Did you even read your own link? Last time I checked, Abu Ghraib was Iraq, not Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
There are plenty of bad things happening with the US, and if someone doesn't want to visit out of protest or conscience, fine - that's what freedom of association is about. But not visiting because of "fear of Gitmo" is 100% bullshit.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music The complaint takes issue with Apple's refusal to support the Windows Media Audio format.
By Thomas Claburn InformationWeek January 3, 2008 03:02 PM
An antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple on Dec. 31 charges the company with maintaining an illegal monopoly on the digital music market. Plaintiff Stacie Somers, represented by attorneys Craig Briskin and Steven Skalet of Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Alreen Haeggquist of Haeggquist Law Group, and Helen Zeldes, alleges that Apple dominates the market for online video, online music, and digital music players and that its dominance constitutes a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The attorneys are seeking to have their lawsuit certified as a class action.
"Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice, and to restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets," the complaint states. "Apple's CEO Steve Jobs had himself compared Apple's digital music dominance to Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s personal computer operating system dominance, calling Apple's Music Store 'the Microsoft of music stores' in a meeting with financial analysts."
After years of government scrutiny, Microsoft was found to be exercising illegal monopoly power in late 1999. Some of its obligations under the settlement the company reached with the Department of Justice have expired; others remain.
The complaint against Apple claims that the company controls 75% of the online video market, 83% of the online music market, more than 90% of the hard-drive based music player market, and 70% of the Flash-based music player market.
A spokesperson for Apple said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
The complaint takes issue with Apple's refusal to support the Windows Media Audio format. "Apple's iPod is alone among mass-market Digital Music Players in not supporting the WMA format," it states, noting that America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy (NYSE: BBY), Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support protected WMA files.
This is based on the proposition that music companies "are generally unwilling to license their music for online sale except in protected formats." Such assertions look increasingly tenuous as unprotected music becomes more widely available through legitimate channels. Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN).com, for example, claims to offer "Earth's biggest selection of a la carte DRM-free MP3 music downloads with more than 2.9 million songs from over 33,000 record labels." Just one week ago, Amazon said that Warner Music Group would make its artists' songs available in the unprotected MP3 format. EMI last year also began offering unprotected music online. And that's to say nothing of Web sites like Amie Street that have been offering unprotected music from independent artists for even longer.
Apple, for its part, might reasonably claim it doesn't want to license WMA from Microsoft, a cost the complaint speculates is unlikely to exceed $800,000, or 3 cents per iPod sold in 2005.
But the complaint goes beyond software licensing politics and charges Apple with deliberately designing its iPod hardware to be incompatible with WMA. One of the third-party components in iPods, the Portal Player System-On-A-Chip, supports WMA, according to the complaint. "Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The filing claims that the SigmalTel STMP3550 chip in Apple's iPod Shuffles also supp
It's funy how you are distinguishing between cocaine and crack - even the government that you are railing against has recognized that there is no real distinction. Crack is no more dangerous than powder cocaine; distinctions between the 2 have more to do with race and class than biochemistry.
Dependency is where there the individual becomes acclimated to the drug, such that they need it in ever increasing amount to get the same high, and also experience withdrawal if they do not use it - the "craving". It can be physical or psychological or both. IIRC, cocaine users develop a psychological dependency, not a physical one
Addiction is a psychological state where an activity or substance abuse is habitual, hard to break, has negative impact on yourself and those around you, and affects daily life. It's a mental illness, disease, or spiritual deficiency, depending on who you ask. Often, addiction and dependency coexist, but not necessarily. For instance, one can be addicted to gambling, videogames, or sex, and not have withdrawal symptoms when not doing those activities. Likewise, one can have a chemical dependency without being addicted - anyone who's ever had a headache from giving up caffein is a perfect example of a physical dependence.
The problem is, people have thrown the term "addiction" around willy nilly - how many times have you heard someone say "addicted to Starbucks" or "my chocolate addiction". But I'm pretty much giving up hope on that front - it's like "hacking" and "brick" here on slashdot.
"I always get stopped going through customs & immigration because I can't help looking guilty, even though I'm completely innocent. I've just resigned myself to putting up with the inconvenience of having my bags thoroughly searched and a grilling from uniforms every time I travel. I haven't been to the USA for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised to get a free trip to Guantanamo next time I go..."
