"Its not that hard to outgun the police [wikipedia.org]."
They were using fully automatic weapons, for which they were not licensed. Just by possessing them, they were criminals.
I don't want to be subject to prosecution simply because I own something that I either use in a lawful manner or store for contingencies. Punish people for their actions, not their choices.
"My boy scout troop met at a church, but I don't recall ever bringing my knives there, either. You don't really need them to have a meeting..."
I agree, but for the following:
1) it makes the entire section on whittling and knife use unavailable for den activities.
2) I carry a pocketknife. I have for decades. It's perfectly legal - EXCEPT in this building. Even with no students there, or no school function happening, I could be arrested for the contents of my pocket. And this is all "for the sake of the children" - not counting, of course, the fact that someone who WANTS to cause harm to kids won't walk up to the school and say "Oh crap - this is a weapons free zone! Maybe I should do this at the playground where I won't be breaking the law by carrying weapon."
Can somebody whip up a Greasemonkey script that replaces the word or prefix "nano" with "really fucking small"? It would be a service to your fellow slashdotter.
"The next thing you know, he'll let the kid have his own POCKET KNIFE, for crying out loud."
My son is a Cub Scout. Cub scouts are allowed to carry Cub Scout knives - there's even a special holder for attachment to the belt.
The local Cub Scout troop meets in a public school. They have a "no weapons" policy. So no Cub Scout knife, even when it's only scouts in the building.
"It'd be quite difficult to know that since it isn't true."
Sooo, when I broke the tailgate at the cable attachment points in my Dad's Avalanche while unloading a generator, that wasn't fiberglass fibers I saw in the jagged crack?
I'm willing to bet it's a typo for NFA, or National Firearms Act, which is the purview of the Convenience Store (aka BATFE). It classifies stuff as firearms and "destructive devices".
What's miserable is that the default stance on anything that remotely goes "Bang" is "Sorry, that's not allowed.
I remember reading a similar article about motorcycle helmets, which said that the incident of brain trauma was higher in helmeted riders versus helmetless. Same reason - the rigid helmet transmitted shockwave straight through the skull to the brain, where the facial structure absorbed a lot of the shock in unhelmeted riders.
So the choice seemed to be pretty and brain damaged, or ugly and smart.
I think they've redesigned the helmets since then.
It's a convenient way of looking at it, and may be as far as 2A interpretation will go, but that's historically inaccurate. There were many crew served weapons - canon - in private hands at the time of the American Revolution. You needed to be wealthy to support a canon and the crew to operate it, but they were there. That's not to mention privateers - not only were the canon in private hands, but so was the whole damned warship!:)
My evolving interpretation of the 2A is that, if the intent was to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and/or revolt, that means the individual has the right to the same or equivalent weapons as can be expected to be used by the tyrants. Limited only by what I can afford. So if the local police have fully automatic M4 carbines, I should be afforded that same right, to the limit of my pocketbook.
"No, they wrote a very smart contract -- a Hollywood-style contract based on giving Stan Lee net profits. That's a traditional way of screwing people out of money, usually via Hollywood accounting."
Did you read your link? "Net Profits" contracts and Hollywood Accounting go hand-in-hand. So Marvel wrote a net-profits contract without having the infrastructure in place (separate "distribution" companies, etc.) And they couldn't simply "hide the profits" via accounting - that's a no-no in a publicly traded company.
So Marvel's lawyers were "smart" enough to crib a contract from an industry to which they didn't belong, using accounting principals they don't use. Yup.
As a side note, when speaking of Marvel the company: if the company has to pay out so much money for breach of contract, then the company didn't do something very smart, regardless of how brilliant one part of it may be.
As for your last comment, given your reply, I believe my initial tone was appropriate.
"Considering Marvel were smart enough write their contracts such that Stan Lee got screwed (until a court forced them to pay up),"
Did you read that after you typed it? The fact that they lost so hugely in court means that they obviously WEREN'T smart enough to write a good contract.
