Yes. "Get it from the original authors" isn't sufficient - what if the original authors fold up shop? Or what if you give me FooMatic 1.4, but the FooMatic authors are on 2.1 and no longer have 1.4 source available?
It doesn't make sense that Monsoon could be sued because it's not distributing the source code for BusyBox, because the product offered is not "BusyBox"- besides that, BusyBox source can presumably be found wherever it is that Monsoon got it.
If the product includes BusyBox (which it seems that it does), the GPL says they have to provide source for BusyBox. "Get source from the original authors" is not sufficient - what if the authors fold up shop? So the GPLv2 requires that if you distribute GPLd code, you also make available the corresponding source. (That can be as simple as a written offer to send a CD-ROM.)
Does use of BusyBox by Monsoon mean that every bit of Monsoon's other code has to be released as well?
If their code is merely aggregated with BusyBox, no.
if I write "hello world" for Linux, and with my hello world distribute Linux as well, does that mean I have to release the source to "hello world"?
No. But you have the make available the source for Linux.
Police State? Where do you live? Comparing the current state of America to a Police state is complete and total hyperbole.
The United States is a mostly benign police state.
While they will usually leave you alone (if you're a white middle class member of a mainstrem political party and a mainstream church), the government can, if it wants, disappear you.
All they have to do is call you an "enemy combatant", and boom! Non-person.
Not that Bush started it, of course; the slide into police state begins with Nixon and the "War on Drugs", which slowy eroded the protections of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Civil forfeiture, "no-knock" warrants, mandatory minimums, censorship of messages that don't toe the party line: police state tactics have been business-as-usual for a long while now.
The biggest single problem in the US today is there are indeed terrorists
No, it's not. Not even close. The threat perceived is way out of proportion to the actual threat.
About 16,000 people are murdered in the U.S. per year; that makes the number of people killed in the U.S. by terrorist attacks over the past decade on the order of one fiftieth the number of people murdered in conventional assaults.
The annual number of deaths from AIDS are roughly comparable to those from murder. AIDS is about 50 times the threat to your life as terrorists.
Both murder and AIDS are of course tiny compared to deaths from cancer or heart disease, which together have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Bacon double cheeseburgers and lack of exercise are far more deadly to Americans than Al Qaeda.
Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.
And as many (including, recently, Alan Greenspan) have observed, Clinton was the best Republican president that the country has seen in a while.
It was Clinton and his cronies who made the Democrats into GOP-lite, performing the spine-ectomy that leaves them unable to mount significant resistance to the neocons today.
If the police are arresting you, you're supposed to let them. If they were in the wrong, then you try to take legal action against them
Read the Bad Elk decision, which notes "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." The Court explictly noted as recently as 1948 that "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, it is true that the Court has been less friendly to this (and most other rights of citizens) in more recent times.
Not, to be clear, that I'm suggesting shooting cops in a situation like this, as happened in the Bad Elk case.
But, that's beside the point. Fleeing is not actively resisting arrest - especially if a person has not been lawfully arrested. Fleeing may, depending on local statute, constitute a form of offense that is placed under the heading resisting arrest, or it may be an offense under seperate heading, but it is a very different offense than active resistance, i.e. fighting against cops.
And pulling away from an assault by cops who don't first announce an arrest and give a reasonable chance to comply, which seems to be the case here, isn't even fleeing. It's instinctual human behavior, which cannot be criminalized.
They can't sit there all day with him on the ground until he complies.
All day? No. A couple of minutes, until everyone's adrenaline has had a chance to cool? Sure. This isn't some maniac who was waving a knife and presenting a clear and present danger to public safety - in which case I'd say taze him as much as needed. This was a guy accused of hogging the mic. (And unjustly at that, since the speaker didn't object.)
He has already resisted arrest and shown himself to be erratic, so they have to take him in.
Nonsense. He asked some perfectly valid questions, drawing applause from some in the audience, and even Kerry wanted to answer. Yes, he was somewhat nervous - many people are nervous about public speaking. Suddenly, in the middle of his final question, he was seized from behind. Rather than defending himself by striking his assailants - which many people would have done instinctively - he maintained enough calm to simply pull away and challenge them verbally. That's not erratic or dangerous. The cops then continue to escalate the situation by pointing a taser, a potentially lethal weapon, at him.
While they've got him pinned, he asks them to just let him leave. The sane thing to do is form a cordon behind him, let him up, and walk him outside, write him a citation for the "disturbing the peace" charge, and everyone goes home happy.
