Well, I'm Norwegain, so sorry if I don't think American.
Well that's obvious. Norway still has a king, doesn't it? I guess Norwegians can't be blamed for thinking like subjects rather than as a free people. They suffer the taint of monarchy. Also, there are more countries on the american continent than just the US.
Yes we have a king (notice the small k). A king with theoretical political power, a king who can walk down the street and sit down with his friends and have a beer at an outdoor resturant and not be surrounded by bodyguards. We are a monrchy since we have a king, but he does absolutely nothing when it comes to government, he is merely a figurehead. Get your facts strait. And the US suffers from an equally bad problem (IMO), a two-party system. And yes, I know that there are other countries in North America. I assumed (incorrectly?) that you live in the US.
But where have those "slaps on the wrist" been lately? Wouldn't we bee seeing more "slaps on the wrist" is we had "a legal/political system that works". And what do you mean by "works"?
Works as in one that slaps the wrists. Didn't that come out clearly enough? If they don't do their duty and slap wrists, then they don't work...
Do you mean one that achieves justice, or merely keeps order?
Both, if possible.
Lately, whenever an individual "oversteps the bounds of society", he can expect punishment, imprisonment, or even death. When a corporation does it though, it gets a slap on the back, not the wrist, and a hearty congratulation for strengthening the economy. Yet you seem to think that a "legal/political system that works" actually exists.
I hope it does. If not, then what is the point? If humans can't live and work together then what does that say for our future?
Well, political systems are subject to entropic effects like any other system. Unless there is something to prevent it, all political systems degrade into tyrrany. And merely voting won't remove tyrants. That's part of the definition of a tyranny.
Voting won't remove the tyrant, but as an individual with a vote, its your responsibility to use that vote so that the tyrant doesn't get there in the first place.
DeCss is bad in the sence that it jeopardises the intellectual rights of the people who make the contents of a DVD disc.
BUT DeCSS is good in the sense that it allows millions of Linux users to exercise their right to view the DVD's they have lawfully purchased. You are falling into the trap that gets many fuzzy thinkers. Technology like DeCSS or firearms are neither good or bad. The concepts of good and bad are simply inapplicable to inanimate objects or technologies. Only human actions and uses of technology can be defined as good or bad. There are no good or bad programs, only good or bad people.
Ofcource, since guns and programs cannot act on their own. But some programs and guns are not made for any use other than bad. An GAU-8 is made for one thing only, and therefore it is not available to the public. Why not? Its a gun, so let the user decide, since he decieds if it is used for good or bad. You still can't buy it though..... Now why is that? Because the government has decided that it is not in its or its populaces interest that such weapons are available to them. If you really want a government that is not opposing personal freedom, then go to your local gun shop and insist on buying a nuke. Why? Well, because you want one. Its not like you are going to use it. The issue lies in where the line is drawn between what a government will and will not let an individual have the opportunity to do. I am more inclined to give the govenment a chance, whereas in your eyes they have used up most of their goodwill.
They might even feel so threatened that they stop releasing DVD altogether. Would that make you feel better if you knew that the reason we can't have DVDs is because people abuse the trust placed in them by the movie companies? When DeCss was released they (the movie companies) felt that trust was broken.
You do realize you're speaking like a serf, don't you? You make it sound like we only get DVD's though the gracious indulgence of higher authorities like the MPAA. Let me remind you they are not "releasing" movies on DVD. They are selling them.
Serf just because I can see things from two idfferent sides? A serf because I am not ultra anti-corporation? If their cost profits are jeopardized on this medium more than another they might just drop the one with the least payoff. Basic economics.
When I pay my money that I earned myself for a DVD, I have the right to do anything I want with that DVD and the material stored on it with the one single exception of reselling or distributing that material. The current MPAA lawsuits and legislation like the DMCA exist solely to take these rights as a lawful purchaser away from me. And there is no issue of trust here regardless. If the MPAA trusted anybody, then why the hell didn't they release DVD's unencrypted from the beginning? They are not engaged in their current lawsuits because we broke their trust in us. There never was any trust there to begin with. Instead, through their CSS technology, they attempted to deny us our rights as legal purchasers of DVD's. Now that their technology has been defeated, they are using the tax funded courts and armed police as a blunt instrument to continue denying us our rights as legal purchasers.
Just one thing. DeCss does not enable you to view movies on your computer. It enables you unlimited access to the digital information on the DVD. The difference here might be quite large. If they wanted DeCss to be only for playing DVDs, they would have included a play button, they would have removed the possibility for copying the data from the DVD to the harddisk, and they would definetly NOT have released a windows version, because there are players for windows. The software in itself is not bad or good, but what about the actual use. Are enough people "abusing" the software so that the only way for the government to protect the interests on the companies (which is also part of the job of a government) is to remove/hinder the use of the program? Time will show if our elected politicians act the way we want them to, i.e. do they have enough backbone to put their foot down when they see injustice?
What is it about Americans and "invading my privacy/home etc" that gets them totally on edge?
Well, not being a free person yourself, I can't expect you to understand what freedom means.
I'll comment this one further down...
"Let them do their job?" What about when the police themselves don't want to do their job? What about when they find search warrants too inconvenient?
Then its time to get a police force that works. Do you need physical force to change the way the police force works, or do you need political force? Do you need political force to make the politicians listen to such grevious problems? Then why the heck are they in power if they won't listen?
What about when they find their job made difficult by the rights of the people they supposedly protect and serve? Remember that not breaking into your home and shooting you is part of their job. And you say when they are wrong too often they need to get better. Well, Mr. Unarmed-Norwegian, how do you propose to make them?
Not by standing on my lawn with a gun on my hip anyway. Opposing the police with force is stupid. They are trained to deal with such events, and they will not hesitate to bring more force to bear than you can counter. The police need to be regulated like everything else, and its the politicians responsibility to make sure they don't do stuff like that. If the politicians can't do that because they are too lazy or whatever, then its time to kick that butt out of there and get a politician who will take responsibility. But do you need guns to do that?
Oh, right, blame the media. Look to the symptoms, but keep the causes. Tell me, is there real freedom of expression in Norway?
As long as I'm willing to take responsibility for what I'm saying, yes. I can walk out on a street and shout at the top of my lungs "I hate the King. The King is a bastard." without fearing arrest. Organising a neo-nazi singalong with ritual etnic bashing is permitted as well. Just as long as violence is not incited, I can do it.
God forbid a police force should suffer under any form of scrutiny. They're so much more "effective" when they can do whatever they want with total impunity, regardless of whether they are right, justice is served, or they respect the rights of the people. After all, what's another stubbed toe, false imprisonment, or murdered peasant for that matter, so long as "good order" is maintained.
What I was implying here was not to overlook police brutality, but the senseless pursuit of "poor underdog" everywhere by the media and lawyers.
Your honor, I demand this case be dropped against my client since the police brutally savaged by client during the aprehension.
What is your evidence of there accusations?
My client was walking on his own lawn carrying a shotgun. He repeatedly told the police to go away, because him killing his uncle was "None of your damned business, y'hear". The stubbed toe contracted at the aprehension when the SWAT team tackled and handcuffed him.
