning was lower than most "specialized" fields, had a much higher top-cap, since we were being trained to think. Not think about a single task, but to be, basically, generalists.
The people I know who make the most money either majored in something useless (history, education, philosophy, politic science) and ended up in the military going on to work for/as contractors, or when to school for something useless that has large repercussions outside the field. Of the four people I know who take home the most yearly, one is a high school drop out, one has a B.S. in anthropology, one dropped out of a history program, and one has a B.S. in education.
I also don't see a problem with someone who goes to school to better themselves. There is more to life than money, in the long run personal and intellectual fulfillment also deserve their place. Even knowing that I could be pulling in twice as much if I studies something "useful", I still would have gone to college for what I did. I had a passion for something, I acted on it, so I'm not going to lose sleep over people's disapproval. I, in fact, have more respect for art and history majors than I do for MBAs, the former generally has more character and makes the world a more interesting place.
This isn't to say that people genuinely interested in more practical fields are bad. As long as their choices spring from genuine interest, and not some soulless "I need to make a shit-ton of money someday" motive.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to taking care of senior citizens. A growing percentage of our GDP is going to health care.
How is your Baby Boom going now?
There really is nothing we can do about these two, and both of them will increase. Unless we want to just dump all of our parents and grandparents in the streets and let them cope for themselves, or let them die of preventable diseases in over crowded, third-world-esque hospital wards, we have to just grin and bear it. Or, perhaps, find some other solution (cough, public health care, cough), which keeps some humanitarian values.
Also, our health care is down right embarrassing... What the hell are we paying for? Perhaps we could learn from the rest of the developed world... Oh wait, that would be anti-American (we are #1! To admit that someone else might be smarter would mean we aren't #1 anymore.)
Wow, strawman! Where did he ever say "I want to cut all military spending to zero"?
Yes, Medicaid/care are big, bigger than the military... But my metric when it comes to cutting is to cut first from those with less social benefit, and last from those with greater social benefit. I fail to see how our current size military really helps anyone as much as Medicare/aid. And before you start grabbing up more straw, I think we DO need a military, and probably one bigger on average, per capita, than most of the rest of the world. I think we have TOO much military, though, and it is far, far too wasteful as well. Talk to some engineer types in the military, and ask them about costs.
If I was the budget slashing god for a day, I'd cut 90% of agricultural subsidies, and most other costs that only wield happy corporations (oil companies would HATE me, for instance). Then I'd close corporate tax loopholes. Then, I'd hit the military... and only after than would I hit anything that effects a single actual American citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
... where sometimes the hype is so great that they score gigantic initial sales and most of those people say it sucks.
I'm not really sure that "most" people actually would say it sucks. In real life (i.e. ignoring Metacritic, Diablo forums, and Amazon) I haven't met anyone who actually thinks it sucks, or is nearly as bad as the internet makes it seem. Same goes for most of the people I've met in random public games. Hell, actually playing it, I can't say it sucks (not as good as some things, much better than others).
Part of the problem is that their audience is much, much, bigger than when their "classic" games came out. And much of the internet is a very different, and much more idiotic and hostile place. A lot of that new audience are WoW players, and thats what they wanted, or expected. A lot of it is nostalgia trumping clarity; "it isn't as good as Diablo 2, therefore it sucks". This ignores that fact that Diablo 2 had a fair share of problems on launch, and also wasn't actually the shining pinacle of gaming that everyone remembers. Nothing can beat nostalgia. It also isn't Diablo 2.5, since they decided to actually try new systems for once. Part of it is that people have philosophical differences with where Blizzard is going (no LAN, real money auction house). Inferno (the end game) is too hard... Classes aren't balanced (its a single player/coop game, who cares?).
There are also a lot of silly conspiracy theories running around, and a lot of uncorroborated group think (the "hacks" scandal). I've actually never seen anything quite like the vocal brouhaha that followed the release of the game. Especially considering that many people HATE the game, but put in 180 hours. I don't think I've actually ever played a game that much, especially in a period of time less than a month, since I was 15. And meanwhile Blizzard is laughing their way to the bank.