At the same time, presidential candidates are big targets, so law enforcement take their security pretty seriously.
Uh, no. At no point does the victim attempt to strike, choke, or otherwise fight against his assailants in resistance. No active resistance.
Anyone who watches the videos will see that he does not actively resist; only tries to pull away and retreat from the attacking cops, as any sane human being would retreat from an unwarranted assault. Retreating is not resisting.
But I won't call you a liar; I suppose that once you've made up your mind that the cops are always right, it messes with your vision and you start to see things that just aren't there. It's a shame, really.
First of all, a person who is "not under control", is a potential threat.
Really? Remarkable. Then I must assume you, and anyone else I see who is not in handcuffs or otherwise under the complete control of police, to be a threat? That's called paranoia, my friend, and if you really feel that way you should seek professional help.
A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.
If there are specific facts that give probable cause to believe that a person has committed a serious crime (not a mere nuisance which is abated by the person leaving, but a theft or assault), then that person can be considered a probable threat to the safety of others, and force commensurate with the threat may be used.
So it is within this guy's free speech rights to shout down a candidate a political rally?
Well, this guy didn't shout down anybody, as you'd know if you bothered to watch any of the videos.
A microphone was provided for questioners. That's an invitation to speak. To revoke the invitation, you turn off the mic and ask the person to leave. You don't suddenly grab him and start dragging him away; that's assault.
Is shouting at a political event within free speech rights? It may be rude, but this isn't a movie, it's a political event. Especially when you are petitioning a government official for redress of your grievances, you're within your rights up until the point where the hosts of the event ask you to leave.
When you've already demonstrated you'll ignore instructions from police and actively resist them in a public place, you are a threat.
"Actively resist?" No one was actively resisting. Actively resisting would have been hitting, choking, biting, or otherwise using force, not merely pulling away from one's assailants.
Apparently by your standards, followers of Gandhi or King who raised their arms to block the blows of clubs would be a "threat".
"Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control"."
Nope. And again, whether you agree or not means nothing.
So under what sort of ethical system is potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, justfied in the absence of a threat?
Maybe they wouldn't have to pretend their rights got trampled if they didn't A) break the law and B) ignore a lawfuly given instruction.
Meyer didn't break any law; the cops were the criminals here.
There was nothing "lawful" about the behavior of the cops at any point. He asks his question about "Skull and Bones", and they simply grab him and start to drag him off. No verbal request to leave. That's an assault.
And let me point out that under the Bad Elk precedent, a citizen has the right to resist illegal arrest by any means necessary. As recently as 1948, the Court noted in it
opinion that "
One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, the court has been less friendly to this right (and most other rights) in more recent times.
I know, you've been so conditioned into playing "follow the leader" that you'll find the idea of a right to stand up to LEO abuses inconceivable...
If you have a real argument make it, but save the "thugs" "torture" and "assault" bullshit for your friends, I'm not disconnected enough from reality to swallow it.
See, that's exactly what I mean. Inflicting great pain to get someone to do what you want is torture. That you would question that electric shock to get someone to shut up qualifies as torture shows you've been so conditioned that you can't think straight.
Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that.
But I've been online in various ways for about 15 years, and one thing I've learnt is that gun debates never end and no one ever changes their mind.
I did. In high school I wrote a paper urging the banning of handguns; ten years later I was a handgun owner. My opinions on the subject (and on a few others) changed largely because of on-line discussions in the late 80s and early 90s.
Of course it's rare that in the course of actual discussion, someone changes their mind; but I do think that seeds can be planted to sprout later.
You're not under control until you're under control, which doesn't mean thrashing about, fighting, and actively trying to escape.
"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".
Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.
when he could have done so in the first place and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights.
Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
It is very difficult and dangerous to try and move someone who is actively resisting.
Then don't move them while they're actively resisting.
There's not a time limit here. He's down, he's not a threat. Let everybody's adrenaline rush wear off. Maybe a new cop arrives who can talk to the suspect as a neutral party.
Instead, cops have to show off their authority, make it clear to all present that no one may question their actions without them breaking out the agonizers. It's about instilling fear, not about removing a threat.
And even causing someone a few minutes of pain is not justified if no threat exists. If someone who has shown no violent intent is restrained on the ground, there's no threat; just wait it out until everyone's calmed down. If it takes ten minutes, a half hour, whatever.