Okay. The defendant is free to go. (to the police) Get a grip you guys. Police brutality destroys the entire case.
This is pretty extreme, I hope you agree. A clearly guilty suspect (he can even admit it) can have the case against him dropped due to insignificant technical blunders/accidents by the police. And a case cannot, under US law, be filed against the defendant for the same crime. No wonder the police are frustrated and angry. Not that it entitles them to not go "by the book", but this isn't a black and white issue, there are a lot of grays inbetween. "60 minutes" etc. are great programs, but no matter how you look at it "Americas wildest police shootouts" have no place on a TV screen. It glorifies the horrible use of force and makes it into entertainment for the masses. Bread and Circus anyone?
When government denies perfectly reasonable actions from all the people just because a limited few might do those actions in a manner that harms others, that government is a tyrrany. Whether or not it is fascist is another matter. Once again, I cannot expect you to understand what a tyrranny is (or fascism for that matter).
By your own words a US person who clams that owning a nuke is okay (he won't use it for anything) lives in a tyranny. The government has plenty lying around, but would they let this guy have one? I think not.
Wasn't Norway an axis power? Of course I cannot really blame that on the Norwegians. Being an unarmed subject people, they never had the guns or choice to prevent fascist tyrrany.
We did have guns ans such, but we didn't have enough. The smaller state will always get screwed militarily by the bigger nations. Do you seriously think that Norway could stand up against the US no matter how much we spent on arms? There are only 4.3 million Norwegians in the world, not much more than a US suburb.
Ah. Here we start seeing evidence of your psychology and why you think the way you do. Like most people with your views, you assume that people are naturally irresponsible and untrustworthy. You don't trust, and instead you fear your fellow human beings, just because they might cause you harm.
Do you really think carrying a gun makes me fear you less? And why do you insist on having the right to own a gun? Because you don't trust either, maybe? To me owning a gun (not for hunting) signals a frightened individual who feels the need to protect himself by any means possible. But that is probably because I'm not used to guns since they are thankfully fairly scarce in Norway. And frankly by looking around there are many, many, many trustworth and decent people. But they are not that all of the time, some more than others. What should we do when the "bad" crops up? Don't make the mistake of thinking this doesn't happen to everyone sooner or later. Do you think all people are born with a sence or right and wrong, or is it learned throughout life?
You don't truly beleive in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You believe in punishing everyone beforehand in the vain hope that it might prevent the wrongful actions of a few individuals. You believe in holding all the people as guilty just because a small few might not be innocent. It's to difficult to simply punish the specific people who do harm, but it's so much easier to just punish everyone, guilty or not. You would deny people their freedom and their choices just because they might make the wrong ones. You prefer comfort and order to freedom and justice.
What I believe in is the nessesity for a police force to be able to jail someone during an investigation. The simple reality of the world we live in doesn't allow the goverment to magically spot the bad ones and prune them out as soon as they do a bad thing. Not to mention that once the action has taken place its kinda late to do anything about it. Often only a suspision is all they've got, and getting from there to a conviction is by no means a trivial matter. There are so many ways a "bad person" could mess up evidence etc. that they have to take someone into custody during an investigation. He is still "innocent until proven guilty", but he has his freedom removed. I agree that it is not an ideal solution by far, but what else is there? Without it maybe as much as 95% of the criminals might go free compared to today. Would you not suffer an inconvenient house search if that meant they could get the serial murderer off the streets? The system is in no ways perfect, but unfortunately its the best we've got. I don't want total freedom, because that would remove all comfort. A balance has to be made, and to be quite frank it isn't bad to live in Norway, not by far. This is because a lot of things are simply not permitted. Our freedom suffers because as a species we are not mature enough to handle the power we are granted through technology. As individuals 99.9% of us are, but the 0.1% can easily mess up everything for the remainder of us. As we progress in technology (or we mature) we might be able to allow more freedom on an individual basis, but currently granting total freedom simply isn't practically possible.
You are not paying attention (or thinking). Did I say "wave them around"? The purpose of having an armed population is NOT to "wave them around". The purpose is to simply have them, so that, should all other possible means of removing a tyrrany fail, the people still have the ultimate means available to them. And you're right, that does mean possibly shooting people but only after all other possible means of maintaining justice have failed.
The main purpose of guns then is to kill people. They serve secondary purposes, but the main one is still to kill. Having guns as a last way out in a dispute is understandable, but it should no be nessesary. If it actually is, then its about time all guns were put into use and a new government put in its place where such extreme measures are not nessesary to make things happen.
When armed revolution is a possibility, governments actually put effort into resolving problems by acceptable means.
They do that if you can threaten their powerbase. A western society today have a lot more weak points that overthrowing the ruler by sheer physical might.
The problem you have is that you think that an armed public is a "threat".
Yes, I see them as a threat to themselves and the rest of society. The cost of having people with guns on "every corner" is one I'm (as an individual) not willing to pay. They might in an extreme case be used to overthrow the goverment and install a new one, but that happens once in a blue moon. The added problems of guns in daily life (accidental shootings, "though guys" with guns, worse working conditions for the police, etc.) outweigh (IMO) the benefits (armed revolution when needed).
You automatically assume that gun is a threat just as you assume that software like DeCSS is bad. You don't understand that an armed people aren't a threat to tyrrany, but the strongest deterrant to it. Do you understand the difference between a threat and a deterrant? From your posts, I get the impression that you don't.
Yes, I do. Deterrance = discourage from doing something. Threat = discourage from doing something by intention of punishment (if not compliant). When you say "change blabla" to a politician and you "deter" with guns you are quite boldly stating and "or else we'll put a bullet through your head". What else can the gun be used for but shooting bullets? It's not like you are offering him a favour like cutting his lawn, you are actually threatening his life.
Also, where the hell do "buildings" come into this? Are you actually reading before replying?
My intention of this statement was that to overthrow a government you have to threaten to shoot people, and when they call your bluff you actually have to go through with it. This was because I thought that your stance on gun usage during a revolution was "not to be used against people". This was clearified further up in the thead when you said you might have to shoot people as a last resort.
Please do me the respect of at least trying to comprehend what I am saying. Only after all other possible means of resolving injustice and removing tyrrany have failed should the final option of armed revolution be exercised. But when armed revolution (and yes, shooting tyrants) is not an option, there is no incentive for a government to resolve such issues by any means, acceptable or otherwise.
Heck, it works over here...
I think your problem is that you find even the potential of violence (not actual violence) to be so unpalatable that you actually (and cowardly) prefer the peace and order of tyrrany to the responsibilities and uncertainty of freedom.
No, what I find unpalatable is that guns are only valid for one purpose, armed revolution, and that is supposed to end any gun control arguments. There are som many bad things connected to guns in daily life that I can't justify all that hurt and pain it causes people by saying "well, at least we can have an armed revolution". I'm sorry, but I just can't. And if people were serious when it comes to armed revoltuion you would get an assault rifle or a sub machine gun. A handgun would be pathetically less effective in such a senario. Just a thought...
It doesn't seem to me that it's been the people who have been pointing the guns and screaming. It seems to me that it's been the police and government who have been pointing guns at the people and screaming. Apart from that, when the government stops governing and starts behaving like a tyrrany, then it it necessary to remove that tyrrany by any means necessary.