You put your finger on it - "paid for via my taxes". A public library's main function - aka its "business" - is loaning books to the public. This entails expenses - physical plant, salaries, etc. In order to do that, they need revenue, and that comes mainly from public funds. But it competes for those public funds in a marketplace filled with other needs - roads, schools, etc. So they needs to make a good case that they are important and provide value for the expense. So if the patronage of a library declines they have a harder time justifying their importance and need for funds, therefore their revenue stream will likely be reduced, and they will need to cut costs by closing branches, shrinking services, or simply folding.
Even if there's no P&L statement involved, the laws of microeconomics still apply.
"Here's a source. You have to log in to see the full report, but if you click on the interactive graphic there's a section on drugs. Bottom line is that drugs in the U.S. cost 50-70% more than in other nations of similar wealth. Now why is that? We're certainly not subsidizing the drugs for those other wealthy countries like we do for for the third world."
Sure about that?
Canadian meds are cheap, even though they are completely identical to their US counterparts. Why? Because the Canadian government dictates what they will pay for them. This cuts into the companies revenues. In order to make up those revenues, they need to charge someone else more. Guess who that someone else is?
Slashdot Mirror
"When did Obama resign?"
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton...
"Its not that hard to outgun the police [wikipedia.org]."
They were using fully automatic weapons, for which they were not licensed. Just by possessing them, they were criminals.
I don't want to be subject to prosecution simply because I own something that I either use in a lawful manner or store for contingencies. Punish people for their actions, not their choices.
"My boy scout troop met at a church, but I don't recall ever bringing my knives there, either. You don't really need them to have a meeting..."
I agree, but for the following:
1) it makes the entire section on whittling and knife use unavailable for den activities.
2) I carry a pocketknife. I have for decades. It's perfectly legal - EXCEPT in this building. Even with no students there, or no school function happening, I could be arrested for the contents of my pocket. And this is all "for the sake of the children" - not counting, of course, the fact that someone who WANTS to cause harm to kids won't walk up to the school and say "Oh crap - this is a weapons free zone! Maybe I should do this at the playground where I won't be breaking the law by carrying weapon."
Can somebody whip up a Greasemonkey script that replaces the word or prefix "nano" with "really fucking small"? It would be a service to your fellow slashdotter.
"The next thing you know, he'll let the kid have his own POCKET KNIFE, for crying out loud."
My son is a Cub Scout. Cub scouts are allowed to carry Cub Scout knives - there's even a special holder for attachment to the belt.
The local Cub Scout troop meets in a public school. They have a "no weapons" policy. So no Cub Scout knife, even when it's only scouts in the building.
"What weapon do the police have that you can't?"
Fully automatic machine guns and carbines.
Rifles and shotguns with barrels or overall length below a certain amount.
Magazines that hold more than X cartridges, depending on the state.
Tasers and pepper spray, again depending on the state.
A) we're talking decades ago - pre DOT and SNELL.
B) I'm not a biker, and don't read biker centric articles - this was a mainstream piece
C) I think bikers who don't wear helmets are fools, although they have a right to be.
D) The same argument can be made of airbags, yet they still killed some people who would not otherwise have dies if they were wearing just a seatbelt.
"It'd be quite difficult to know that since it isn't true."
Sooo, when I broke the tailgate at the cable attachment points in my Dad's Avalanche while unloading a generator, that wasn't fiberglass fibers I saw in the jagged crack?
You misunderstand me - I was commenting on peer pressure, not the safety of the gun itself or the wisdom of giving it to an 11 year old.
And my own lack of self confidence which prevented me from telling my "friends" to get lost.
I'm willing to bet it's a typo for NFA, or National Firearms Act, which is the purview of the Convenience Store (aka BATFE). It classifies stuff as firearms and "destructive devices".