There is too much ire to be simply people not liking it, or merely sucking. There are thousands of games that suck, that die in obscurity. But for some reason this one needs the internet to run around making mouth noises about it. Playing the game, and ignoring my shining memory of Diablo 2, I can honestly say that it is a pretty damn decent game.
Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in the whole software industry; the very recent example of Diablo 3's utter failure to live up to hype, even though it's now the fastest-selling game in history, can largely be attributed to management changes in Activision [teamliquid.net].
Er... you realize you have a contradiction in that statement, right? "Utter failure to live up to hype" and "fastest selling game in history" don't really work together. Also you ignore the fact that the Blizzard side of Activision-Blizzard, and the Activision side of it are separate, and wholly autonomous. Or at least I haven't seen a single credible, informed, source stating otherwise. Even your link amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory, linking disparate facts into a structure without any actual evidence towards the premise. Yes, there might be the same masters (which Blizzard has had before), but this doesn't really mean much since you don't actually know whats going on. For all we know they are hands-off of Blizzard since they are the most profitable game company in existence so they must be doing something right (as evident from Diablo 3, which is justifiably making money hand over fist).
That said, and back on topic: I think MS has a behemoth problem, they are so large, and their fingers are in so many pies, that they lack the ability to quickly adapt to anything. I'm going to get flamed here, but many of their "failures" have actually been pretty decent, but they failed to grasp the market, or marketing, needed to make it work. They try to win by sheer weight, and not by finesse. This works sometimes (Office, the IE domination of yore, Exchange), but generally fails in a non-business arena. The iPod and the Zune weren't really that different, with one being better in some areas, and the other in others, but the Zune completely died because you can't compete on pure specs, especially with Apple (the masters of image and sexy). I suppose this does boil down to managment, but also to the fact that they are MS... Its hard to say "Microsoft" (insert picture of Bill Gates/Balmer)" and "sexy" in the same breath, much less sell it to the masses.
One study, using NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, estimated that in 2007 in the United States, about 34,000 new cases of cancer in men (4 percent) and 50,500 in women (7 percent) were due to obesity.
4-7% is hardly "most".
Or power hungry politicians would twist opposition to those laws into ways to get reelected.
I am a lefty... A FAR lefty. A lot of my friends (almost all of them) are pretty far to the left as well. And I don't know, nor have I ever met, anyone who wanted to ban guns. Hell, a ton of my fellow lefties OWN guns. Sure, some of us want to pass laws to restrict some weapons, or restrict some behaviors. This does not equal a "ban", it equals a normal political disagreement. Those are actually healthy, and good for Democracy. I'm sure there are some crackpots out there who do want to completely ban firearms. We recognize those people as crazy, and they are pretty much powerless (quiz: have gun laws been getting A) more liberal, or B) more restrictive over time?).
I've come to the point where the "they're gonna take all our guns" crowd is pretty much a bunch of irrational conspiracy theorists, about on par (as per grounding in reality) as the Illuminati/New World Order/Elders of Zion bunch.
Oh boy, I'm going to get flamed.
Answer: A), more liberal.
Without bear matches, we would never have little bears. Thats why.
. They are rights we have as humans...
I'm not going to argue about any "right" in particular here, so please don't get defensive. Why do I get "rights", a philosophical construct, as a human? Where did they come from, and how did we find out what they were, especially considering that most of these "rights" didn't even exist 300 years ago, and that while our "founders" were waving their hands about over them, a vast population in the country didn't have them. Hell, we still don't recognize these rights of a significant portion of people in the world (i.e. only Americans in America have them).
Obviously these rights are not a priori, and obviously they aren't really natural (unless they evolved with us, meaning chimps have more rights than lemurs). Sure, we can ascribe them to a creator, but that is a meaningless statement since it isn't provable, and that would mean that I, personally, don't have to give you rights since I don't have a creator (and my mom and dad certainly don't give a shit). So what the hell do we mean when we talk about "rights?"
Sadly, I'm pretty sure they are merely social convention, nothing more. If they weren't, I'm sure we'd see some flavor of historically consistent universal rights.