I can'treally agree that the citizes have been completely inert when it comes to escalating violece either. In my eyes both are at fault. But I agree that once a tyranny is in place, it has to go, and most often that can only happen by armed conflict.
Also, here's a little information for you: I, myself, own a gun. I have had it for several decades. You may find this shocking and surprising, but in all the time I have had this gun, not once have I ever "pointed it at someone's head and screamed at them". Nor have any of my gun-owning friends ever pointed their guns at anyone's head and screamed.
Which is why I'm continuing this discussion. If you had not been a sensible and thinking individual, your reply would have been much more discardable.
However, because we are all armed, government and police will have to think twice before they put guns to our heads and scream at us. That is what is meant by an armed people being "a deterrant to tyrranny".
Consider this. A police officer tries to apprehend a suspect of purse snatching or something equally trivial and gets shot dead. What do you think any other police officer will react the next time? They will have to react in such a way that if the suspect has a gun, he doesn't get to use it. Who do they do that? More force than before. Do you see the problem? The very fact that my neighbour has a gun and can potentionally use it against the police will make them behave more brutally towards me as well the next time we encounter each other, even though I might be innocent, since they don't know how much of a threat I pose so they suspect the worst. In this senario you want a gun so you can protect yourself form the (possible) police abuse, whereas I want the neighbour to give up his so that I don't have to protect myself. Isn't my neighbour infringing on my freedom by forcing me to protect myself from his indirect actions?
When civil disobedience has failed to correct injustice, what can an unarmed people do?
They can get weapons. Its not difficult to get weapons, so they don't have to be stacked in your closet (I know, a tad reckless) for you to get your hands on some. Every weaponproducing country will compete to sell arms to either side of an armed revolution. Guns will be plentiful in such a senario.
Ever heard of Kent State? What about the recent police abuses in Seattle? Are you aware that the police in Seattle only began to curb their abuses after the local militia warned them that it was considering involving itself on the side of the protestors? Suddenly, the police began to behave and the militia found that it didn't have to act at all.
I'm unfamiliar with Kent State, but the Seattle thing was very well boradcast over the globe. And to be frank the police when way over the line. The militia was an important display of force, and they quietend down quite fast. But would it have been more effective if politicians had heaps of angry mothers and fathers complaining about police brutality and how the defenceless and peaceful demonstrators were abused? Honestly I don't know, but that might have been just as efficient in the long run.
Simple. It's because the truckers in France already have a large amount of political power to begin with. Congratulations! You have recognized a case of people exercising the political power they already have. But have you ever seen what happens to a people who have no power whatsoever when they try the same thing? They are labeled criminals and crushed completely.
The same people could hardly lead an effective revolution quite simply because if the majority of people think they are wrong they will pick up their guns against the rebels. The people would no automatically get behind any and every revolution that crops up. If the cause is legitimate they might, but don't count on it.
But you are incorrectly assuming that "civilized" countries stay civilized with nothing keeping them that way. Civilization does not happen in a vaccuum. It's also strange to me how you can trust governments to be "civilized" and posess firearms, but not your own neighbors. You seem to think that police will have a concience and know right from wrong. Well what keeps them that way? It sure would be nice to live in a world where police have concience and know right from wrong, but from what I've seen, that's not how the world actually is.
The you and I have experienced two differnet worlds. The police I have been in contact with have all been professional and curteous. And why should we punish the 99% of good police personell when only a few are bad. Here I can turn your own argument against you, why should we punish 99% of police officers just because one or two might do something wrong? Granted we all see that they do wrong to tv, but so do ordinary citizens.
You are also assuming that the police are currently ordinary citizens and that they will stay that way. They haven't been. Since you haven't bothered to read and pay attention to my posts, I guess I can't expect that you've been paying attention to what's been going on in the world around you.
Yes I have. My world. The one in Norway where things are quiet and police don't walk around armed because everyone else might be. My world is nice and peaceful. I really hope the rest of the world will be able to experience the same society I've got, because its absolutely great compared to the stuff that goes on in other parts of the world. What is it that makes the police not a part of society? Are they actually untouchable by the laws they enforce? If so, you have really got a problem that must be delt with as soon as possible.
In the past several years there has been a concerted shift among "civilized" countries to make their police more than ordinary citizens and merge them with the military. One of the many signs of this, in the US at least, is the current proliferation of 'gun control' laws. Many of these laws have special exemptions for police and other government officials. Now surely, if the police were truly supposed to be "ordinary citizens", they would be subject to exactly the same laws and restrictions as the rest of the public.
Thankfully that has not happened over here. There are some nuts trying to get the police armed, but they also want to stop immigration. Police officers must not be like efveryone else, but they must have the respect of the people they police. When they are excluded from certain laws it is probably not possible to gain the respect nessesary for them to get their job done. Sounds bad, but who let things get that bad? Politicians again? Why would that happen when you have guns to deter such stupidity?
No offense, but your opinion is wrong. The Nazi's in Germany got their power because people like you, who value peace, order, and a strong economy more than freedom, justice, and equality, elected them. And once the Nazi's gained power, they made sure they kept their power by confiscating all firearms from the hands of the people. And people like you, who trust your government to hold a gun to your head more than you trust your neighbors to have a gun in their pockets, applauded this move. Only later did the world see what becomes of this sort of mistake. Unfortunately, if your posts are any evidence, the lesson did not stick.
Why, thank you for that vote of confidence. Nice to know my entire world view and personal character has been dissected on the basis of two or three posts on slashdot.
Please go to a dictionary and look up the definition of what a "threat" is. Then look up what a "deterrant" is. They are not the same thing. I never said "threaten". What I said was "deter".
Well, threatening is deterrance with an intent of punsihment if you do not comply. When you have the means to punish, the deterrance becomes a threat. Look it up.
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up in a big city with people who elegantly step over a homeless person. This is where the main problem is, the "if it doesn't concern me, I don't care." mentality.
I know it's difficult, but please try to stay relevant to the topic. However, since you've added the subject of homelessness to this discussion, you shall now reap my response:
HOW DARE YOU SO ACCUSE ME!
I do not accuse you, read it again. I said people, implying "the average man". Do you dispute that the average man does not care for a homeless person or that most people in your country grow up in a big city (50.000+ inhabitants)? I was hoping to bring up the fact that people in todays society care nothing about a subject unless it touches their daily life, and I used homeless persons as an example, since not many people care about them. I guess from your response you have seen the look on peoples faces when they walk by or over a homeless person, so you know what I'm talking about.
You have absolutely no idea of who I am. This comment of yours is completely typical of the arrogance of those who form opinions in the absence of learning anything about the subject. First of all, I did not grow up in a city. Secondly, my own brother, who I love very much, is also homeless. How dare you accuse me of not having concern for his plight or that of other homeless people. But like most people with your views, you have no idea of what homelessness means or anything else about how the world actually works.