Sooo, let me get this straight - you travel a lot, but not in the US, so the same behavioral profiling is taking place elsewhere in the world? I'm shocked! Where are the massive European protests ove such discrimination?
Oh, and enough with the "scared I'll go to Gitmo" bullshit. Yes, there are a bunch of people in Gitmo, mainly because we took them prisoner in a combat area and don't quite know what to do with them. Others have been captured overseas in espionage operations, legal or not. I think Padilla may be there as part of the "dirty bomb" plot.
How many people are there as a result of getting inspected at an airport? None. How many people are there as a result of a political protest? None How many people are there as a result any other crime or suspected crime? None
Your odds of landing in Gitmo from a point in the US are pretty much zero. But hey, if that's what is keeping you from visiting, no one here is going to shed a tear.
"You know.. I'm so sick of arrogant Europeans talking trash about how ignorant Americans are, when so many show that same ignorance about Americans themselves. I mean, no offense, in a country like America, with 300,000,000 people and, as the only remaining "Super Power", LOTS of things to protest, to assume that we've had no "major" protests in 30 years just shows an alarming bias/ignorance of our culture."
You miss the point. In Europe, a "major protest" means - shutting down a country's whole train system - Shutting down a country's highway systems by blocking the roads with trucks or farm implements - Shutting down a country's flagship university - Rioting and arson all over amajor city.
The first 2 don't happen here because the country is just so damned large, no one can get a "nationwide" anything done. The third happens infrequently, on smaller campuses, but not over national issues - Gallaudet students shut down teh school for a few days because the proposed president wasn't deaf enough (really). As for the fourth, they happen - they are called riots and dealt with by police as criminal acts, not protests.
While Europeans talk about international issues a lot, their outlooks tend to be very provincial when looking at the US - they don't understand the size of the country ( I had relatives visit PA once who wanted to visit Texas because they thought it was a day trip), nor the political system, nor the people. In many ways, we are still the trash that they were glad to see leave in the great immigrant waves of the previous centuries - low class and low brow. Now that they are moving closer to political union with looser borders, they are getting a taste of our world - regional interests vying on a larger stage, immigration, and underclass of a different color, and an unaccountable leadership.
My ancestors left Europe for a reason; as far as I'm concerned, not a lot has changed except the lack of warfare for 50 years - an historical fluke which someone will remedy soon enough. I'm guessing Germany or France - you just don't shake Hitler or Napoleon out of the collective consciousness with the wave of a hat.
"Its nothing but over hyped marketing and furries looking for some sort of acceptance"
They were at the RennFest this summer, too. I will say that the look on my wife's face was priceless when she called them plushies and I explained the difference.
Hey Jimmy: quit goofing around on Slashdot and get to straightening out the Wikipedia "administration" system. Check out your current fundraising campaign - that little green guy is moving REALLY slowly, and things like faked credentials for editors and the "notability purge" aren't helping.
Chairman Mao called - he wants his rhetoric back, and also to correct your spelling in interNment.
Of course, if your upbringing includes 20 years as the child of a westerner working in "under-developed nations" - aka shitholes - we can't really expect you to have a remotely realistic outlook on reality. Are we talking social worker with an NGO, UN official, diplomat? It really doesn't matter - you've been fed a 20 year line of socialist bullshit and told it was foi gras. Eat up - maybe one day it will be relevant to someone other than college student who takes "protest vacations" on Daddy's dime.
(Although if your Dad was a mercenary, I'd pay more attention to you, but that's impossible, because mercenaries know better than to bring their familites to the places they are hired)
"The other salient point to keep in mind is that the American economy could function without importing anything from abroad with the exception of petroleum. If a populist political movement actually worked and started to close our economy to the world, then the standard of living would trend to where it was before globalization went into full swing. "
Dude, that's like saying that a human being can survive without consuming anything they don't make themselves, except air. The US needs oil like babies need milk, and yes, we need to grow up, but we're not there yet.
But let's enter the oil free fairyland. You propose turning back the clock, which has never been done, and pretending we are in the late 60's/early 70's. Hmmm...stagflation, price controls, shitty industrial and consumer product that don't last more than a few years. Yeah, I wanna go back...not.
Hasn't EVERY sub saharan African country had an armed revolution within the last 30 years? Fat lot o' good it did them - they threw off their colonial overlords so that they can have overlords their same skin color.
