What is so wrongheaded about your remark is that only criminals would "live in fear". Regular citizens would have less fear, since they would be armed and able to defend themselves if need be - even women.
What about if someone wants to challange things like the law? Not as if that's ever happened before, even on/. Not all laws are to prevent harm to other people.
It would also cause most people to conform to the majority. No one would want to be considered strange, or radical, or an revolutionary etc. You could be a target, or a good person to frame.
There is also the fact that humans are not always calm and rational. It would certinaly make breaking up with your partner more risky if you know what I mean;)
It would make everybody equal/the same. There is a big difference between equality and equal opportunities.
BTW. This would still not stop most terrorist acts. Only people who feared loosing their life.
The Germans would have split the atom before us, if they had a chance.
Probably right there. But it was split by a New Zealander anyway.
And the Russians put people into space before we did.
That's what I said/meant.
Me things you have the wrong end of my stick. My point was to show that there were important steps in technology done by non-americans, and that most inventions rely on other previous inventions and discoveries.
It's time to change religion or start being religious if you not already. Look for one that finds it offensive to celebrated Christmas. This is you get out of jail free card, so to speak.
Or....there will be lots of free windows distros floating around, and possibly, usefull things like the workings of DirectX, IE and such....Better compatability with Linux etc.
...They define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, if you do that the font size can't be adjusted in Microsoft Internet Explorer...
I though that might be the case.
Actually a lot of people are embedding stylesheet commands into the HTML
Yes, unfortuntaly, 99% of the time, these people are being idiots.
Maybe you should have something more like: "Don't deffine font sizes in px. Internet Explorer can't re-size them"?
BTW, it's only the px unit that doesn't re-size. pt is also an absolute measument, and it's re-sizeable. But it's not meant for monitors, dispite being the norm for on the web for years.
Yes, if lots of people use it, it automaticly makes it good (so windows must be better than any UNIX to, right?).
And porting any app to OS X automaticly improves it's usability.
I appologize if Film GIMP is completely different to, and much better than GIMP GUI-wise. Either way, GIMP still has a bad GUI, and I'm not sure what linking back to your post is supposed to prove.
Or...you can use the clipboard. It accepts handwriting input with 100% efficiency and no interpretation errors. It doesn't use any batteries, costs pennies on the dollar, is lighter, and the media is capable of lasting (in usable form) for literally 100s if not 1000s of years.
Some of use want to run more apps than just the equivilant of Notepad.exe.
Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
What's with you sig? Would you prefer designers to embed the style into the HTML via fonts tags and other horrible hacks that's make no sence and can't be overriden? Why no use another browser if it's that much of a problem?
Hope your joking. A clean design is minimalistic. Minimalistic designs are more likely to last because there is less to out of fasion (duh).
The clean look will never be "out", because it is part of a funamental design principal.
The Nomad Jukebox on the other hand, hardly looks like a timeless design.
Then again, you could kill yourself walking down the street too. Would you wear a helmet on your evening walk?
I hate these silly "but you could XXX just XXXing XXX". Most poeple don't walk in the middle of roads at over 50mph. And if they could go that fast, they'd be running for starters;).
Except that now you're dragging a flapping piece of stiff cloth along with you, which could get caught on (or under) any number of things.
That's nearly as bad as not wearing a parachute becasue you could land in a powerline.
Sure, it could get caught, and you could end up being dragged. But I'd rather take that lesser risk that the risk of getting my neck broken via landing head first on to the road/into a car etc.
You shouldn't have _______ (fill in the right) because it could be used to ____________ (name the crime).
What about drugs? If you're not OK with the idea of them being legal...
BTW. I'm an anarchist. So I believe, that ideally, we should have right to own anything we want, do anything we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others. But unfortunately, society can't handle this kind of responsibility yet, so laws are still needed as a diterant otherwise I would agree with you.
How many bullets in the average gun? What about aiming for the body, only 5 meters away?
1.5kgs isn't that much compared to the amount of effort required for the other ways (stabing, punching etc).
How many people do you know that practice knife throwing?
Even then, you would have be a pretty damn good knife thrower to get a moving target the size of a neck.
That isn't what I meant. Hitler and other fascist dictators rule by fear. Making everyone carry a gun means that everyone will still be ruled by fear, just not by one person (or group).
In New Zealand guns are outlawed (ignoring shotguns etc for sport/hunting). So crimials are the only once with guns. BUT. Only a small percentage of criminals have guns. A much higher percentage would have guns if they were legal.
Homeless need help (not just financial). Sports-car drivers probably don't.
It could be agrued that chain smokers don't care about others around them (2nd smoke). At lease putting lables on what we eat is of benifit to others.
There are other factors at work as well. For instance, in the UK if somebody gets raped, unless they are trained in martial arts or something, I hate to say it but if the opponent is stronger there isn't much that can be done (as far as I know). In the US, I'd guess the rapist would get a bullet through the head.
You assume that the victim got a chance to use the gun. As someone just above posted, 75% of US police shot, are either shot by their own gun, or another offices gun.
If you have a gun, you can still get caught off by suprise. You can still not know how to use it. You can still hesitate to actually pull the trigger (not as easy as you might think for you average Joe. Most people aren't trigger happy). And you can still get into a fight and have the gun taken off you (how many times have you seen that senario in a movie?).