And I suppose you have not made assumptions about me, my country or my "way of life"? You have no idea of who I am either. At least I post this message in my own name and not hiding behind an anonymous handle. How do you expect me to know who you are when you keep it hidden? I don't even know which country you live in, how old you are or if you are a man or a woman. Of cource I don't know you, this is the first time I've ever conversed with you. What do you expect? Judging from your reply this is a rather sensitive personal matter, and if you feel hurt by my remark, I'm sorry, that was not my intention.
This discussion is getting very long, and way of topic. If you feel the need to continue the discussion feel free to reply by e-mail. If not we can agree to disagree and let this part of the thread die.
BTW: Wow. 3 hours. I haven't written this intensely since I was in school.
Well, I'm Norwegain, so sorry if I don't think American.
Dealing with the "big corporations" and government "invading" or inhibiting the freedom of the commmon man is often quite simply because the common man overstepped the bounds of society.
GMAFB! How did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that DoubleClick can track my every move?
I said usually, not always. Letting anyone track you everywere is bad, but someone is going to try to do it and keep on doing it until they get a hard slap on the wrist. You don't need guns to do that, you just need a legal/political system that works.
When did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that I can be arrested and punished for simply having a piece on code on my computers that the companies don't like?
What kind of code? DeCss or something more "sinister"?
DeCss is bad in the sence that it jeopardises the intellectual rights of the people who make the contents of a DVD disc. They might even feel so threatened that they stop releasing DVD altogether. Would that make you feel better if you knew that the reason we can't have DVDs is because people abuse the trust placed in them by the movie companies? When DeCss was released they (the movie companies) felt that trust was broken.
I have never had anything to do with illegal drugs, so when did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that my home can be invaded, my property confiscated, and my life endangered just because the government thinks I might have drugs there.
When society (which is guarded by the goverment and its policing force) suspect that a crime has been comitted they can investigate. What is it about Americans and "invading my privacy/home etc" that gets them totally on edge? If there had been a crime in my neighborhood and the police came to my door and showed me a search warrant I wouldn't complain, I would let them do their job. They might be wrong, but they might be right. I would gladly suffer the inconvenice of having my house searched if that means they can do the same to the people who actually have comitted a crime. That doesn't mean I would want them to do it though, and if they are wrong too often then need to get better at it. Fast.
It seems to me that I'm not the one who has been "overstepping the bounds of society". So how do you intend to stop those who actually are?
Let the police do their job. Its not a job I envy them to be quite frank. The media shouting police brutality if someone stubs a toe when being arrested for a murder etc. etc. Frankly the media in the US disgust me. And what is more frightening is that Norwegian tv channels are starting to broadcast show like "Americas wildest police shootouts" etc. Once that hits the TV screens you know that something is seriously wrong with a society.
Of cource the "big guys" overreact and abuse their power, especially in the US it seems, but the other alternative is total anarchy.
Since when is an empowerd populace "total anarchy"? That's just the big lie told to people to keep them from exercising their power. I guess to some people order and peace are much more importand than liberty, justice, and equality. And it was for those people that Hitler got the trains to run on time.
So as soon as the goverment denies an action to a citicen it is facist? Unless people grow up and take responsibility for their actions the government will have impose restrictions. Why is it illegal to kill people (not in self defence)? Because someone did at one point or another, and that means that person abused his freedom. You cannot have freedom without responsibility, and when people won't be responsible for their actions (even if we are talking about 0.001% of the populace) the government has to force it upon them. And it can not afford anyone to get away, since that would undermine the very reason for the government (and its police force) to exist.
Grabbing a gun and shooting people is not "within the bounds of society", at least not the kind of society I want to live in.
Helloooo??? Did I ever say "start shooting people"? Pay attention! The point of an empowered and armed populace is not that they will start shooting people.
The reason for having guns is to wave them around an not use them? Wouldn't that make them inefficient as a display of force, since you are not willing to shoot people anyway? And you will have to shoot people if you choose that road, because a building isn't a governing body, the people inside are.
The point is that the don't shoot but instead choose to settle their issues at the ballot box. Then the government has to honor the vote of the people because the people have the power to enforce their vote and remove their government if necessary. It's an issue of the people having guns and not shooting, but retaining the possibility should government abuse the power granted to it.
I.e. shooting people. The way to bring out the worst in a person is to put a gun to his head and screm at him. Why would you threaten to do that to people who are supposed to govern you? Civil disobedience (strikes etc.) work remarkably well, since a government can't work without its supporting infrastructure. Do you really think that a peaceful strike could be broken up in a western country with police force? Look at France, they have had massive strikes by truckes that has paralysed the country for days. Now considering the tough policy France has on terrorism, why weren't the strikers sent to internment camp or shot or whatever? Because a "civilised" country has to rely on a police force, which so far is made up of ordinary citicens, and they will have a concience about what if wrong and what is right. This is where nazi germany got its power to do what it did (IMO). Anonymizing the police force and segmenting (mentally) the police force from the people it was supposed to protect.
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up with images of weapons always being used, but please make the effort to think about it. Violence is never the best solution, but the potential for violence prevents a lot of problems. It's called "deterrance".
And most of the time threatening an animal with its back against the wall will make it lash out. I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up in a big city with people who elegantly step over a homeless person. This is where the main problem is, the "if it doesn't concern me, I don't care." mentality.
They don't respect a little citizen with a gun, they just send the SWAT team to blow his brain out. One less IQ-deficient person in the world.
Dealing with the "big corporations" and government "invading" or inhibiting the freedom of the commmon man is often quite simply because the common man overstepped the bounds of society. Of cource the "big guys" overreact and abuse their power, especially in the US it seems, but the other alternative is total anarchy. Some leeway has to be given in both respects, but ofcource one should do whatever one can to correct a mistake, within the bounds of society, once it is apparent. Grabbing a gun and shooting people is not "within the bounds of society", at least not the kind of society I want to live in.
Merced,IA-64 and the future Was:Apples and Oranges
on
Intel Undercuts AMD
·
· Score: 1
I just want to add some information I picked up regarding the Merced. I heard that the chip is extremely near tape-out. The person who said this was NOT specific regarding the exact time, but the implication was within the next two months or so. The validity of rumors are, as always, dependent on who supplies them, and I heard this at a lecture given by Frank Baetke (Manager of High-Performance Computing Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Gremany/USA) at the HiPer'99 conference. He should have access to the correct information from Intel, since Intel and HP are more or less bedmates when it comes to the IA-64 technology and implementation.
When it comes to the sucess/faliure of the Merced, keep in mind that the Merced has to/should implement the new all-cool speed increasing stuff that Intel shoves into the PIII (and beyond), and not only the entierly new stuff as the Merced must show off. Also getting VLIW to work is very much a matter of getting the compilers 'in tune' with the chip. Much more so with VLIW than ordinary RISC/CISC CPU's.
Secondly, keep in mind that IA-64 isn't a pure VLIW implemetation, it is also possible to run normal/sequential code on it as well (although it will probably be optimised for parallel code, duh). In the lecture that followed Yale Patt decribed the IA-64 as VLIW-when-you-need-it, more or less the best of both worlds, if done right. (If you don't know who Yale Patt is then you had better freshen up on your prosessor architecture knowledge!) He also seemed quite enthusiastic about the IA-64, or as enthusiastic as a guru can become of a commecial design.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm Norwegain, so sorry if I don't think American.