Well, when you consider that most "under-developed countries" still haven't made it to the 20th century in political, social, or economic terms, maybe the attitude is appropriate.
Don't want to be treated paternalistically? Stop acting like children.
"This is different from normal "structural unemployment" usually seen with advances in technology disrupting the normal order and giving rise to a new one. In such a case people can retrain and reasonably expect to regain their investment in that training. Offshoring doesn't work that way. They take one sector, people retrain for another, and then that one is pulled from under them before they can recoup the training costs, and the cycle goes on and on until people say #$@ it."
You are drawing a distinction where there is none. Factory workers were the FIRST to be affected by "offshoring", only then it was called "foreign imports". And by and large they DIDN'T retrain for another high paying job. Some survived better than others, but a great most didn't do it by "retraining".
And it is "advances in technology" that are disrupting the IT trade. The ability to communicate vast quantities of information over long distances in a short time - you know, the internet - is what has made offshoring IT jobs possible.
As for a depression turning us into a 3rd world country? What a laugh. The US will probably lose it's importance as the largest economic force in the world. How that turns into begging for handouts from the IMF I'm not sure.
As for the American dream, you missed my point in my original post - it never really existed! at least for most. There has always been a huge underclass, mainly working in low wage jobs, so that a few could live a good life. The "American Dream" is a myth perpetrated by advertising men to convince folks that their life is somehow incomplete, but wouldn't be if they only bought Product X. It's an historical accident that the US went through a period where the ratio of peons:priviledged got closer to equity. That's going away.
You're a peon. Do something to get yourself out of it - other than flapping your gums about "Exactly how is the american dream to survive without government officials putting their foot down?"
"compare this with 50 years ago when people could come home and kick back, now we are expected to work 18 hour days, 6 of them off the clock thanks to obscene deadlines and quotas."
No, SOME people could comehome and kick back - the upper-middle and upper class. Lower middle and lower class folks have ALWAYS had to work their asses off, mainly at shit jobs, for long hours and low pay.
You are pissed because jobs that USED to produce an upper-middle class lifestyle don't do that anymore. Guess what - that kind of stuff happens all the time. Everyone here rails against the **AA's for not recognizing a failing business model, but somehow thinks individuals should be immune from those same rules. Why?
IT jobs used to be a good path to the upper middle class; now they are not. Same with factory jobs. Welcome to reality.
"But thanks for getting in early on the 2008 Swiftboating."
Wrong terminology:
When Republicans do it to Democrats, it's called swiftboating. When Democrats do it to Republicans, it's called borking. When Democrats do it to fellow Democrats, like Hillary's campaign is doing to Obama, it's called taking off the kid gloves.
I used incorrect wording - the rest of my post was in 3rd person, and this should have been as well. I do not advocate that activity; I was pointing out that the statistics in question don't take such situations into account. Were I personally to be in a situation with an intruder in my house, I would hope my reaction would be to assess the threat and act appropriately, which could include shooting to kill. I really wouldn't thingk I would actually hold anyone at gunpoint; that's just stupid.
Now, onto your comments: "It is likely to both be the case that people predisposed to violence are more likely to own guns, and that owning a gun will make people more likely to be violent than if they didn't own a gun." Where on earth did you get that statistic? I'm also confused where you say that the situation is more nuanced than "owning guns causes people to be violent" or "being violent causes people to own guns", but then simply restate the positions with more words. "Nuanced" doesn't mean "couched in pseudo-psychological terminolgy."
And this: "And the statistics don't show all the incidents where gun owners just didn't get a chance to use their gun in any way, in which case, all that the gun did was make them more likely to get shot." Again, how is it that mere possesion of a firearm makes it more likely to be shot? Not from a statistical point of view, but a behavioral view. Statistically, owners of cars are more likely to be in car accidents; but that doesn't mean I should sell my car if I am a good driver and take proper precautions.
And finally: "Don't overestimate the usefulness of a gun in defending your home. Real-life burglars have many advantages over the gun-owner, which include (a) figuring out when you're not likely to be home anyway, (b) being able to pick when and where to strike, (c) surprise." combined with "Don't spend money on a fantasy of an intruder breaking into your home and you handling it by the book with a gun. Spend the money on better security measures than guns; e.g., good alarm systems, good locks, metal bars over the windows, etc."