Also, what the hell is up with our current "founder worship" stuff. Arguing by them is nothing but an argument by authority. There is nothing precluding them from being wrong, they lack divine infallibility or authority, being mere humans like us. Hell, they argued greatly among themselves, and our current government (ignoring the 90% of it that came to be after Washington) is pretty much nothing but a compromise between largely diverging views. Historical context makes it hard to hold them as infallible.
The same goes for the Constitution. More so, since our knowledge of it is largely interpretive now. Notice that in this topic, and every other 2nd Amendment debate, people always forget the bit before the comma. Or when they don't, they have no clue what the term "militia" meant in the context of the 18th century, same goes for the use of "People" versus "Persons" (not synonyms). People also (depending on their idiotic subjective political slants) also forget the whole "General Welfare" bit (government isn't about YOU, but about US, society), or misinterpret it to mean we need more food stamps and public assistance.
For some reason we also NEVER, EVER, talk about responsibility, which is the important counterpart to rights. Just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean you should. And if you misuse a "right", you should be forced to face consequences. If you misuse your fire arm, then you should be punished. If you lack responsibility, then you don't get your gun anymore. For some reason this is socially acceptable with felons, but not morons misusing their guns (or speech... or...).
Citation?
Don't get me wrong, I do think there are more external influences out there today than previously. And I do think they do play some part in elevated rates of cancer (just like our horrible diet plays a roll in increased rates of coronary issues). But I think that we make a mistake when we attribute these elevated rates to solely external influences.
We're too quick, as a whole, to scream "chemicals!" whenever we see statistics like this, and ignore the fact that our ancestors didn't really live long enough to cancer or heart disease to be issues.
Part of the rise in cancer rates is related to the fact that we are less likely to die of other things. We live longer. After a certain point your DNA just fails, since there really isn't an evolutionary reason to debug past a certain time (no longer breeding = no selection pressures). The same goes for coronary problems.
Just because these are more prevalent doesn't mean that there is a novel environmental agent causing the increase.
I actually somewhat like the Metro look, at least more than the iOS look. Let me rephrase that; "I like the Metro look on portable devices more than...", since I still think Windows 8 is a horrible, horrible, idea. Both are better than the lack of unified style in Android devices. I never was a fan of the candy/glass high gloss look, though. Its old and old fad, and shows its age more and more. Metro, on the other hand, looks like a Mondarian, which amuses me. I also like the idea of someone taking tiling UI design and applying it to a portable device. It makes more sense there.
On my Android phone and tablet (one ICS and one Honeycomb) around a third of my screen is widgets, another third is icons, and the remaining third is essentially wasted, unusable, space. It makes sense to combine icons and widgets into one thing, and clear up most of the wasted space.
But then again taste is 100% subjective. I also can't stand the "smooth, white, rounded rectangle" thing Apples been bringing around for the last 10 years. Its boring, to me, personally. As I read someplace, its reminiscent of a used cough lozenge.
Again, aesthetics are subjective.
I'm intrigued by the x86 tablet, though the price will probably keep me from ever getting one. I would LOVE to be able to run Windows applications on something with the same convenience and form factor as my Transformer. There is a couple photography tools I would love to have access to on that form factor. Though I do wonder how hard it would be to get regular Windows programs (not "app store" crap) onto it.
As for the ARM tablet... Meh. Like the screen protector keyboard, sure. Like the looks, sure. But, I'm already locked into the Android ecosystem (most people who care are already in the same place, locked into Google or Apple markets). It doesn't seem to have any of the benefits of the x86 flavor. If they price it low enough to complete with mid-level Android devices, and last-gen iPads, then I can see it working. Maybe. If they price it as a premium device, then I smell failure in their future. The market doesn't really have much room left. All the hip kids and normal people have iPads, all the OSS folk, nerds, and bargain hunters have Android devices... and this leaves MS where?
Guns can already be identified by their barrel marks.
The difference is that with current forensics you need to have a gun to match the bullet to, with this you just need a casing.
So why would you think that isn't intentional?
What makes you think it is? Give me proof that the goal of this is to raise the price of firearms to prohibitive levels. I always err against nefarious conspiracies when given the lack of evidence.