This was cops getting off on their authority, torturing a helpless man. It's why if cops are going to have tasers, so should civilians, so we can stop police brutality through direct action.
Are the cops supposed to wait until someone gets hurt?
No, they're supposed to wait until there is a clear and present danger of someone getting hurt. A man who has shown no signs of intent to violence and who is already restrained on the floor, is not a threat.
He was given plenty of chances to avoid the taser, he chose not to comply. Tough shit for him.
You know, you sound like the abusive husband who tells his buddies, "I gave her every chance, but the bitch wouldn't listen. Tough shit for her."
Why should the cops have to wrestle with this guy?
They already did! They had him on the ground.
A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. Its use is justified only when someone is a threat to the safety of others. One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else.
He probably deserved to be Tasered because he was resisting arrest
No one "deserves" to be tasered, any more than they "deserve" to be shot or beaten. A taser is a potential lethal weapon that should not be used on anyone unless they are a threat to the safety of others - used not because some undertrained cop's sense of karma decides that someone "deserves" it, but to stop the threat.
One guy who has already been brought to the ground is not a threat to four cops. Tasering him was an act of torture, intended to cow the populace into submission to authority and/or for the sadistic gratification of the cops.
your common or garden thief/burglar doesnt need a gun & wont risk the extra jail time, if law abiding people dont carry guns.
So a rapist or murderer only needs a knife. Thank goodness those are hard to come by!
if everyone has a gun, every criminal needs a bigger/better gun than the average, it starts a criminal arms race.
No, because guns don't work like that. In a close range one-on-one (or maybe one-on-two) confrontation, where only one or two shots are likely to be fired, I can kill you just as dead with a.38 revolver as you can kill me with an submachine gun. This is the scenario in which the vast majority of defenses against criminal assaults occur.
An arms race only comes into play when there might be gangs of cops and crooks shooting it out; in a running gun battle, a group of guys with.38s is at a disadvanatage versus a bunch of guys with Uzis. That's why the formation of "SWAT" teams and the general militarization of policing led to a demand for higher firepower among crooks.
- accidents (mis-handling, misuse by curious kids finding it)
Firearms accidents are very rare. Of course one accidental shooting is one too many, but you are more likely to drown, be poisoned, or die in a fire, than be killed in a gun accident.
- impulsive use (e.g. in a rage)
Someone in a murderous rage who doesn't have a gun will grab a knife, a baseball bat, whatever. (Did you know that the U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than the total murder rate of the U.K. or Japan?)
Now, picture some big strong guy in a murderous rage with a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, coming after someone you love. Do you wish your loved one had a gun?
(Yes, you might wish they had a phaser set to stun. Here in the real world however, the best way to stop someone intent on an act of great violence remains a firearm. That's why cops carry them. Mace and stunguns work for shit; unarmed self defense is better than nothing, and will teach you strategies for avoiding trouble, but even a black belt can get killed by somebody bigger and stronger with a weapon.)
- another person using your gun against you
Proper training prevents this. Your gun is locked away if it's not on your person; if it's on your person, you shoot an attacker before they get close enough to take your gun away. A gun is a distance weapon, after all. (And if they manage to get up right close to you before you get your gun out, and take it away from you that way, then they could just as easily put a knife in you if their intention is to kill you.)
Actually, no, "we" don't agree. DO NOT claim that everyone, even a majority, agrees with you.
Easy, friend. I was talking to MBGMorden; "we agree" meant that he and I agree. "We agree" doesn't mean "we all agree". Ok? Ok.
I would be curious to know, however, on what basis you disagree with the observation that gun control laws do not keep guns away from bad guys. I live outside Baltimore, which is in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation - and the second highest murder rate. Baltimore also has a heroin addiction rate of over ten percent. Neither gun control nor drug control laws seem to be accomplishing their stated goals.
Taking some open source code and building a proprietary product out of it does not make the original open source code any less free.
No, but it makes people less free. When you create a proprietary product, you are saying "if you attempt to share this, I will use the power of copyright law to stop you." That reduces freedom.
The GPL prevents this, and thus acts to preserve freedom.
Gun control basically is the same thing: for a gun to really be a problem one must already be prepared to break the law. So given that a willingness to break the law is already a prerequisite for a gun crime to take place
To be fair, the idea is that gun control makes it harder for the bad guy, willing to be bad though be may be, to actually obtain a gun.
to me, it is the GPL that ensures that the *code* remains free, while the BSD license ensures that it is the *user* that remains free.