You are trying to have it both ways - the sophisticated burglar you posit will easily defeat those passive protections you advocate. And you misspelled "homeowner" as "gun-owner" - everything you say applies equally to someone who isn't armed. You seem to be saying that it is better to offer no resistance once one's house has been invaded.
I do not advocate everyone owning or using guns - there are plenty of people in the world who shouldn't deal with fireplaces, much less firearms. But I'm not going to tell them they CAN'T have one, and I have a problem with people telling me I can't have one "for my own protection"
I actually agree with you about the "hold at gunpoint" thing, but it does happen, and I was using it to illustrate the flaws in the "statistics" in the GP post.
I do think your last statement needs more nuance, however. "Draw your weapon" implies a holstered handgun, which is probably LESS practical for home defense than shotgun with 00 buckshot, which can't really be "drawn". Better to say that one shouldn't be on Condition 0 unless you have identified a target and intend to fire. But if I think someone is in the house that shouldn't be there, sure as shit a gun is going to be in my hand in Condition 1 (Safe) as soon as I can lay hands on it.
Since you posted this twice I'll assume you want a reply.
"BEFORE making a threat assessment"
Threat Assessment Checklist
1) Someone has entered my domicile...check. 2) The other residents of the domicile are accounted for...checck 3) I have not voluntarily invited anyone into the domicile...check 4) Person(s) that have entered the domicile have not identified themselves in advance as Police or Emergency response personnel...check.
Threat assesment complete - according to the law in most states, that person is PRESUMED to be a threat to life or limb. It is certainly NOT manslaughter - it is justifiable homicide, raegardless of what you're "opinion". You may not like him personally, but he would have done nothing legally, or morally, wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even read your own link? Last time I checked, Abu Ghraib was Iraq, not Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
There are plenty of bad things happening with the US, and if someone doesn't want to visit out of protest or conscience, fine - that's what freedom of association is about. But not visiting because of "fear of Gitmo" is 100% bullshit.
And you know it.
"The idea is analogous to how, in New York at least, it's illegal for random people to carry lockpicks."
Yeah, because that law has worked so well at keeping burglaries down in NYC.
"WHERE Guns are licensed in the US, it does NOT stop gun crime?"
Fixed that for ya.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music
The complaint takes issue with Apple's refusal to support the Windows Media Audio format.
By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek
January 3, 2008 03:02 PM
An antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple on Dec. 31 charges the company with maintaining an illegal monopoly on the digital music market.
Plaintiff Stacie Somers, represented by attorneys Craig Briskin and Steven Skalet of Mehri & Skalet PLLC, Alreen Haeggquist of Haeggquist Law Group, and Helen Zeldes, alleges that Apple dominates the market for online video, online music, and digital music players and that its dominance constitutes a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The attorneys are seeking to have their lawsuit certified as a class action.
"Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice, and to restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets," the complaint states. "Apple's CEO Steve Jobs had himself compared Apple's digital music dominance to Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s personal computer operating system dominance, calling Apple's Music Store 'the Microsoft of music stores' in a meeting with financial analysts."
After years of government scrutiny, Microsoft was found to be exercising illegal monopoly power in late 1999. Some of its obligations under the settlement the company reached with the Department of Justice have expired; others remain.
The complaint against Apple claims that the company controls 75% of the online video market, 83% of the online music market, more than 90% of the hard-drive based music player market, and 70% of the Flash-based music player market.
A spokesperson for Apple said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
The complaint takes issue with Apple's refusal to support the Windows Media Audio format. "Apple's iPod is alone among mass-market Digital Music Players in not supporting the WMA format," it states, noting that America Online, Wal-Mart, Napster, MusicMatch, Best Buy (NYSE: BBY), Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) Music, FYE Download Zone, and Virgin Digital all support protected WMA files.
This is based on the proposition that music companies "are generally unwilling to license their music for online sale except in protected formats." Such assertions look increasingly tenuous as unprotected music becomes more widely available through legitimate channels. Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN).com, for example, claims to offer "Earth's biggest selection of a la carte DRM-free MP3 music downloads with more than 2.9 million songs from over 33,000 record labels." Just one week ago, Amazon said that Warner Music Group would make its artists' songs available in the unprotected MP3 format. EMI last year also began offering unprotected music online. And that's to say nothing of Web sites like Amie Street that have been offering unprotected music from independent artists for even longer.
Apple, for its part, might reasonably claim it doesn't want to license WMA from Microsoft, a cost the complaint speculates is unlikely to exceed $800,000, or 3 cents per iPod sold in 2005.