We also need to remember that these markings wear off with use. What sort of maintenance will need to be done in order to remain in compliance with the law?
This is my main complaint, it won't be useful past a few firings. I doubt they thought of it, to be honest. Some politician thought it sounded good, and lined up with their value system, and that was as far as the thought took them. I also error towards stupidity, before I error towards conspiracy.
Obviously not since in my US, that didn't happen. Exaggeration doesn't help your case.
I already admitted I was mistaken earlier on. I stated that based on incomplete facts. If Slashdot let me edit, I would have struck that bit out.
Everyone is already exaggerating here, actually most of the objections are based on exaggerations ("no one will ever be able to afford guns!").
"My view is that the above law was a fairly transparent attempt to hinder law abiding gun owners and manufacturers "... I disagree with this. Its probably a (misguided) attempt to deal with an actual problem; gun violence. ...while simultaneously creating rent seeking opportunities for the manufacturer of the imprinting technology.... And, I agree with this 100%. Someone had a great idea to make some money off of a lucrative political issue. Probably started, again, with good intentions, but the whiff of profit must have been VERY strong. The gun lobby has tons of money, and love throwing it around.
I need to patent some anti-gun technology, and get some politicians to raise the hackles of the NRA...
It would be the poor people who feel a need for a low-cost, usable-quality gun to defend themselves in a sketchy neighborhood.
Gun shows and pawn shops will still exist. Someone, earlier in this topic, linked to a site selling $100 Soviet revolvers.
New firearms (outside of some rifles and shotguns) are already pretty expensive. My household is not poor, and we'd have a hard time justifying purchasing a new gun. Some of that is priorities, I suppose, but the fact remains that guns are priced as a luxury item already (without government intervention).
So, are you in favor of a law of marginal utility in solving crimes which will make it harder for the economically depressed to acquire guns for use in self-defense?
The question is meaningless, since I dispute the validity of one of its premises. The premise I don't dispute, though, is that this is of marginal utility. Even this premise might require a bit of thought though... My main complaint is that firing pins are high wear components, meaning these codes wouldn't last very long. There are ways around this, but they would be technically more difficult, and increase costs to a much higher degree. So this limits the utility. There also, conversely, the fact that most people (at least the demographics that this is intended to catch) don't shoot their guns that often, and probably don't properly maintain their firearms, much less swap out firing pins. This also ignores that criminals have access to the same used market as we do, also the black market. So why I some thug from the inner city going to go buy a new firearm for $x, when he can go to some guy down the street and buy a used on for $x/2, or a hot one for $x/4? Most likely he's going to commit a crime and ditch it or resell it.
Interesting issues. I don't really have a strong opinion until I research a bit (will it really increase costs prohibitively, and registration scheme is actually required?), and weight the usefulness and consequences. In theory, though, if a law was passed that increased the cost of new guns by less than 5%, which had marking that didn't wear out quickly, and didn't require much hassle to register (point of purchase, perhaps), I'd be in favor of it.
If Congress had a 10000 dollar tax on every firearm sale or transfer, I think it's safe to say that the courts would rule that law as being unconstitutional.
Yes. This would obviously be an end run around the Second Amendment. There is no evidence that the current law is, though. If there was a law (and there might very well already be one) that mandated that all non-revolver firearms produced or sold in the U.S. must have a safety mechanism; would this be as bothersome as the current topic?
What the hell makes you think this sort of thing is aimed at gun collectors? It's intended to raise the (hassle + cost) bar for lawful gun ownership for the general public as a way to reduce lawful gun ownership by the general public, not to inconvenience those who pursue collecting guns as a hobby.
It was a general observation, and intended to be somewhat snarky.
Also, as I've stated several times, not being able to afford something isn't a violation of your rights. Right now I can't excuse spending the money for a new pistol, should the government offer me a subsidy, or give me a free one, since I can't exercise my second amendment rights? And if we follow this rational, why not apply it to something more important, like food or healthcare?