Well that's obvious. Norway still has a king, doesn't it? I guess Norwegians can't be blamed for thinking like subjects rather than as a free people. They suffer the taint of monarchy. Also, there are more countries on the american continent than just the US.
Yes we have a king (notice the small k). A king with theoretical political power, a king who can walk down the street and sit down with his friends and have a beer at an outdoor resturant and not be surrounded by bodyguards. We are a monrchy since we have a king, but he does absolutely nothing when it comes to government, he is merely a figurehead. Get your facts strait. And the US suffers from an equally bad problem (IMO), a two-party system.
And yes, I know that there are other countries in North America. I assumed (incorrectly?) that you live in the US.
But where have those "slaps on the wrist" been lately? Wouldn't we bee seeing more "slaps on the wrist" is we had "a legal/political system that works". And what do you mean by "works"?
Works as in one that slaps the wrists. Didn't that come out clearly enough? If they don't do their duty and slap wrists, then they don't work...
Do you mean one that achieves justice, or merely keeps order?
Both, if possible.
Lately, whenever an individual "oversteps the bounds of society", he can expect punishment, imprisonment, or even death. When a corporation does it though, it gets a slap on the back, not the wrist, and a hearty congratulation for strengthening the economy. Yet you seem to think that a "legal/political system that works" actually exists.
I hope it does. If not, then what is the point? If humans can't live and work together then what does that say for our future?
Well, political systems are subject to entropic effects like any other system. Unless there is something to prevent it, all political systems degrade into tyrrany. And merely voting won't remove tyrants. That's part of the definition of a tyranny.
Voting won't remove the tyrant, but as an individual with a vote, its your responsibility to use that vote so that the tyrant doesn't get there in the first place.
DeCss is bad in the sence that it jeopardises the intellectual rights of the people who make the contents of a DVD disc.
BUT DeCSS is good in the sense that it allows millions of Linux users to exercise their right to view the DVD's they have lawfully purchased. You are falling into the trap that gets many fuzzy thinkers. Technology like DeCSS or firearms are neither good or bad. The concepts of good and bad are simply inapplicable to inanimate objects or technologies. Only human actions and uses of technology can be defined as good or bad. There are no good or bad programs, only good or bad people.
Ofcource, since guns and programs cannot act on their own. But some programs and guns are not made for any use other than bad. An GAU-8 is made for one thing only, and therefore it is not available to the public. Why not? Its a gun, so let the user decide, since he decieds if it is used for good or bad. You still can't buy it though..... Now why is that? Because the government has decided that it is not in its or its populaces interest that such weapons are available to them. If you really want a government that is not opposing personal freedom, then go to your local gun shop and insist on buying a nuke. Why? Well, because you want one. Its not like you are going to use it.
The issue lies in where the line is drawn between what a government will and will not let an individual have the opportunity to do. I am more inclined to give the govenment a chance, whereas in your eyes they have used up most of their goodwill.
They might even feel so threatened that they stop releasing DVD altogether. Would that make you feel better if you knew that the reason we can't have DVDs is because people abuse the trust placed in them by the movie companies? When DeCss was released they (the movie companies) felt that trust was broken.
You do realize you're speaking like a serf, don't you? You make it sound like we only get DVD's though the gracious indulgence of higher authorities like the MPAA. Let me remind you they are not "releasing" movies on DVD. They are selling them.
Serf just because I can see things from two idfferent sides? A serf because I am not ultra anti-corporation?
If their cost profits are jeopardized on this medium more than another they might just drop the one with the least payoff. Basic economics.
When I pay my money that I earned myself for a DVD, I have the right to do anything I want with that DVD and the material stored on it with the one single exception of reselling or distributing that material. The current MPAA lawsuits and legislation like the DMCA exist solely to take these rights as a lawful purchaser away from me. And there is no issue of trust here regardless. If the MPAA trusted anybody, then why the hell didn't they release DVD's unencrypted from the beginning? They are not engaged in their current lawsuits because we broke their trust in us. There never was any trust there to begin with. Instead, through their CSS technology, they attempted to deny us our rights as legal purchasers of DVD's. Now that their technology has been defeated, they are using the tax funded courts and armed police as a blunt instrument to continue denying us our rights as legal purchasers.
Just one thing. DeCss does not enable you to view movies on your computer. It enables you unlimited access to the digital information on the DVD. The difference here might be quite large. If they wanted DeCss to be only for playing DVDs, they would have included a play button, they would have removed the possibility for copying the data from the DVD to the harddisk, and they would definetly NOT have released a windows version, because there are players for windows. The software in itself is not bad or good, but what about the actual use. Are enough people "abusing" the software so that the only way for the government to protect the interests on the companies (which is also part of the job of a government) is to remove/hinder the use of the program? Time will show if our elected politicians act the way we want them to, i.e. do they have enough backbone to put their foot down when they see injustice?
What is it about Americans and "invading my privacy/home etc" that gets them totally on edge?
Well, not being a free person yourself, I can't expect you to understand what freedom means.
I'll comment this one further down...
"Let them do their job?" What about when the police themselves don't want to do their job? What about when they find search warrants too inconvenient?
Then its time to get a police force that works. Do you need physical force to change the way the police force works, or do you need political force? Do you need political force to make the politicians listen to such grevious problems? Then why the heck are they in power if they won't listen?
What about when they find their job made difficult by the rights of the people they supposedly protect and serve? Remember that not breaking into your home and shooting you is part of their job. And you say when they are wrong too often they need to get better. Well, Mr. Unarmed-Norwegian, how do you propose to make them?
Not by standing on my lawn with a gun on my hip anyway. Opposing the police with force is stupid. They are trained to deal with such events, and they will not hesitate to bring more force to bear than you can counter. The police need to be regulated like everything else, and its the politicians responsibility to make sure they don't do stuff like that. If the politicians can't do that because they are too lazy or whatever, then its time to kick that butt out of there and get a politician who will take responsibility. But do you need guns to do that?
Oh, right, blame the media. Look to the symptoms, but keep the causes. Tell me, is there real freedom of expression in Norway?
As long as I'm willing to take responsibility for what I'm saying, yes. I can walk out on a street and shout at the top of my lungs "I hate the King. The King is a bastard." without fearing arrest. Organising a neo-nazi singalong with ritual etnic bashing is permitted as well. Just as long as violence is not incited, I can do it.
God forbid a police force should suffer under any form of scrutiny. They're so much more "effective" when they can do whatever they want with total impunity, regardless of whether they are right, justice is served, or they respect the rights of the people. After all, what's another stubbed toe, false imprisonment, or murdered peasant for that matter, so long as "good order" is maintained.
What I was implying here was not to overlook police brutality, but the senseless pursuit of "poor underdog" everywhere by the media and lawyers.
- Your honor, I demand this case be dropped against my client since the police brutally savaged by client during the aprehension.
- What is your evidence of there accusations?
- My client was walking on his own lawn carrying a shotgun. He repeatedly told the police to go away, because him killing his uncle was "None of your damned business, y'hear". The stubbed toe contracted at the aprehension when the SWAT team tackled and handcuffed him.