What are you talking about? The GPL places absolutlely no conditions on the user of a GPL covered work; it places conditions only on the distribution of copies of the work, or of modified works.
And the condition that the GPL places is just that you treat others as you were treated, that you treat them as equals. And equality is a necessary precondition for freedom.
RMS is asking that you not call the system that GNU assembled and developed, by the name of the kernel that provided the last piece, and that you give credit to the organization that set out to provide the free operating system that the Linux kernel completed. It is an entirely reasonable request.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. "Get it from the original authors" isn't sufficient - what if the original authors fold up shop? Or what if you give me FooMatic 1.4, but the FooMatic authors are on 2.1 and no longer have 1.4 source available?
If the product includes BusyBox (which it seems that it does), the GPL says they have to provide source for BusyBox. "Get source from the original authors" is not sufficient - what if the authors fold up shop? So the GPLv2 requires that if you distribute GPLd code, you also make available the corresponding source. (That can be as simple as a written offer to send a CD-ROM.)
If their code is merely aggregated with BusyBox, no.
No. But you have the make available the source for Linux.
The United States is a mostly benign police state.
While they will usually leave you alone (if you're a white middle class member of a mainstrem political party and a mainstream church), the government can, if it wants, disappear you.
All they have to do is call you an "enemy combatant", and boom! Non-person.
Not that Bush started it, of course; the slide into police state begins with Nixon and the "War on Drugs", which slowy eroded the protections of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Civil forfeiture, "no-knock" warrants, mandatory minimums, censorship of messages that don't toe the party line: police state tactics have been business-as-usual for a long while now.
No, it's not. Not even close. The threat perceived is way out of proportion to the actual threat.
About 16,000 people are murdered in the U.S. per year; that makes the number of people killed in the U.S. by terrorist attacks over the past decade on the order of one fiftieth the number of people murdered in conventional assaults.
The annual number of deaths from AIDS are roughly comparable to those from murder. AIDS is about 50 times the threat to your life as terrorists.
Both murder and AIDS are of course tiny compared to deaths from cancer or heart disease, which together have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Bacon double cheeseburgers and lack of exercise are far more deadly to Americans than Al Qaeda.
Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.
Heck, about as many people drown every year as died in the 9/11 attacks. 3,372 fatal drownings in 2001, versus 2,974 killed in the 9/11 attacks. And yet nobody gets all bent out of shape about how we have to suspend habeus corpus to protect ourselves from the dangers of swimming pools and lakes.
Fear terrorists? Feh. If you want to save lives, put resources into health promotion and medical care, safer roads, and crime prevention.
That doesn't mean "do nothing about terrorists"; but it does mean "do sane things, not crazy-ass useless things".
And as many (including, recently, Alan Greenspan) have observed, Clinton was the best Republican president that the country has seen in a while.
It was Clinton and his cronies who made the Democrats into GOP-lite, performing the spine-ectomy that leaves them unable to mount significant resistance to the neocons today.
Read the Bad Elk decision, which notes "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." The Court explictly noted as recently as 1948 that "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, it is true that the Court has been less friendly to this (and most other rights of citizens) in more recent times.
Not, to be clear, that I'm suggesting shooting cops in a situation like this, as happened in the Bad Elk case.
But, that's beside the point. Fleeing is not actively resisting arrest - especially if a person has not been lawfully arrested. Fleeing may, depending on local statute, constitute a form of offense that is placed under the heading resisting arrest, or it may be an offense under seperate heading, but it is a very different offense than active resistance, i.e. fighting against cops.
And pulling away from an assault by cops who don't first announce an arrest and give a reasonable chance to comply, which seems to be the case here, isn't even fleeing. It's instinctual human behavior, which cannot be criminalized.
All day? No. A couple of minutes, until everyone's adrenaline has had a chance to cool? Sure. This isn't some maniac who was waving a knife and presenting a clear and present danger to public safety - in which case I'd say taze him as much as needed. This was a guy accused of hogging the mic. (And unjustly at that, since the speaker didn't object.)
Nonsense. He asked some perfectly valid questions, drawing applause from some in the audience, and even Kerry wanted to answer. Yes, he was somewhat nervous - many people are nervous about public speaking. Suddenly, in the middle of his final question, he was seized from behind. Rather than defending himself by striking his assailants - which many people would have done instinctively - he maintained enough calm to simply pull away and challenge them verbally. That's not erratic or dangerous. The cops then continue to escalate the situation by pointing a taser, a potentially lethal weapon, at him.