I doubt most people would notice, honestly. Most people I know aren't gun people, and thus having to pay a bit more for a gun (if they really wanted/needed one) wouldn't be an issue, since they have no expectation of costs to begin with. There also, and this is something everyone is conveniently ignoring, the HUGE used market for firearms, which won't be effected by this in the slightest. Sure, a new pistol might cost a couple bucks more (temporarily, until things are retooled, and paid off), but I can still get a $100 revolver at my local gun show.
As for the actual tagging... How does it effect the lawful use of firearms at all? Especially for the average Joe who isn't 100% paranoid about every single action the Government could ever take?
In short: moronic thugs get caught, with little or no inconvenience to normal people.
Again, I've said this before, I'm not endorsing this law. I just think some people have gone overboard on the negative aspects, and some people have started to boil up tasty unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
I think his implication was that by making guns more expensive it makes them less accessible in practice, even if they remain unrestricted in theory.
Still don't see a problem, nor an overt intention to do so. Lots of people can't afford guns, and last I checked being broke isn't a violation of their rights.
Well, that's certainly not true, and it's the first time I hear someone raising a fuss about it, if true.
Shocking, but I was wrong, or at least the explicit example I had in mind was wrong. Nothing to see here, carry on. I was thinking of Arizona now allowing concealed weapons in bars. But they are still barred (har har) when a sign is posted by the owner, and still completely barred for non-permitted concealed weapons (which are legal, but somehow different). I blame the sensational local media here... that and my own lack of research and diligence.
At most, those can be called silly, but as it's not the government restricting you, the 2nd (or any other) amendment obviously does not apply.
Not really. Me and my girlfriend have a friend who drags his gun everywhere, he shows it off, he allows drunk people at parties to handle it (it's a Colt 1911, not anything terribly unique or special). One day when he was spending the night we manged to find it laying, unattended, in almost every room of our house at some point. Loaded, and excepting safety, unsecured. He isn't allowed to bring his gun to our house anymore, unless he leaves it in his car. For the record, we live in the suburbs, in one of the lowest crime areas in the city. Nothing silly there.
Guns are fine, irresponsible people with guns aren't (the same is true of everything, pretty much).
This might be a problem, but I don't see it here. Further, expense isn't a violation of rights. Not being able to afford a gun isn't a violation of the second amendment, if it was gun would have to be free since someone would always be "barred" access.
Ignoring certain practicalities, I see nothing wrong with this. It helps capture morons who misuse firearms, while not hindering the ability of everyone else to have them. If certain people can't afford a gun, I still would think its worth it to help curb some violent crime. Thats ignoring the fact that the used gun market is thriving, and this would do nothing to hinder it, since it only applies to new firearms.
I do, though, doubt the practicality of this, as I read it. Firing pins take abuse, and delicate engraving would be eliminated quickly in normal (hunting or hobby) use. Revolvers would obviously be immune. Off the top of my head I thought of some novel ways around this (firing pins with dot codes, the dots being harder alloys running through the length), but this probably would increase cost. Increase it enough so aftermarket (probably imported) pins would be a very nice alternative. That said, only a handful of gun owners I know have every actually replaced their pins, and most wouldn't have a clue as to how to do it.
The cost of microstamping guns is expected to be small, but it's not 0, and anything above 0 will probably lead to an incremental reduction in the number of guns sold.
Knowing most of the gun collectors I know, not-0 would would have to be pretty significant to effect their hobby. It could be an issue, though, I doubt very much it is some intentional conspiracy to hurt gun manufacturers or gun sales. If it raises percent, then sure, get mad about it, if not, live with it, we do for every other damn product in the world.
. Another reason is that it's a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once.
What rights are being chipped away here? You still run around bearing your arms to your hearts content.
Do you live in the same America as I do? Anyone ever suggesting that we shouldn't put guns in Crackerjack boxes is shouted down these days. Hell, if I own a place of business, and decide that your not allowed to carry on my property, I'm now somehow trying to destroy the Second Amendment, blah blah. With guns, and everything else, we've thrown all moderation to the wind, and let the extremists win.
