Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?
The great and powerful USA manages just fine. We just have some bad spots that make the stats look bad - it's not spread all over. I'm going to take a pot shot and blame the war on drugs for giving street gangs something to kill over.
Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort
For some people, that means the first resort when things turn ugly. Most women I know wouldn't be able to fend off a pissed off teenager. They mostly avoid places where pissed off teenagers hang out, but a gun is a great way to say go away when one decides to thrash you.
Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country.
Sorry, that runs counter to our constitution - who decides what's necessary?
I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.
We don't do that. You either get a concealed carry permit (which includes a background check) or you walk in to the shop, pay for the gun, and then wait 10 days while they check you out. We mostly don't register gun ownership because of what the british and the nazis have done in the past and what california is doing now.
Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later.
They don't do it because they're scared - it's easier to loot a corpse, and they won't tell the cops much either. In places where criminals do this, it's preferrable to kill them, gun or no, since the presumption is that they'll kill you anyway. As far as I know, this is only a problem in some places, like south central LA. Elsewhere, the criminal will run off, which is the idea.
You're comparing a highly ordered, mostly homogenous society with lots of social safety nets with the USA, which isn't any of those things. It doesn't work. Want to cut down on crime? Raise taxes a bit, get out of foreign quagmires, and institute some of the safety nets Sweden has, like health care and better opportunities for the poor. Demanding more of students would help too.
Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?
Yeah, it's bad, but it's essentially unsolvable. You can't get rid of it, only manage the problem, and guns are a useful tool for this.
My main problem with you is that you have failed to say how you plan to ban guns, how it is that you know it will reduce crime (since now big guys can rape women with minimal problems, just as an example), and your arguments rely primarily on emotion. Yeah, it's terrible that less than 100 kids die in school shootings (they're far more likely to die outside the school or drown), but this is no reason to ban guns. Yes, some people have no business owning a gun, but it is their right, so until their incompetence is demonstrated, they get to keep on owning guns. By the way, since you can't come up with any examples of babies shooting themselves, I'll have to assume that was just hyperbole on your part.
What is so endemically wrong that my country of 20+ million can have not a single school in the nation using metal detectors / security "on the door", but yet this is, if not the "norm", extremely commonplace in the US.
Metal detectors are usually put in the suburbs, where they aren't much use. It's not like the people shooting up schools have been walking around with a shotgun for a month, and less than 100 deaths in a year out of 300 million people is really really low. We'd save more lives by getting nonroadworthy cars off the road.
If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.
Did that. Japan has a similar death rate to us, despite having minimal access to guns. Since they have a lower murder rate, they have a higher suicide rate. This imples (but does not prove) that suicide is largely independent of the methods used. According to the CDC, about 16000 people killed themselves with a gun in the past year, which makes up a substantial amount of the total deaths by firearm. It's likely that the majority of the others are due to gang on gang violence.
Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.
Sounds like an argument for concealed carry to me. If someone comes after me desparate for a fix, I'm happy to shoot them instead of dying myself.
There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime.
Britain might choose to disagree.
The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves".
No, it's "we have a right to guns, and they help protect us from criminals". Who else is going to do that, anyway?
his may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?
Yeah, making all guns illegal opens up a new market for street gangs - easy access to a gun and bullets to use with it. As a bonus, if it breaks, no recourse against the seller.
Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...
Sure would. 100 deaths a year means they're more likely to die crossing the road or playing in water. It's also within expectations and falling, so what's your problem?
That was a request. The War Dept tried and failed to restrict people from independtly discovering how to make a nuke and then publish, so they requested that people not do that.
Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.
Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.
He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.
And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.
Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone
You're funny.
Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.
Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.
Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.
Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.
Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.
But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store.
Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot.
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.
You're joking, right? Guns in the hands of the populace work to keep crime down. I don't even know where you got the classroom thing.
I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society.
But that's the wrong test. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for restraining publication of anything. Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's.
That strikes me as the sort of thing microsoft would do (not to anthropomorphize a company or anything). He'd also find out a way to stick her with the bill and possibly a virus.
Because of the bends in the fibre, and the fact not much can bend light other than a significant gravity well, the light tends to bounce around and be reflected in the fibre. Net result is that light also travels at a fraction of c in such a medium.
No it doesn't. All long distance runs are single mode, which are too narrow to allow bouncing. The difference between C and transmission speed is due to light travelling slower in a medium.
Yeah. For instance, OJ got off because he's famous. To quote Chris Rock, if OJ drove a bus, he'd be Orenthal the bus driving murderer. ACtually, I think prisons should be for rehab where possible and isolation when necessary. This pretty much makes your value to society irrelevant.
What's more important, a single unremarkable life or a highly influential piece of software?
The software has lasting value, but it doesn't place the creator above the law of the land - it may not always be so, but the ideal is that the same rules apply to everyone.
Why would you ever use a sizing tool like that? You know your usage patterns better than dell. Your example could require a single proc, dual, quad, or something custom depending on load (data warehouse vs. OLTP). With disk costs the way they are, I'd recommend about a half or more TB of storage - that way, you can handle growth and also restore a DB from backup. Hell, get a full TB - disk is free.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?
The great and powerful USA manages just fine. We just have some bad spots that make the stats look bad - it's not spread all over. I'm going to take a pot shot and blame the war on drugs for giving street gangs something to kill over.
Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort
For some people, that means the first resort when things turn ugly. Most women I know wouldn't be able to fend off a pissed off teenager. They mostly avoid places where pissed off teenagers hang out, but a gun is a great way to say go away when one decides to thrash you.
Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country.
Sorry, that runs counter to our constitution - who decides what's necessary?
I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.