But the complaint goes beyond software licensing politics and charges Apple with deliberately designing its iPod hardware to be incompatible with WMA. One of the third-party components in iPods, the Portal Player System-On-A-Chip, supports WMA, according to the complaint. "Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The filing claims that the SigmalTel STMP3550 chip in Apple's iPod Shuffles also supp
What's funny (or sad) is that, right above you is a post directly contradicting your statement.
But both are modded "Informative".
It's funy how you are distinguishing between cocaine and crack - even the government that you are railing against has recognized that there is no real distinction. Crack is no more dangerous than powder cocaine; distinctions between the 2 have more to do with race and class than biochemistry.
You are confusing addiction with dependency.
Dependency is where there the individual becomes acclimated to the drug, such that they need it in ever increasing amount to get the same high, and also experience withdrawal if they do not use it - the "craving". It can be physical or psychological or both. IIRC, cocaine users develop a psychological dependency, not a physical one
Addiction is a psychological state where an activity or substance abuse is habitual, hard to break, has negative impact on yourself and those around you, and affects daily life. It's a mental illness, disease, or spiritual deficiency, depending on who you ask. Often, addiction and dependency coexist, but not necessarily. For instance, one can be addicted to gambling, videogames, or sex, and not have withdrawal symptoms when not doing those activities. Likewise, one can have a chemical dependency without being addicted - anyone who's ever had a headache from giving up caffein is a perfect example of a physical dependence.
The problem is, people have thrown the term "addiction" around willy nilly - how many times have you heard someone say "addicted to Starbucks" or "my chocolate addiction". But I'm pretty much giving up hope on that front - it's like "hacking" and "brick" here on slashdot.
"I always get stopped going through customs & immigration because I can't help looking guilty, even though I'm completely innocent. I've just resigned myself to putting up with the inconvenience of having my bags thoroughly searched and a grilling from uniforms every time I travel. I haven't been to the USA for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised to get a free trip to Guantanamo next time I go..."
Sooo, let me get this straight - you travel a lot, but not in the US, so the same behavioral profiling is taking place elsewhere in the world? I'm shocked! Where are the massive European protests ove such discrimination?
Oh, and enough with the "scared I'll go to Gitmo" bullshit. Yes, there are a bunch of people in Gitmo, mainly because we took them prisoner in a combat area and don't quite know what to do with them. Others have been captured overseas in espionage operations, legal or not. I think Padilla may be there as part of the "dirty bomb" plot.
How many people are there as a result of getting inspected at an airport? None.
How many people are there as a result of a political protest? None
How many people are there as a result any other crime or suspected crime? None
Your odds of landing in Gitmo from a point in the US are pretty much zero. But hey, if that's what is keeping you from visiting, no one here is going to shed a tear.
"You know.. I'm so sick of arrogant Europeans talking trash about how ignorant Americans are, when so many show that same ignorance about Americans themselves. I mean, no offense, in a country like America, with 300,000,000 people and, as the only remaining "Super Power", LOTS of things to protest, to assume that we've had no "major" protests in 30 years just shows an alarming bias/ignorance of our culture."
You miss the point. In Europe, a "major protest" means
- shutting down a country's whole train system
- Shutting down a country's highway systems by blocking the roads with trucks or farm implements
- Shutting down a country's flagship university
- Rioting and arson all over amajor city.
The first 2 don't happen here because the country is just so damned large, no one can get a "nationwide" anything done. The third happens infrequently, on smaller campuses, but not over national issues - Gallaudet students shut down teh school for a few days because the proposed president wasn't deaf enough (really). As for the fourth, they happen - they are called riots and dealt with by police as criminal acts, not protests.
While Europeans talk about international issues a lot, their outlooks tend to be very provincial when looking at the US - they don't understand the size of the country ( I had relatives visit PA once who wanted to visit Texas because they thought it was a day trip), nor the political system, nor the people. In many ways, we are still the trash that they were glad to see leave in the great immigrant waves of the previous centuries - low class and low brow. Now that they are moving closer to political union with looser borders, they are getting a taste of our world - regional interests vying on a larger stage, immigration, and underclass of a different color, and an unaccountable leadership.
