California did not refuse to construct new plants......nobody _wanted_ to invest in building a plant...
Oh, I'm sorry, I always thought refusal meant you didn't want to do something, and acceptance meant you did want to. I see now that's all a conservative lie! Refusal means you DO want to, and not wanting to means you accept...wait, now I'm even more confused than you are.
I would think that if no one wanted to construct new plants, that would mean no new plants were built...How is that not refusing to build new ones?
"Bob, I think we should build a new power plant." "Nah, I don't want to. It isn't financially smart." "Ok, well, as long as you don't want to, we won't build one... just don't refuse to!" "Well, that's what I just did." "Oh Bob, you're so silly, don't you know that words only mean what we want them to these days?"
...how the administration blatantly lied to justify the war...
Which is your (and their) opinion. Nice of them to share their opinions while supposedly reporting facts.
...or how the war in Iraq is a total debacle...
Which is contradicted by reporters who are *there*. Not to mention that the Iraqis who no longer fear that they or their children will be tortured or killed for holding unpopular opinions would probably not agree with you or CNN either, and which is again total opinion. Nice reporting, again.
...or how their relationship with the Saudis compromises their own unwinable war on terror...
So now CNN can predict the future too? Where were they on 9/10/2001?
...or how their foreign policy has made us either hated or humiliated in every corner of the planet...
Hated by the French, who profited from Saddam's reign, to the tune of billions that should have gone to the Iraqi people? Hated by the Russians who see their chance at recovering the $12 billion they lent Saddam go byebye? Hated by Muslims whose religion has been twisted by those with their own agenda to make us hated anyhow?
...their domestic policy has crushed our civil rights like a nutsack under their heel...
Nice try. Homeland security was unanimously voted for. That means liberals voted for it too. Stop trying to blame national hysteria that affected liberals in power just as much as a result of the Bush administration's actions, because it simply isn't. You may want to conveniently forget the Democrats who spoke so eloquently for the creation of the dept. of homeland security, but I have not.
...while enriching their corporate masters at our expense...
That's what *all* politicians do, except *some* of those at the local level. If you think the liberal politicians are any less under the thumb of special interests, you're not only foolish, you're deluding yourself. Again, being blind to your side's faults (especially when they're the very ones you're railing against) is rather unrealistic. Where do you think most campaign money comes from? Hint: it isn't from regular people choosing to donate that money to their favorite candidate. That does happen, but it isn't the major source of major party candidates.
...It's like you can't just turn on the news anymore and watch your president land on an aircraft carrier and wave a flag and be happy.
Umm, that's exactly what I watched for like 2 weeks. In fact they just did another story about it on CNN the other day. What an important story! Almost as important as 16 words or 8 lines or whatever the meme of the day is regarding intelligence that HAS YET TO BE INVALIDATED. The Brits believe it, but I suppose trusting allies is against the liberal platform or something.
I wish they'd just focus on the important stuff like the Kobe trial or put a bunch of talk shows on where they yell about how stupid liberals are. That always makes me feel better.
Sure. As if the Kobe trial wasn't big news on every freaking channel for days. I suppose CNN wouldn't stoop to covering a celeberity trial, huh? Nah. They wouldn't spend months on something like that, a celeberity accused of some crime. They wouldn't ignore serious stories in favor of something like that, would they? No white broncos on CNN. No sir. They don't care about ratings, just reporting the facts and allowing people to come up with their own opinions....HAHAHAhahaha sorry I just couldn't say that with a straight face. Also, I've yet to see anyone besides bill o'reilly actually yell about how stupid liberals are. Personally, I don't find liberals to be stupid, but I sure do find some of the pages from the 'liberal's guide to blaming everything on Bush' to be quite funny.
For the record, I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian, and I find the liberal's insistenc
If you were talking to me (you replied to my post, after all) no, i wasn't making that point in this particular case. I was simply pointing out to the poster I replied to that his arguments started with assumptions of questionable reality, then added vaguaries only tenuously connected to said assumption, then finished out either with a non-sequiter or a blantantly inappropriate conclusion. That's all I wanted to point out to the grandparent poster. Your point on censorship is taken, and I will say that even with all the confusion about various definitions, had the agreement presented when you create your account on friendster stated that you could make false profiles, instead of explicitly denying you that privelege, and they were only removing those 'fakesters' that they didn't like, I could live with people calling it censorship. However, as the agreement to join clearly states that fake accounts/statements are not allowed, it isn't friendster who is breaking the rules. Being deleted for breaking clearly posted rules that you agreed to can in no way, shape, or form be considered censorship.