What's miserable is that the default stance on anything that remotely goes "Bang" is "Sorry, that's not allowed.
I remember reading a similar article about motorcycle helmets, which said that the incident of brain trauma was higher in helmeted riders versus helmetless. Same reason - the rigid helmet transmitted shockwave straight through the skull to the brain, where the facial structure absorbed a lot of the shock in unhelmeted riders.
So the choice seemed to be pretty and brain damaged, or ugly and smart.
I think they've redesigned the helmets since then.
More like Roosevelt and the 1934 National Firearms Act - it was the start of "You can't have weapons that the police have."
Fixed your fixing for you.
"That's right. People kill people."
With cannons.
"But still, imagine a cluster of these things."
Why imagine it - there are plenty of movies with them.
Although with cannon, it's called a "battery".
Did you know that tailgates for many late model trucks are made of fiberglass?
I didn't.
#$5 says he's still driving around like that.
I would, just as a conversation starter.
"theres going to come a time where his friends say something like "cmon we will just shoot it once"
Speaking as someone who had his first BB gun taken away due to just such an occurrence, I concur.
Of course, we only broke a window...
It's a convenient way of looking at it, and may be as far as 2A interpretation will go, but that's historically inaccurate. There were many crew served weapons - canon - in private hands at the time of the American Revolution. You needed to be wealthy to support a canon and the crew to operate it, but they were there. That's not to mention privateers - not only were the canon in private hands, but so was the whole damned warship! :)
My evolving interpretation of the 2A is that, if the intent was to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and/or revolt, that means the individual has the right to the same or equivalent weapons as can be expected to be used by the tyrants. Limited only by what I can afford. So if the local police have fully automatic M4 carbines, I should be afforded that same right, to the limit of my pocketbook.
"No, they wrote a very smart contract -- a Hollywood-style contract based on giving Stan Lee net profits. That's a traditional way of screwing people out of money, usually via Hollywood accounting."
Did you read your link? "Net Profits" contracts and Hollywood Accounting go hand-in-hand. So Marvel wrote a net-profits contract without having the infrastructure in place (separate "distribution" companies, etc.) And they couldn't simply "hide the profits" via accounting - that's a no-no in a publicly traded company.
So Marvel's lawyers were "smart" enough to crib a contract from an industry to which they didn't belong, using accounting principals they don't use. Yup.
As a side note, when speaking of Marvel the company: if the company has to pay out so much money for breach of contract, then the company didn't do something very smart, regardless of how brilliant one part of it may be.
As for your last comment, given your reply, I believe my initial tone was appropriate.
Almost commented before I saw it was under Idle.
What?
Shit!
"Considering Marvel were smart enough write their contracts such that Stan Lee got screwed (until a court forced them to pay up),"
Did you read that after you typed it? The fact that they lost so hugely in court means that they obviously WEREN'T smart enough to write a good contract.
You put your finger on it - "paid for via my taxes". A public library's main function - aka its "business" - is loaning books to the public. This entails expenses - physical plant, salaries, etc. In order to do that, they need revenue, and that comes mainly from public funds. But it competes for those public funds in a marketplace filled with other needs - roads, schools, etc. So they needs to make a good case that they are important and provide value for the expense. So if the patronage of a library declines they have a harder time justifying their importance and need for funds, therefore their revenue stream will likely be reduced, and they will need to cut costs by closing branches, shrinking services, or simply folding.
Even if there's no P&L statement involved, the laws of microeconomics still apply.
Sure about that?
Canadian meds are cheap, even though they are completely identical to their US counterparts. Why? Because the Canadian government dictates what they will pay for them. This cuts into the companies revenues. In order to make up those revenues, they need to charge someone else more. Guess who that someone else is?
It takes Honda just under 2 years to develop a new model, and they are generally considered the highest overall quality in the world.
It takes GM 3-5 years to develop a new model, and they are generally considered shitty cars.
Wait, what were we discussing again?