This is my main probelm with guns. Just becasue you own a gun, it dosn't mean you can walk around free from being a victim of a crime. It's not as simple as that. In some cases, you'll be worse off.
Slashdot Mirror
What about if someone wants to challange things like the law? Not as if that's ever happened before, even on /. Not all laws are to prevent harm to other people.
It would also cause most people to conform to the majority. No one would want to be considered strange, or radical, or an revolutionary etc. You could be a target, or a good person to frame.
There is also the fact that humans are not always calm and rational. It would certinaly make breaking up with your partner more risky if you know what I mean ;)
It would make everybody equal/the same. There is a big difference between equality and equal opportunities.
BTW. This would still not stop most terrorist acts. Only people who feared loosing their life.
Probably right there. But it was split by a New Zealander anyway.
And the Russians put people into space before we did.
That's what I said/meant.
Me things you have the wrong end of my stick. My point was to show that there were important steps in technology done by non-americans, and that most inventions rely on other previous inventions and discoveries.
It's time to change religion or start being religious if you not already. Look for one that finds it offensive to celebrated Christmas. This is you get out of jail free card, so to speak.
Exactly my point. In most cases, there is not just one contry or person that was behind the whole thing.
I give the US credit for being a tech leader. But a lot of major things have come from outside the US.
Must be hard being an anarchist supporting the rule of law.
Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?
Or....there will be lots of free windows distros floating around, and possibly, usefull things like the workings of DirectX, IE and such....Better compatability with Linux etc.
I though that might be the case.
Actually a lot of people are embedding stylesheet commands into the HTML
Yes, unfortuntaly, 99% of the time, these people are being idiots.
Maybe you should have something more like: "Don't deffine font sizes in px. Internet Explorer can't re-size them"?
BTW, it's only the px unit that doesn't re-size. pt is also an absolute measument, and it's re-sizeable. But it's not meant for monitors, dispite being the norm for on the web for years.
And porting any app to OS X automaticly improves it's usability.
I appologize if Film GIMP is completely different to, and much better than GIMP GUI-wise. Either way, GIMP still has a bad GUI, and I'm not sure what linking back to your post is supposed to prove.
Some of use want to run more apps than just the equivilant of Notepad.exe.
What's with you sig? Would you prefer designers to embed the style into the HTML via fonts tags and other horrible hacks that's make no sence and can't be overriden? Why no use another browser if it's that much of a problem?
Hope your joking. A clean design is minimalistic. Minimalistic designs are more likely to last because there is less to out of fasion (duh).
The clean look will never be "out", because it is part of a funamental design principal.
The Nomad Jukebox on the other hand, hardly looks like a timeless design.
I hate these silly "but you could XXX just XXXing XXX". Most poeple don't walk in the middle of roads at over 50mph. And if they could go that fast, they'd be running for starters ;).
Not sure about that. Car airbags deflate immediatly. It may acctualy help you slow down.
"643 to control. Am I clear to make this turn yet? Over"
"Negative 643, we're still waiting for the an old lady to cross the street. Over"
That's nearly as bad as not wearing a parachute becasue you could land in a powerline.
Sure, it could get caught, and you could end up being dragged. But I'd rather take that lesser risk that the risk of getting my neck broken via landing head first on to the road/into a car etc.
What about drugs? If you're not OK with the idea of them being legal...
BTW. I'm an anarchist. So I believe, that ideally, we should have right to own anything we want, do anything we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others. But unfortunately, society can't handle this kind of responsibility yet, so laws are still needed as a diterant otherwise I would agree with you.
How many bullets in the average gun? What about aiming for the body, only 5 meters away?
1.5kgs isn't that much compared to the amount of effort required for the other ways (stabing, punching etc).
How many people do you know that practice knife throwing?
Even then, you would have be a pretty damn good knife thrower to get a moving target the size of a neck.
That isn't what I meant. Hitler and other fascist dictators rule by fear. Making everyone carry a gun means that everyone will still be ruled by fear, just not by one person (or group).
In New Zealand guns are outlawed (ignoring shotguns etc for sport/hunting). So crimials are the only once with guns. BUT. Only a small percentage of criminals have guns. A much higher percentage would have guns if they were legal.
Nitpick: The problem has never been with getting the answers, it always been about implimenting them.
Homeless need help (not just financial). Sports-car drivers probably don't.
It could be agrued that chain smokers don't care about others around them (2nd smoke). At lease putting lables on what we eat is of benifit to others.
"An armed society is a polite society."
It would be nice if more people were polite, wouldn't it?
Sounds to me like Robert Heinlein is a fucking moron. Right up their with Hilter and other fascist dictators.
You assume that the victim got a chance to use the gun. As someone just above posted, 75% of US police shot, are either shot by their own gun, or another offices gun.
If you have a gun, you can still get caught off by suprise. You can still not know how to use it. You can still hesitate to actually pull the trigger (not as easy as you might think for you average Joe. Most people aren't trigger happy). And you can still get into a fight and have the gun taken off you (how many times have you seen that senario in a movie?).
This is my main probelm with guns. Just becasue you own a gun, it dosn't mean you can walk around free from being a victim of a crime. It's not as simple as that. In some cases, you'll be worse off.