The definition of 'censorship' does not have the word 'government' in it.
Whatever. Depends where you go to find the definition you prefer to use. I guess the Roman censors weren't part of the government. I guess the 'offical' or 'authority' part of the definition doesn't mean government. Yes, I know m-w.com doesn't put it in the definition, however why not check around? You'll surely find it, unless you choose not to. Whatever it says on m-w.com, the connotation alone is certainly one of authority or officials, of which the owner of a matchmaking website is neither.
If the idea behind the group is to share each other's comments about the news, and the control involves governing the content of those comments, how is that not censorship?
You're a tool. Look up the definition of 'censorship' and answer your own retarded question. Try not to start arguments with 'if'.
If the site depends upon a given flow of visitors to fund ever increasing bandwidth and equipment costs, does free speech depend upon escaping from that system?
I stand corrected.
If you are the biggest tool on slashdot, does your mom depend on your government assistance?
See how the above sentence begins with an unprovable assumption, adds in something only vaguely related and not at all applicable, and then ends with a non-sequiter? That's what you've done in your post.
When you create an infrastructure for people to communicate with, you must make a basic choice: are you the publisher, or only the provider?
Scenario:
I decide to start my own club, and I decide it will be a, say, fantasy football club, and that the only people allowed in will be those with an interest in fantasy football, and that most discussion *during the club meetings* will be about fantasy football.
Given the above scenario, I've created a private infrastrucure for communication, dedicated to one thing: fantasy football. Now, someone says they want to join, and says that they like fantasy football and wish to discuss it, but then come meeting time they show up dressed in a multi-colored jumpsuit with one of those stupid jester hats on, and only want to sing '60s folk tunes. If I kick this person out of my club, am I censoring them? Hell no. They can go somewhere else and sing whatever they want. I'm not denying them the *right* to say whatever they want, I'm just protecting my club member's right to do what they signed up for in the first place. That's not censorship. Now, if the government created a webforum for all US citizens to use however they wanted (ostensibly) and then they started deleting profiles they didn't like, *that* would be censorship. However, if the government started a web forum for discussion of tax policies, and they deleted all profiles that did not discuss tax policies, that would NOT be censorship. If a system is designed for a certain use, and people are not using it for that, the creator of the system can remove them. That isn't censorship. It says before you join up what the site is for. If you don't want to use it for that, go somewhere else. There is no 'well-defined constitution' on friendster.com that says you can be anyone other than yourself, or that you can post fake pictures/profiles. Your example and reasoning are both flawed.
Re:faraday cage means nothing anymore ?
on
Aquarium Modcase
·
· Score: 1
I thought a PC case was a metal box to stop EM radiation/interference etc surely cutting huge holes in your case isnt going to do much other than piss off the local Taxi firm,ham radio,cb,baby alarms,ambulances,fire tenders,baby alarms,police oh and probably kill the fish.
first: If your computer puts out enough EMI to do more than (perhaps) fuzz your tv picture (if the computer is very close to the tv), then you've got bigger problems.
second: The fish in the FA are plastic. How exactly would EMI kill them? Wouldn't they have to be alive first?
third: People run their computers with the panels off quite often, and I haven't heard of anyone interfering with taxi firms, ham radio people, CB people or police/ambulances/fire trucks/senators/maytag repairmen. now baby alarms? what the fuck is a baby alarm? babies have been spotted! sound the alarm! *wooot* *wooot*...perhaps it's a conception alarm? Anyhow, haven't heard of any problems with those either.
why bother having interference laws and emission regulations egh ?
I've often wondered that myself. If someone manages to somehow create enough EMI from their house to cause problems, just ask them to find better shielding for whatever they're doing, or stop. So, are you a complete dolt, or just a troll? The world may never know.
nice troll. I'd rather believe that than to think that someone actually believes that the rich are the only ones who benefit from police, fire depts, blah blah etc. See, the problem isn't that poor people are only getting a little bit of money to survive. It's that the money those people are getting is less than half of what is paid into the system they're getting it from. This system also encourages dependancy and has so many cracks in it the people who *don't* fall through them are the exception. Police departments in poor neighborhoods cost taxpayers more than those in rich neighborhoods. Same with hospitals. If you really believe that the rich benefit most from *government spending* as differentiated from legislative preference (which the rich do get and which is despicable), you are wrong. Also, if you make 100,000 dollars a year, you will be paying more than 40% to the goverment, currently. Sure, it's still more than the guy who makes 40 grand is getting, but so what? What incentive is there to get rich if your bills outpace your earnings? Why should you work 6 months out of the year for the government? They're not doing a good enough JOB to be worth 6 months of my valuable time.