- Okay. The defendant is free to go. (to the police) Get a grip you guys. Police brutality destroys the entire case.
This is pretty extreme, I hope you agree. A clearly guilty suspect (he can even admit it) can have the case against him dropped due to insignificant technical blunders/accidents by the police. And a case cannot, under US law, be filed against the defendant for the same crime. No wonder the police are frustrated and angry. Not that it entitles them to not go "by the book", but this isn't a black and white issue, there are a lot of grays inbetween."60 minutes" etc. are great programs, but no matter how you look at it "Americas wildest police shootouts" have no place on a TV screen. It glorifies the horrible use of force and makes it into entertainment for the masses. Bread and Circus anyone?
When government denies perfectly reasonable actions from all the people just because a limited few might do those actions in a manner that harms others, that government is a tyrrany. Whether or not it is fascist is another matter. Once again, I cannot expect you to understand what a tyrranny is (or fascism for that matter).
By your own words a US person who clams that owning a nuke is okay (he won't use it for anything) lives in a tyranny. The government has plenty lying around, but would they let this guy have one? I think not.
Wasn't Norway an axis power? Of course I cannot really blame that on the Norwegians. Being an unarmed subject people, they never had the guns or choice to prevent fascist tyrrany.
We did have guns ans such, but we didn't have enough. The smaller state will always get screwed militarily by the bigger nations. Do you seriously think that Norway could stand up against the US no matter how much we spent on arms? There are only 4.3 million Norwegians in the world, not much more than a US suburb.
Ah. Here we start seeing evidence of your psychology and why you think the way you do. Like most people with your views, you assume that people are naturally irresponsible and untrustworthy. You don't trust, and instead you fear your fellow human beings, just because they might cause you harm.
Do you really think carrying a gun makes me fear you less? And why do you insist on having the right to own a gun? Because you don't trust either, maybe? To me owning a gun (not for hunting) signals a frightened individual who feels the need to protect himself by any means possible. But that is probably because I'm not used to guns since they are thankfully fairly scarce in Norway.
And frankly by looking around there are many, many, many trustworth and decent people. But they are not that all of the time, some more than others. What should we do when the "bad" crops up? Don't make the mistake of thinking this doesn't happen to everyone sooner or later. Do you think all people are born with a sence or right and wrong, or is it learned throughout life?
You don't truly beleive in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You believe in punishing everyone beforehand in the vain hope that it might prevent the wrongful actions of a few individuals. You believe in holding all the people as guilty just because a small few might not be innocent. It's to difficult to simply punish the specific people who do harm, but it's so much easier to just punish everyone, guilty or not. You would deny people their freedom and their choices just because they might make the wrong ones. You prefer comfort and order to freedom and justice.
What I believe in is the nessesity for a police force to be able to jail someone during an investigation. The simple reality of the world we live in doesn't allow the goverment to magically spot the bad ones and prune them out as soon as they do a bad thing. Not to mention that once the action has taken place its kinda late to do anything about it. Often only a suspision is all they've got, and getting from there to a conviction is by no means a trivial matter. There are so many ways a "bad person" could mess up evidence etc. that they have to take someone into custody during an investigation. He is still "innocent until proven guilty", but he has his freedom removed. I agree that it is not an ideal solution by far, but what else is there? Without it maybe as much as 95% of the criminals might go free compared to today. Would you not suffer an inconvenient house search if that meant they could get the serial murderer off the streets? The system is in no ways perfect, but unfortunately its the best we've got.
I don't want total freedom, because that would remove all comfort. A balance has to be made, and to be quite frank it isn't bad to live in Norway, not by far. This is because a lot of things are simply not permitted. Our freedom suffers because as a species we are not mature enough to handle the power we are granted through technology. As individuals 99.9% of us are, but the 0.1% can easily mess up everything for the remainder of us. As we progress in technology (or we mature) we might be able to allow more freedom on an individual basis, but currently granting total freedom simply isn't practically possible.
You are not paying attention (or thinking). Did I say "wave them around"? The purpose of having an armed population is NOT to "wave them around". The purpose is to simply have them, so that, should all other possible means of removing a tyrrany fail, the people still have the ultimate means available to them. And you're right, that does mean possibly shooting people but only after all other possible means of maintaining justice have failed.
The main purpose of guns then is to kill people. They serve secondary purposes, but the main one is still to kill. Having guns as a last way out in a dispute is understandable, but it should no be nessesary. If it actually is, then its about time all guns were put into use and a new government put in its place where such extreme measures are not nessesary to make things happen.
When armed revolution is a possibility, governments actually put effort into resolving problems by acceptable means.
They do that if you can threaten their powerbase. A western society today have a lot more weak points that overthrowing the ruler by sheer physical might.
The problem you have is that you think that an armed public is a "threat".
Yes, I see them as a threat to themselves and the rest of society. The cost of having people with guns on "every corner" is one I'm (as an individual) not willing to pay. They might in an extreme case be used to overthrow the goverment and install a new one, but that happens once in a blue moon. The added problems of guns in daily life (accidental shootings, "though guys" with guns, worse working conditions for the police, etc.) outweigh (IMO) the benefits (armed revolution when needed).
You automatically assume that gun is a threat just as you assume that software like DeCSS is bad. You don't understand that an armed people aren't a threat to tyrrany, but the strongest deterrant to it. Do you understand the difference between a threat and a deterrant? From your posts, I get the impression that you don't.
Yes, I do.
Deterrance = discourage from doing something.
Threat = discourage from doing something by intention of punishment (if not compliant).
When you say "change blabla" to a politician and you "deter" with guns you are quite boldly stating and "or else we'll put a bullet through your head". What else can the gun be used for but shooting bullets? It's not like you are offering him a favour like cutting his lawn, you are actually threatening his life.
Also, where the hell do "buildings" come into this? Are you actually reading before replying?
My intention of this statement was that to overthrow a government you have to threaten to shoot people, and when they call your bluff you actually have to go through with it. This was because I thought that your stance on gun usage during a revolution was "not to be used against people". This was clearified further up in the thead when you said you might have to shoot people as a last resort.
Please do me the respect of at least trying to comprehend what I am saying. Only after all other possible means of resolving injustice and removing tyrrany have failed should the final option of armed revolution be exercised. But when armed revolution (and yes, shooting tyrants) is not an option, there is no incentive for a government to resolve such issues by any means, acceptable or otherwise.
Heck, it works over here...
I think your problem is that you find even the potential of violence (not actual violence) to be so unpalatable that you actually (and cowardly) prefer the peace and order of tyrrany to the responsibilities and uncertainty of freedom.
No, what I find unpalatable is that guns are only valid for one purpose, armed revolution, and that is supposed to end any gun control arguments. There are som many bad things connected to guns in daily life that I can't justify all that hurt and pain it causes people by saying "well, at least we can have an armed revolution". I'm sorry, but I just can't.
And if people were serious when it comes to armed revoltuion you would get an assault rifle or a sub machine gun. A handgun would be pathetically less effective in such a senario. Just a thought...
It doesn't seem to me that it's been the people who have been pointing the guns and screaming. It seems to me that it's been the police and government who have been pointing guns at the people and screaming. Apart from that, when the government stops governing and starts behaving like a tyrrany, then it it necessary to remove that tyrrany by any means necessary.