We don't do that. You either get a concealed carry permit (which includes a background check) or you walk in to the shop, pay for the gun, and then wait 10 days while they check you out. We mostly don't register gun ownership because of what the british and the nazis have done in the past and what california is doing now.
Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later.
They don't do it because they're scared - it's easier to loot a corpse, and they won't tell the cops much either. In places where criminals do this, it's preferrable to kill them, gun or no, since the presumption is that they'll kill you anyway. As far as I know, this is only a problem in some places, like south central LA. Elsewhere, the criminal will run off, which is the idea.
You're comparing a highly ordered, mostly homogenous society with lots of social safety nets with the USA, which isn't any of those things. It doesn't work. Want to cut down on crime? Raise taxes a bit, get out of foreign quagmires, and institute some of the safety nets Sweden has, like health care and better opportunities for the poor. Demanding more of students would help too.
Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?
Yeah, it's bad, but it's essentially unsolvable. You can't get rid of it, only manage the problem, and guns are a useful tool for this.
My main problem with you is that you have failed to say how you plan to ban guns, how it is that you know it will reduce crime (since now big guys can rape women with minimal problems, just as an example), and your arguments rely primarily on emotion. Yeah, it's terrible that less than 100 kids die in school shootings (they're far more likely to die outside the school or drown), but this is no reason to ban guns. Yes, some people have no business owning a gun, but it is their right, so until their incompetence is demonstrated, they get to keep on owning guns. By the way, since you can't come up with any examples of babies shooting themselves, I'll have to assume that was just hyperbole on your part.
No, I'd think it's a minor problem overall. The death of your child is a tragedy. The death of 100 is a statistic.
What is so endemically wrong that my country of 20+ million can have not a single school in the nation using metal detectors / security "on the door", but yet this is, if not the "norm", extremely commonplace in the US.
Metal detectors are usually put in the suburbs, where they aren't much use. It's not like the people shooting up schools have been walking around with a shotgun for a month, and less than 100 deaths in a year out of 300 million people is really really low. We'd save more lives by getting nonroadworthy cars off the road.
If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.
Did that. Japan has a similar death rate to us, despite having minimal access to guns. Since they have a lower murder rate, they have a higher suicide rate. This imples (but does not prove) that suicide is largely independent of the methods used. According to the CDC, about 16000 people killed themselves with a gun in the past year, which makes up a substantial amount of the total deaths by firearm. It's likely that the majority of the others are due to gang on gang violence.
Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.
Sounds like an argument for concealed carry to me. If someone comes after me desparate for a fix, I'm happy to shoot them instead of dying myself.
There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime.
Britain might choose to disagree.
The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves".
No, it's "we have a right to guns, and they help protect us from criminals". Who else is going to do that, anyway?
his may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?
Yeah, making all guns illegal opens up a new market for street gangs - easy access to a gun and bullets to use with it. As a bonus, if it breaks, no recourse against the seller.
Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...
Sure would. 100 deaths a year means they're more likely to die crossing the road or playing in water. It's also within expectations and falling, so what's your problem?
How about depicting a lesbian as straight or by so she gets hit on by a bunch of men she isn't interested in?
like that makes any difference.
Prior restraint, not banning books, but preventing them from being published. There is no precedent for this, and there shouldn't be.
That was a request. The War Dept tried and failed to restrict people from independtly discovering how to make a nuke and then publish, so they requested that people not do that.
Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.
Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.
He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.
And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.
Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone
You're funny.
Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.
Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.
Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.
Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.
Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.
But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store.
Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot.
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.
You're joking, right? Guns in the hands of the populace work to keep crime down. I don't even know where you got the classroom thing.
If he did, he'd get rid of guns
Yeah right, like anybody has that power.
I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society.
But that's the wrong test. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for restraining publication of anything. Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's.
That strikes me as the sort of thing microsoft would do (not to anthropomorphize a company or anything). He'd also find out a way to stick her with the bill and possibly a virus.
Mila Jovovich stuffing hot element 119 down her pants! YES!
Look up optical waveguides - they bend light (or guide it if you like).
Because of the bends in the fibre, and the fact not much can bend light other than a significant gravity well, the light tends to bounce around and be reflected in the fibre. Net result is that light also travels at a fraction of c in such a medium.
No it doesn't. All long distance runs are single mode, which are too narrow to allow bouncing. The difference between C and transmission speed is due to light travelling slower in a medium.
Yeah. For instance, OJ got off because he's famous. To quote Chris Rock, if OJ drove a bus, he'd be Orenthal the bus driving murderer. ACtually, I think prisons should be for rehab where possible and isolation when necessary. This pretty much makes your value to society irrelevant.
What's more important, a single unremarkable life or a highly influential piece of software?
The software has lasting value, but it doesn't place the creator above the law of the land - it may not always be so, but the ideal is that the same rules apply to everyone.
Cool, room for growth/other servers. How's Oracle like having its brains living in a drawer, anyway?
Just dispute the charge. They have to prove that the charge is legit, and a charge out of the blue smells of fraud or incompetence.
Why would you ever use a sizing tool like that? You know your usage patterns better than dell. Your example could require a single proc, dual, quad, or something custom depending on load (data warehouse vs. OLTP). With disk costs the way they are, I'd recommend about a half or more TB of storage - that way, you can handle growth and also restore a DB from backup. Hell, get a full TB - disk is free.
Maybe he got course credit for it.
There is support for 64-bit machines on the 64-bit edition of XP or Windows Server 2K3.
If I'm building a server, the OS is probably some flavor of Linux, generally Redhat or similar, so this doesn't really buy me much.
Just because this one scam is guarded against doesn't mean that there aren't many more that could be prepetrated.