Which, coincidentally, is why this is the first time I've been on Slashdot in awhile, and thanks to this topic, it might be the last for awhile. I'm so goddamn sick of politics. I used to love them, but now there is no point. Everyone is 100% correct, and if anyone disagrees with them (or doesn't give them and there golden little opinion due reverence) they are a moron. No one is ever going to discuss anything, because obviously they are 100% right, and everyone else is 100% wrong.
Perhaps I'm just getting old.
Sugar isn't good for you in the amounts Americans consume high fructose corn syrup in.
Try not to consume too much sugar here. Shopping for ketchup or peanut butter is a complete pain in the ass, as HFCS is generally the second ingredient. Ditto for BBQ sauce, and many other like things. Americans love sugar to the point where it is in EVERYTHING. Hell, we even ruined sweet corn and tomatoes by making them so damn sweet that my jaw clenches.
Don't forget to apply directly to the forehead.
There are literally only one or two books per century that are worth preserving.
Remember, though, that in certain fields your ability to advance is hindered past 37. Also, your life-long earning potential would be somewhat retarded by this.
Ideally we'd reign in inflated education costs (and force institutions to do the same), or realize as a culture that affordable, universal, education is in our best interest.
Right... So poor* people shouldn't have education.
* By poor I of course mean half of the middle class as well. College is damn expensive.
They also reject a useful education, either in favor of mooching off of their wealthy parents, or by studying a field that offers absolutely no job prospects and no real-world value.
Actually there used to be a time when people valued "non-useful" fields, but now we expect college to be a glorified trade school training purpose built drones. I went to school for philosophy, actually, and upon entering the program we got to see a nice graph showing that our entry level earning was lower than most "specialized" fields, had a much higher top-cap, since we were being trained to think. Not think about a single task, but to be, basically, generalists.
The people I know who make the most money either majored in something useless (history, education, philosophy, politic science) and ended up in the military going on to work for/as contractors, or when to school for something useless that has large repercussions outside the field. Of the four people I know who take home the most yearly, one is a high school drop out, one has a B.S. in anthropology, one dropped out of a history program, and one has a B.S. in education.
I also don't see a problem with someone who goes to school to better themselves. There is more to life than money, in the long run personal and intellectual fulfillment also deserve their place. Even knowing that I could be pulling in twice as much if I studies something "useful", I still would have gone to college for what I did. I had a passion for something, I acted on it, so I'm not going to lose sleep over people's disapproval. I, in fact, have more respect for art and history majors than I do for MBAs, the former generally has more character and makes the world a more interesting place.
This isn't to say that people genuinely interested in more practical fields are bad. As long as their choices spring from genuine interest, and not some soulless "I need to make a shit-ton of money someday" motive.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to taking care of senior citizens.
A growing percentage of our GDP is going to health care.
How is your Baby Boom going now?
There really is nothing we can do about these two, and both of them will increase. Unless we want to just dump all of our parents and grandparents in the streets and let them cope for themselves, or let them die of preventable diseases in over crowded, third-world-esque hospital wards, we have to just grin and bear it. Or, perhaps, find some other solution (cough, public health care, cough), which keeps some humanitarian values.
Also, our health care is down right embarrassing... What the hell are we paying for? Perhaps we could learn from the rest of the developed world... Oh wait, that would be anti-American (we are #1! To admit that someone else might be smarter would mean we aren't #1 anymore.)
Wow, strawman! Where did he ever say "I want to cut all military spending to zero"?
Yes, Medicaid/care are big, bigger than the military... But my metric when it comes to cutting is to cut first from those with less social benefit, and last from those with greater social benefit. I fail to see how our current size military really helps anyone as much as Medicare/aid. And before you start grabbing up more straw, I think we DO need a military, and probably one bigger on average, per capita, than most of the rest of the world. I think we have TOO much military, though, and it is far, far too wasteful as well. Talk to some engineer types in the military, and ask them about costs.
If I was the budget slashing god for a day, I'd cut 90% of agricultural subsidies, and most other costs that only wield happy corporations (oil companies would HATE me, for instance). Then I'd close corporate tax loopholes. Then, I'd hit the military... and only after than would I hit anything that effects a single actual American citizen.