While they've got him pinned, he asks them to just let him leave. The sane thing to do is form a cordon behind him, let him up, and walk him outside, write him a citation for the "disturbing the peace" charge, and everyone goes home happy.
Kerry's running for President again? News to me.
Can't speak to "most people", but certainly winds in excess of 40 mph are not unknown in the Baltimore area. We even sometimes bust 50 or 60 mph.
Uh, no. At no point does the victim attempt to strike, choke, or otherwise fight against his assailants in resistance. No active resistance.
Anyone who watches the videos will see that he does not actively resist; only tries to pull away and retreat from the attacking cops, as any sane human being would retreat from an unwarranted assault. Retreating is not resisting.
But I won't call you a liar; I suppose that once you've made up your mind that the cops are always right, it messes with your vision and you start to see things that just aren't there. It's a shame, really.
Really? Remarkable. Then I must assume you, and anyone else I see who is not in handcuffs or otherwise under the complete control of police, to be a threat? That's called paranoia, my friend, and if you really feel that way you should seek professional help.
If there are specific facts that give probable cause to believe that a person has committed a serious crime (not a mere nuisance which is abated by the person leaving, but a theft or assault), then that person can be considered a probable threat to the safety of others, and force commensurate with the threat may be used.
Well, this guy didn't shout down anybody, as you'd know if you bothered to watch any of the videos.
A microphone was provided for questioners. That's an invitation to speak. To revoke the invitation, you turn off the mic and ask the person to leave. You don't suddenly grab him and start dragging him away; that's assault.
Is shouting at a political event within free speech rights? It may be rude, but this isn't a movie, it's a political event. Especially when you are petitioning a government official for redress of your grievances, you're within your rights up until the point where the hosts of the event ask you to leave.
"Actively resist?" No one was actively resisting. Actively resisting would have been hitting, choking, biting, or otherwise using force, not merely pulling away from one's assailants.
Apparently by your standards, followers of Gandhi or King who raised their arms to block the blows of clubs would be a "threat".
So under what sort of ethical system is potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, justfied in the absence of a threat?
Meyer didn't break any law; the cops were the criminals here.
There was nothing "lawful" about the behavior of the cops at any point. He asks his question about "Skull and Bones", and they simply grab him and start to drag him off. No verbal request to leave. That's an assault.
And let me point out that under the Bad Elk precedent, a citizen has the right to resist illegal arrest by any means necessary. As recently as 1948, the Court noted in it opinion that " One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." However, the court has been less friendly to this right (and most other rights) in more recent times.
I know, you've been so conditioned into playing "follow the leader" that you'll find the idea of a right to stand up to LEO abuses inconceivable...
See, that's exactly what I mean. Inflicting great pain to get someone to do what you want is torture. That you would question that electric shock to get someone to shut up qualifies as torture shows you've been so conditioned that you can't think straight.
Supergood-ape, with your unquestioning obedience it seems you would have made a fine slave-catcher back in the day. And I'm sorry to see that.
I did. In high school I wrote a paper urging the banning of handguns; ten years later I was a handgun owner. My opinions on the subject (and on a few others) changed largely because of on-line discussions in the late 80s and early 90s.
Of course it's rare that in the course of actual discussion, someone changes their mind; but I do think that seeds can be planted to sprout later.
"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".
Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.
Yes, I'm sure it would be so much more convenient everyone if people didn't make a fuss when cops trample their rights.
Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
Then don't move them while they're actively resisting.
There's not a time limit here. He's down, he's not a threat. Let everybody's adrenaline rush wear off. Maybe a new cop arrives who can talk to the suspect as a neutral party.
Instead, cops have to show off their authority, make it clear to all present that no one may question their actions without them breaking out the agonizers. It's about instilling fear, not about removing a threat.
Which is why a potentially lethal weapon such as a taser should not be used unless a serious threat exists.
And even causing someone a few minutes of pain is not justified if no threat exists. If someone who has shown no violent intent is restrained on the ground, there's no threat; just wait it out until everyone's calmed down. If it takes ten minutes, a half hour, whatever.
This was cops getting off on their authority, torturing a helpless man. It's why if cops are going to have tasers, so should civilians, so we can stop police brutality through direct action.