you don't just take a nail file to a gun serial number as they're on the barrel
This applies to guns manufactured recently, not to the many many old guns out there. In fact, after 2000, guns are now required to have a second, hidden serial number. However, serial numbers have not *always* been on the barrel, and not all of them are imprinted deeply enough to violate the integrity of the barrel when fired, or at least not for the few times a gun with a filed-off serial number is going to be fired. also, sure there's a risk, but have you ever seen a zip gun? probably not, though I'd rather fire a filed-off serial number gun 30 times than a zip gun once. thanks for incorrectly correcting me. I never said you took a nail file to it, and I didn't say a 2 year old could do it, I said it was 'fairly trivial', and it is. Search google for 'filed off serial number gun' and you'll find that out for yourself. I've personally known several people over the years that have had guns w/filed off serial numbers. I love how on Slashdot, people expect *me* to ignore my own experience because they have a different *theory*, or they read something conflicting on the internet. I don't expect you to put more stock in my words than in your own personal experience, but I'm afraid that I will have to put more stock in my own personal experience than in your 1995 school research. Also, just as a hint, ususally, there are more than 2 ways to do something. Not always, I'll grant, but usually. Also, you can get guns at flea markets, and I'm not sure where they come from, but they're mysteriously bare of serial numbers. again, you don't have to believe me, but all you have to do is go to a few flea markets, and your experience will parallel mine, I'm sure. (qualification: I'm in texas, your state may vary.)
That's not true. If we suddenly deregulated driving I bet hundreds of people who now don't drive would start driving.
Why would you suppose that? Would they suddenly be able to afford a car? It isn't like you have to be Einstein to pass a DMV test, and once you pass you never have to do it again. Wow, that's real effective.
Parents might start letting their kids on the road at 14.
If their child is mature enough, why shouldn't they? If the child isn't, they're legally responsible. So why shouldn't they have to actually be PARENTS? The government can't watch over us and make all our decisions. Besides, nothing's stopping the kid from taking the car joyriding, just because they don't have a license. I really don't see what benefit you get, other than having a pretty much mandatory ID, even though our founding fathers didn't want anything like that to exist. I guess they didn't know what they were doing.
In my opinion we should close those loopholes. The problem is not that we are trying to regulate guns, its that we are only doing a half-assed job. They're simply trying to apease the NRA and the anti-gun groups at the same time.
In Britain, they've closed the loopholes I mentioned and most of the others, as private gun ownership is almost unheard of, legally. However they still have plenty of gun crime and gun deaths. In Switzerland, where guns are not regulated in any way, save that each household with a male of a certain age *must* have one, they have very little gun crime, and the majority of that is caused by people who are transients, and not residents of Switzerland. So, the heavily regulated country has problems with gun violence, the unregulated one (where gun education is mandatory in public school) has very very little. Yet you continue to argue that regulation is the answer. It doesn't make logical sense.
What makes those laws unenforceable?
Whenever a person gets ticketed for speeding, there are many many many more who are not ticketed. Many people speed, and yet they do not get daily tickets, and they have no reasonable expectation of being ticketed during any one violation. That is what makes it unenforceable. I once had a state trooper who was teaching a defensive driving class tell me that you should go up to 5 miles over the speed limit if the traffic around you is. That's a freaking law enforcement officer telling his defensive driving class to break the law. It would be like making spoons illegal. How on Earth would you expect to enforce that law? No one would fear having one because they would have no reasonable expectation of being caught. It would be an unenforceable law.
I might get away with murder too, but that doesn't mean it's an uneforceable law.
The vast majority of murders are solved. Can you say that for the vast majority of speeders? Not with a straight face. Murderers have a reasonable expectation of being caught. Murder is not often overlooked, while speeding is overlooked EXTREMELY often. Ask yourself this: on any given day, are you more likely to get away with something like: not having a dog license, speeding, not having a ham radio license, not having a driver's license, not having insurance; or are you more likely to get away with murder? I would rather have cops out looking for murderers than people with no dog license, if it's all the same to you.
That's all fine and dandy if you're a millionaire. But what happens if you do $100,000 damage to me an my property? How are you going to compensate me?
If I didn't have the cash on hand, I'd probably go buy insurance. My problem isn't with the insurance industry, per se, it's with the state telling me that by law, I MUST take the gamble that is insurance. If I could change the law to read: You must be able to show proof of insurance or other proof that you are solvent, instead of 'you must have insurance period point blank' that would be fine with me. However, I don't see any reason why driving is
Well you seem to be under the impression that a regulation is worthless unless everyone actually follows it. I would say that is just stupid.