I can'treally agree that the citizes have been completely inert when it comes to escalating violece either. In my eyes both are at fault. But I agree that once a tyranny is in place, it has to go, and most often that can only happen by armed conflict.
Also, here's a little information for you: I, myself, own a gun. I have had it for several decades. You may find this shocking and surprising, but in all the time I have had this gun, not once have I ever "pointed it at someone's head and screamed at them". Nor have any of my gun-owning friends ever pointed their guns at anyone's head and screamed.
Which is why I'm continuing this discussion. If you had not been a sensible and thinking individual, your reply would have been much more discardable.
However, because we are all armed, government and police will have to think twice before they put guns to our heads and scream at us. That is what is meant by an armed people being "a deterrant to tyrranny".
Consider this. A police officer tries to apprehend a suspect of purse snatching or something equally trivial and gets shot dead. What do you think any other police officer will react the next time? They will have to react in such a way that if the suspect has a gun, he doesn't get to use it. Who do they do that? More force than before. Do you see the problem? The very fact that my neighbour has a gun and can potentionally use it against the police will make them behave more brutally towards me as well the next time we encounter each other, even though I might be innocent, since they don't know how much of a threat I pose so they suspect the worst. In this senario you want a gun so you can protect yourself form the (possible) police abuse, whereas I want the neighbour to give up his so that I don't have to protect myself. Isn't my neighbour infringing on my freedom by forcing me to protect myself from his indirect actions?
When civil disobedience has failed to correct injustice, what can an unarmed people do?
They can get weapons. Its not difficult to get weapons, so they don't have to be stacked in your closet (I know, a tad reckless) for you to get your hands on some. Every weaponproducing country will compete to sell arms to either side of an armed revolution. Guns will be plentiful in such a senario.
Ever heard of Kent State? What about the recent police abuses in Seattle? Are you aware that the police in Seattle only began to curb their abuses after the local militia warned them that it was considering involving itself on the side of the protestors? Suddenly, the police began to behave and the militia found that it didn't have to act at all.
I'm unfamiliar with Kent State, but the Seattle thing was very well boradcast over the globe. And to be frank the police when way over the line. The militia was an important display of force, and they quietend down quite fast. But would it have been more effective if politicians had heaps of angry mothers and fathers complaining about police brutality and how the defenceless and peaceful demonstrators were abused? Honestly I don't know, but that might have been just as efficient in the long run.
Simple. It's because the truckers in France already have a large amount of political power to begin with. Congratulations! You have recognized a case of people exercising the political power they already have. But have you ever seen what happens to a people who have no power whatsoever when they try the same thing? They are labeled criminals and crushed completely.
The same people could hardly lead an effective revolution quite simply because if the majority of people think they are wrong they will pick up their guns against the rebels. The people would no automatically get behind any and every revolution that crops up. If the cause is legitimate they might, but don't count on it.
But you are incorrectly assuming that "civilized" countries stay civilized with nothing keeping them that way. Civilization does not happen in a vaccuum. It's also strange to me how you can trust governments to be "civilized" and posess firearms, but not your own neighbors. You seem to think that police will have a concience and know right from wrong. Well what keeps them that way? It sure would be nice to live in a world where police have concience and know right from wrong, but from what I've seen, that's not how the world actually is.
The you and I have experienced two differnet worlds. The police I have been in contact with have all been professional and curteous. And why should we punish the 99% of good police personell when only a few are bad. Here I can turn your own argument against you, why should we punish 99% of police officers just because one or two might do something wrong? Granted we all see that they do wrong to tv, but so do ordinary citizens.
You are also assuming that the police are currently ordinary citizens and that they will stay that way. They haven't been. Since you haven't bothered to read and pay attention to my posts, I guess I can't expect that you've been paying attention to what's been going on in the world around you.
Yes I have. My world. The one in Norway where things are quiet and police don't walk around armed because everyone else might be. My world is nice and peaceful. I really hope the rest of the world will be able to experience the same society I've got, because its absolutely great compared to the stuff that goes on in other parts of the world.
What is it that makes the police not a part of society? Are they actually untouchable by the laws they enforce? If so, you have really got a problem that must be delt with as soon as possible.
In the past several years there has been a concerted shift among "civilized" countries to make their police more than ordinary citizens and merge them with the military. One of the many signs of this, in the US at least, is the current proliferation of 'gun control' laws. Many of these laws have special exemptions for police and other government officials. Now surely, if the police were truly supposed to be "ordinary citizens", they would be subject to exactly the same laws and restrictions as the rest of the public.
Thankfully that has not happened over here. There are some nuts trying to get the police armed, but they also want to stop immigration. Police officers must not be like efveryone else, but they must have the respect of the people they police. When they are excluded from certain laws it is probably not possible to gain the respect nessesary for them to get their job done. Sounds bad, but who let things get that bad? Politicians again? Why would that happen when you have guns to deter such stupidity?
No offense, but your opinion is wrong. The Nazi's in Germany got their power because people like you, who value peace, order, and a strong economy more than freedom, justice, and equality, elected them. And once the Nazi's gained power, they made sure they kept their power by confiscating all firearms from the hands of the people. And people like you, who trust your government to hold a gun to your head more than you trust your neighbors to have a gun in their pockets, applauded this move. Only later did the world see what becomes of this sort of mistake. Unfortunately, if your posts are any evidence, the lesson did not stick.
Why, thank you for that vote of confidence. Nice to know my entire world view and personal character has been dissected on the basis of two or three posts on slashdot.
Please go to a dictionary and look up the definition of what a "threat" is. Then look up what a "deterrant" is. They are not the same thing. I never said "threaten". What I said was "deter".
Well, threatening is deterrance with an intent of punsihment if you do not comply. When you have the means to punish, the deterrance becomes a threat. Look it up.
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up in a big city with people who elegantly step over a homeless person. This is where the main problem is, the "if it doesn't concern me, I don't care." mentality.
I know it's difficult, but please try to stay relevant to the topic. However, since you've added the subject of homelessness to this discussion, you shall now reap my response:
HOW DARE YOU SO ACCUSE ME!
I do not accuse you, read it again. I said people, implying "the average man". Do you dispute that the average man does not care for a homeless person or that most people in your country grow up in a big city (50.000+ inhabitants)? I was hoping to bring up the fact that people in todays society care nothing about a subject unless it touches their daily life, and I used homeless persons as an example, since not many people care about them. I guess from your response you have seen the look on peoples faces when they walk by or over a homeless person, so you know what I'm talking about.
You have absolutely no idea of who I am. This comment of yours is completely typical of the arrogance of those who form opinions in the absence of learning anything about the subject. First of all, I did not grow up in a city. Secondly, my own brother, who I love very much, is also homeless. How dare you accuse me of not having concern for his plight or that of other homeless people. But like most people with your views, you have no idea of what homelessness means or anything else about how the world actually works.
And I suppose you have not made assumptions about me, my country or my "way of life"?