My ancestors left Europe for a reason; as far as I'm concerned, not a lot has changed except the lack of warfare for 50 years - an historical fluke which someone will remedy soon enough. I'm guessing Germany or France - you just don't shake Hitler or Napoleon out of the collective consciousness with the wave of a hat.
I can see it now: lawsuits for nano-rape.
Sooo, if you don't like the smell, shoot it in her first and then go down?
Porn? Fine.
Real life? Not so much.
Actually, not so much in porn, either.
"Its nothing but over hyped marketing and furries looking for some sort of acceptance"
They were at the RennFest this summer, too. I will say that the look on my wife's face was priceless when she called them plushies and I explained the difference.
Hey Jimmy: quit goofing around on Slashdot and get to straightening out the Wikipedia "administration" system. Check out your current fundraising campaign - that little green guy is moving REALLY slowly, and things like faked credentials for editors and the "notability purge" aren't helping.
Sincerely,
The Rest of the Internet
Chairman Mao called - he wants his rhetoric back, and also to correct your spelling in interNment.
Of course, if your upbringing includes 20 years as the child of a westerner working in "under-developed nations" - aka shitholes - we can't really expect you to have a remotely realistic outlook on reality. Are we talking social worker with an NGO, UN official, diplomat? It really doesn't matter - you've been fed a 20 year line of socialist bullshit and told it was foi gras. Eat up - maybe one day it will be relevant to someone other than college student who takes "protest vacations" on Daddy's dime.
(Although if your Dad was a mercenary, I'd pay more attention to you, but that's impossible, because mercenaries know better than to bring their familites to the places they are hired)
"The other salient point to keep in mind is that the American economy could function without importing anything from abroad with the exception of petroleum. If a populist political movement actually worked and started to close our economy to the world, then the standard of living would trend to where it was before globalization went into full swing. "
Dude, that's like saying that a human being can survive without consuming anything they don't make themselves, except air. The US needs oil like babies need milk, and yes, we need to grow up, but we're not there yet.
But let's enter the oil free fairyland. You propose turning back the clock, which has never been done, and pretending we are in the late 60's/early 70's. Hmmm...stagflation, price controls, shitty industrial and consumer product that don't last more than a few years. Yeah, I wanna go back...not.
"They can only be solved with armed revolutions"
Hasn't EVERY sub saharan African country had an armed revolution within the last 30 years? Fat lot o' good it did them - they threw off their colonial overlords so that they can have overlords their same skin color.
Great solution.
Well, when you consider that most "under-developed countries" still haven't made it to the 20th century in political, social, or economic terms, maybe the attitude is appropriate.
Don't want to be treated paternalistically? Stop acting like children.
Excellent - I mean, colonialism has turned out to be a massive short-term/long-term fuckup. Now maybe China can play too.
"This is different from normal "structural unemployment" usually seen with advances in technology disrupting the normal order and giving rise to a new one.
In such a case people can retrain and reasonably expect to regain their investment in that training.
Offshoring doesn't work that way. They take one sector, people retrain for another, and then that one is pulled from under them before they can recoup the training costs, and the cycle goes on and on until people say #$@ it."
You are drawing a distinction where there is none. Factory workers were the FIRST to be affected by "offshoring", only then it was called "foreign imports". And by and large they DIDN'T retrain for another high paying job. Some survived better than others, but a great most didn't do it by "retraining".
And it is "advances in technology" that are disrupting the IT trade. The ability to communicate vast quantities of information over long distances in a short time - you know, the internet - is what has made offshoring IT jobs possible.
As for a depression turning us into a 3rd world country? What a laugh. The US will probably lose it's importance as the largest economic force in the world. How that turns into begging for handouts from the IMF I'm not sure.
As for the American dream, you missed my point in my original post - it never really existed! at least for most. There has always been a huge underclass, mainly working in low wage jobs, so that a few could live a good life. The "American Dream" is a myth perpetrated by advertising men to convince folks that their life is somehow incomplete, but wouldn't be if they only bought Product X. It's an historical accident that the US went through a period where the ratio of peons:priviledged got closer to equity. That's going away.
You're a peon. Do something to get yourself out of it - other than flapping your gums about "Exactly how is the american dream to survive without government officials putting their foot down?"
"compare this with 50 years ago when people could come home and kick back, now we are expected to work 18 hour days, 6 of them off the clock thanks to obscene deadlines and quotas."
No, SOME people could comehome and kick back - the upper-middle and upper class. Lower middle and lower class folks have ALWAYS had to work their asses off, mainly at shit jobs, for long hours and low pay.