No, they're supposed to wait until there is a clear and present danger of someone getting hurt. A man who has shown no signs of intent to violence and who is already restrained on the floor, is not a threat.
You know, you sound like the abusive husband who tells his buddies, "I gave her every chance, but the bitch wouldn't listen. Tough shit for her."
Actually exit polls are widely used to detect election fraud. See the 2004 Ukraine elections, for example.
When as much hanky-panky occurs in an election as did in Ohio in 2004, and when large numbers of people are unlawfully denied their right to cast a ballot, the reported "actual vote" is meaningless.
They already did! They had him on the ground.
A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. Its use is justified only when someone is a threat to the safety of others. One guy on the ground is not a threat to four cops, or to anyone else.
No one "deserves" to be tasered, any more than they "deserve" to be shot or beaten. A taser is a potential lethal weapon that should not be used on anyone unless they are a threat to the safety of others - used not because some undertrained cop's sense of karma decides that someone "deserves" it, but to stop the threat.
One guy who has already been brought to the ground is not a threat to four cops. Tasering him was an act of torture, intended to cow the populace into submission to authority and/or for the sadistic gratification of the cops.
So a rapist or murderer only needs a knife. Thank goodness those are hard to come by!
No, because guns don't work like that. In a close range one-on-one (or maybe one-on-two) confrontation, where only one or two shots are likely to be fired, I can kill you just as dead with a .38 revolver as you can kill me with an submachine gun. This is the scenario in which the vast majority of defenses against criminal assaults occur.
An arms race only comes into play when there might be gangs of cops and crooks shooting it out; in a running gun battle, a group of guys with .38s is at a disadvanatage versus a bunch of guys with Uzis. That's why the formation of "SWAT" teams and the general militarization of policing led to a demand for higher firepower among crooks.
Firearms accidents are very rare. Of course one accidental shooting is one too many, but you are more likely to drown, be poisoned, or die in a fire, than be killed in a gun accident.
Someone in a murderous rage who doesn't have a gun will grab a knife, a baseball bat, whatever. (Did you know that the U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than the total murder rate of the U.K. or Japan?)
Now, picture some big strong guy in a murderous rage with a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, coming after someone you love. Do you wish your loved one had a gun?
(Yes, you might wish they had a phaser set to stun. Here in the real world however, the best way to stop someone intent on an act of great violence remains a firearm. That's why cops carry them. Mace and stunguns work for shit; unarmed self defense is better than nothing, and will teach you strategies for avoiding trouble, but even a black belt can get killed by somebody bigger and stronger with a weapon.)
Proper training prevents this. Your gun is locked away if it's not on your person; if it's on your person, you shoot an attacker before they get close enough to take your gun away. A gun is a distance weapon, after all. (And if they manage to get up right close to you before you get your gun out, and take it away from you that way, then they could just as easily put a knife in you if their intention is to kill you.)
Easy, friend. I was talking to MBGMorden; "we agree" meant that he and I agree. "We agree" doesn't mean "we all agree". Ok? Ok.
I would be curious to know, however, on what basis you disagree with the observation that gun control laws do not keep guns away from bad guys. I live outside Baltimore, which is in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation - and the second highest murder rate. Baltimore also has a heroin addiction rate of over ten percent. Neither gun control nor drug control laws seem to be accomplishing their stated goals.
No, but it makes people less free. When you create a proprietary product, you are saying "if you attempt to share this, I will use the power of copyright law to stop you." That reduces freedom.
The GPL prevents this, and thus acts to preserve freedom.
To be fair, the idea is that gun control makes it harder for the bad guy, willing to be bad though be may be, to actually obtain a gun.
I think we agree that this idea happens to be very incorrect, and that gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies. And I'm sure "game control" laws would keep consoles away from WoW junkies about as well, and maybe let use have a violent black market in Wiis.
What are you talking about? The GPL places absolutlely no conditions on the user of a GPL covered work; it places conditions only on the distribution of copies of the work, or of modified works.
And the condition that the GPL places is just that you treat others as you were treated, that you treat them as equals. And equality is a necessary precondition for freedom.
He's not asking that. Linux is Linux. But Linux is the kernel, which Linus himself noted "is a miniscule part of a complete system".
RMS is asking that you not call the system that GNU assembled and developed, by the name of the kernel that provided the last piece, and that you give credit to the organization that set out to provide the free operating system that the Linux kernel completed. It is an entirely reasonable request.