You have no idea of who I am either. At least I post this message in my own name and not hiding behind an anonymous handle. How do you expect me to know who you are when you keep it hidden? I don't even know which country you live in, how old you are or if you are a man or a woman. Of cource I don't know you, this is the first time I've ever conversed with you. What do you expect?
Judging from your reply this is a rather sensitive personal matter, and if you feel hurt by my remark, I'm sorry, that was not my intention.
This discussion is getting very long, and way of topic. If you feel the need to continue the discussion feel free to reply by e-mail. If not we can agree to disagree and let this part of the thread die.
BTW: Wow. 3 hours. I haven't written this intensely since I was in school.
Yet another person who doesn't Get It.
Well, I'm Norwegain, so sorry if I don't think American.
Dealing with the "big corporations" and government "invading" or inhibiting the freedom of the commmon man is often quite simply because the common man overstepped the bounds of society.
GMAFB! How did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that DoubleClick can track my every move?
I said usually, not always. Letting anyone track you everywere is bad, but someone is going to try to do it and keep on doing it until they get a hard slap on the wrist. You don't need guns to do that, you just need a legal/political system that works.
When did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that I can be arrested and punished for simply having a piece on code on my computers that the companies don't like?
What kind of code? DeCss or something more "sinister"?
DeCss is bad in the sence that it jeopardises the intellectual rights of the people who make the contents of a DVD disc. They might even feel so threatened that they stop releasing DVD altogether. Would that make you feel better if you knew that the reason we can't have DVDs is because people abuse the trust placed in them by the movie companies? When DeCss was released they (the movie companies) felt that trust was broken.
I have never had anything to do with illegal drugs, so when did I "overstep the bounds of society" so that my home can be invaded, my property confiscated, and my life endangered just because the government thinks I might have drugs there.
When society (which is guarded by the goverment and its policing force) suspect that a crime has been comitted they can investigate. What is it about Americans and "invading my privacy/home etc" that gets them totally on edge? If there had been a crime in my neighborhood and the police came to my door and showed me a search warrant I wouldn't complain, I would let them do their job. They might be wrong, but they might be right. I would gladly suffer the inconvenice of having my house searched if that means they can do the same to the people who actually have comitted a crime. That doesn't mean I would want them to do it though, and if they are wrong too often then need to get better at it. Fast.
It seems to me that I'm not the one who has been "overstepping the bounds of society". So how do you intend to stop those who actually are?
Let the police do their job. Its not a job I envy them to be quite frank. The media shouting police brutality if someone stubs a toe when being arrested for a murder etc. etc. Frankly the media in the US disgust me. And what is more frightening is that Norwegian tv channels are starting to broadcast show like "Americas wildest police shootouts" etc. Once that hits the TV screens you know that something is seriously wrong with a society.
Of cource the "big guys" overreact and abuse their power, especially in the US it seems, but the other alternative is total anarchy.
Since when is an empowerd populace "total anarchy"? That's just the big lie told to people to keep them from exercising their power. I guess to some people order and peace are much more importand than liberty, justice, and equality. And it was for those people that Hitler got the trains to run on time.
So as soon as the goverment denies an action to a citicen it is facist? Unless people grow up and take responsibility for their actions the government will have impose restrictions. Why is it illegal to kill people (not in self defence)? Because someone did at one point or another, and that means that person abused his freedom. You cannot have freedom without responsibility, and when people won't be responsible for their actions (even if we are talking about 0.001% of the populace) the government has to force it upon them. And it can not afford anyone to get away, since that would undermine the very reason for the government (and its police force) to exist.
Grabbing a gun and shooting people is not "within the bounds of society", at least not the kind of society I want to live in.
Helloooo??? Did I ever say "start shooting people"? Pay attention! The point of an empowered and armed populace is not that they will start shooting people.
The reason for having guns is to wave them around an not use them? Wouldn't that make them inefficient as a display of force, since you are not willing to shoot people anyway? And you will have to shoot people if you choose that road, because a building isn't a governing body, the people inside are.
The point is that the don't shoot but instead choose to settle their issues at the ballot box. Then the government has to honor the vote of the people because the people have the power to enforce their vote and remove their government if necessary. It's an issue of the people having guns and not shooting, but retaining the possibility should government abuse the power granted to it.
I.e. shooting people. The way to bring out the worst in a person is to put a gun to his head and screm at him. Why would you threaten to do that to people who are supposed to govern you? Civil disobedience (strikes etc.) work remarkably well, since a government can't work without its supporting infrastructure. Do you really think that a peaceful strike could be broken up in a western country with police force? Look at France, they have had massive strikes by truckes that has paralysed the country for days. Now considering the tough policy France has on terrorism, why weren't the strikers sent to internment camp or shot or whatever? Because a "civilised" country has to rely on a police force, which so far is made up of ordinary citicens, and they will have a concience about what if wrong and what is right. This is where nazi germany got its power to do what it did (IMO). Anonymizing the police force and segmenting (mentally) the police force from the people it was supposed to protect.
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up with images of weapons always being used, but please make the effort to think about it. Violence is never the best solution, but the potential for violence prevents a lot of problems. It's called "deterrance".
And most of the time threatening an animal with its back against the wall will make it lash out. I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, having grown up in a big city with people who elegantly step over a homeless person. This is where the main problem is, the "if it doesn't concern me, I don't care." mentality.
BTW: Afraid to put your name on those viewpoints?
They don't respect a little citizen with a gun, they just send the SWAT team to blow his brain out. One less IQ-deficient person in the world.
Dealing with the "big corporations" and government "invading" or inhibiting the freedom of the commmon man is often quite simply because the common man overstepped the bounds of society. Of cource the "big guys" overreact and abuse their power, especially in the US it seems, but the other alternative is total anarchy. Some leeway has to be given in both respects, but ofcource one should do whatever one can to correct a mistake, within the bounds of society, once it is apparent. Grabbing a gun and shooting people is not "within the bounds of society", at least not the kind of society I want to live in.
I just want to add some information I picked up regarding the Merced. I heard that the chip is extremely near tape-out. The person who said this was NOT specific regarding the exact time, but the implication was within the next two months or so. The validity of rumors are, as always, dependent on who supplies them, and I heard this at a lecture given by Frank Baetke (Manager of High-Performance Computing Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Gremany/USA) at the HiPer'99 conference. He should have access to the correct information from Intel, since Intel and HP are more or less bedmates when it comes to the IA-64 technology and implementation.
When it comes to the sucess/faliure of the Merced, keep in mind that the Merced has to/should implement the new all-cool speed increasing stuff that Intel shoves into the PIII (and beyond), and not only the entierly new stuff as the Merced must show off. Also getting VLIW to work is very much a matter of getting the compilers 'in tune' with the chip. Much more so with VLIW than ordinary RISC/CISC CPU's.
Secondly, keep in mind that IA-64 isn't a pure VLIW implemetation, it is also possible to run normal/sequential code on it as well (although it will probably be optimised for parallel code, duh). In the lecture that followed Yale Patt decribed the IA-64 as VLIW-when-you-need-it, more or less the best of both worlds, if done right. (If you don't know who Yale Patt is then you had better freshen up on your prosessor architecture knowledge!) He also seemed quite enthusiastic about the IA-64, or as enthusiastic as a guru can become of a commecial design. :)