You are pissed because jobs that USED to produce an upper-middle class lifestyle don't do that anymore. Guess what - that kind of stuff happens all the time. Everyone here rails against the **AA's for not recognizing a failing business model, but somehow thinks individuals should be immune from those same rules. Why?
IT jobs used to be a good path to the upper middle class; now they are not. Same with factory jobs. Welcome to reality.
"But it is nice to get a front-row seat to the new line in Republican FUD. Thanks!"
Funny, I thought it was the Clinton campaign that "disciplined" staffers for getting caught forwarding those emails.
Oh, I forgot - only Republicans use dirty tricks in elections. My bad.
"But thanks for getting in early on the 2008 Swiftboating."
Wrong terminology:
When Republicans do it to Democrats, it's called swiftboating.
When Democrats do it to Republicans, it's called borking.
When Democrats do it to fellow Democrats, like Hillary's campaign is doing to Obama, it's called taking off the kid gloves.
I used incorrect wording - the rest of my post was in 3rd person, and this should have been as well. I do not advocate that activity; I was pointing out that the statistics in question don't take such situations into account. Were I personally to be in a situation with an intruder in my house, I would hope my reaction would be to assess the threat and act appropriately, which could include shooting to kill. I really wouldn't thingk I would actually hold anyone at gunpoint; that's just stupid.
Now, onto your comments:
"It is likely to both be the case that people predisposed to violence are more likely to own guns, and that owning a gun will make people more likely to be violent than if they didn't own a gun."
Where on earth did you get that statistic? I'm also confused where you say that the situation is more nuanced than "owning guns causes people to be violent" or "being violent causes people to own guns", but then simply restate the positions with more words. "Nuanced" doesn't mean "couched in pseudo-psychological terminolgy."
And this:
"And the statistics don't show all the incidents where gun owners just didn't get a chance to use their gun in any way, in which case, all that the gun did was make them more likely to get shot."
Again, how is it that mere possesion of a firearm makes it more likely to be shot? Not from a statistical point of view, but a behavioral view. Statistically, owners of cars are more likely to be in car accidents; but that doesn't mean I should sell my car if I am a good driver and take proper precautions.
And finally:
"Don't overestimate the usefulness of a gun in defending your home. Real-life burglars have many advantages over the gun-owner, which include (a) figuring out when you're not likely to be home anyway, (b) being able to pick when and where to strike, (c) surprise." combined with "Don't spend money on a fantasy of an intruder breaking into your home and you handling it by the book with a gun. Spend the money on better security measures than guns; e.g., good alarm systems, good locks, metal bars over the windows, etc."
You are trying to have it both ways - the sophisticated burglar you posit will easily defeat those passive protections you advocate. And you misspelled "homeowner" as "gun-owner" - everything you say applies equally to someone who isn't armed. You seem to be saying that it is better to offer no resistance once one's house has been invaded.
I do not advocate everyone owning or using guns - there are plenty of people in the world who shouldn't deal with fireplaces, much less firearms. But I'm not going to tell them they CAN'T have one, and I have a problem with people telling me I can't have one "for my own protection"
I actually agree with you about the "hold at gunpoint" thing, but it does happen, and I was using it to illustrate the flaws in the "statistics" in the GP post.
I do think your last statement needs more nuance, however. "Draw your weapon" implies a holstered handgun, which is probably LESS practical for home defense than shotgun with 00 buckshot, which can't really be "drawn". Better to say that one shouldn't be on Condition 0 unless you have identified a target and intend to fire. But if I think someone is in the house that shouldn't be there, sure as shit a gun is going to be in my hand in Condition 1 (Safe) as soon as I can lay hands on it.
Since you posted this twice I'll assume you want a reply.
"BEFORE making a threat assessment"
Threat Assessment Checklist
1) Someone has entered my domicile...check.
2) The other residents of the domicile are accounted for...checck
3) I have not voluntarily invited anyone into the domicile...check
4) Person(s) that have entered the domicile have not identified themselves in advance as Police or Emergency response personnel...check.
Threat assesment complete - according to the law in most states, that person is PRESUMED to be a threat to life or limb. It is certainly NOT manslaughter - it is justifiable homicide, raegardless of what you're "opinion". You may not like him personally, but he would have done nothing legally, or morally, wrong.