Actually, I said that regulations are useless because the people who follow it don't *need* regulating, and the people who don't follow it don't care what the regulation is.
Does everyone driving a car right now have a valid license? Not by a long shot. Does that mean we should stop licensing drivers? No way.
Why not? If we stopped licensing drivers, would that make killing pedestrians legal? Of course not. Drivers were not always licensed, and yet somehow the country survived.
Does everyone driving have valid insurance. Nope. Does that mean we should do away with the law? Nope.
The states which have insurance laws for driving (mine included) should do away with those laws, yes. You are and should be required to be liable for any damage you cause, but that should only include an insurance company if you wish it to. I have never caused an accident in over 12 years of driving, yet every month for those 12 years I have paid money to an insurance company because it is required by law. It has never been neccessary and it should not be legally required. I could buy 2 more cars with what I have basically lit on fire and burned up by paying it to an insurance company for a service I do not wish to have that I only get because it is required by law. During this time, I have been hit by 3 uninsured motorists, and though in 2 cases I was paying for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, my insurance company weaseled out of paying me anything. This law has done NOTHING for me but cost me a shitload of money and make some insurance company's profits higher.
Is there a black market for guns. Sure. Can criminals get a gun without going through loopholes. Sure. Does that mean we should stop regulating guns? That's a tricker issue. I say no.
It's not the black market that makes guns so available, it's the grey market. Flea markets, gun shows, 'collector' sales, all these can be used to obtain a handgun with no registration and no wait time, and it is quasi-legal. I'm not *just* referring to the black market, although it is certainly there. As I said, anyone who wants to badly enough will find out. Flea markets and gun shows advertise in many newspapers and on tv and radio as well.
If regulation has saved one life, I think it's worth it. Just remember, not everyone knows how to get a black market gun.
That's a very hard to fulfil 'if' statement. For example, suppose you see me in the middle of the Sahara desert, waving a mysterious pendant around. You ask me what I'm doing, and I tell you I'm keeping the sharks away. When you tell me that there aren't any sharks in the Sahara desert, I just say "see? It's working! I'm SAVING LIVES!" Please tell me how regulation has saved a life. That's just like saying that airport security has prevented millions of terrorist attacks. It's not prevention if the intention wasn't there, and proving that someone had the idea to do something but chose not to is impossible. In contrast, each gun fatality in this country is a life lost that registration did *not* save. Here's a hint: Guns are completely illegal in Britain, yet they still have gun deaths each year. How can that be? Also, they have nicely complimentary murder rates per population with the rest of the civilized world, though with lower gun deaths compared to the USA. People are still getting killed, just not by guns. Yay, that's a victory. Guess all that regulation isn't stopping the grim reaper, huh?
Personally, if I ever feel that my life is in danger, like someone sends me a death threat or something, I'm not going to wait 2 weeks to get a gun. I'm going to go to a pawn shop or a flea market or something, and get one *that day*, because if you've ever had someone threaten you, and you try to go to the cops with it, they don't give a shit. I would never use a gun ex
If anyone who wants to can just go out and kill them any time they want that leads to problems. The only way I see to stop that from happening is to regulate hunters.
How does regulation stop them? Why does a line of words in a book in the courthouse mean I can't go get a gun and shoot whatever I want? I mean, sure, there *may* be penalties to me after the deed is done, but how does the law PREVENT it? I've known people who did offseason hunting to supplement their food supply, and regulations never stopped them. See, the thing that we need to realize as a society is that fear of punishment is of limited effectiveness in preventing undesirable behavior. I don't know if you've ever worked with 5 year old kids, but if not, they will demonstrate my point very clearly to you. They can learn rules, repeat rules, point out others who are breaking the rules, but if they decide they want to do something that is against the rules, they are going to just do it. The same thing applies to adult laws and regulations. I can carve 'Don't hit me' in stone or make 3 foot high letters that say it and stand right behind them, but if someone wants to hit me, and they don't understand or don't care about punishment, they're going to do it. You act as though people *can't* just go out and kill whatever they want, whenever they want. However, that's just not true. If they fear the consequences, perhaps they *will* not do it, but that doesn't mean they *can* not, and there is no law on earth that PREVENTS them from doing it. Law enforcement is reactive, and should always be. They solve cases, not prevent them, as a rule. I just don't understand making laws and regulations that are not and cannot be enforced. (by cannot be enforced, I mean cannot be enforced fully and impartially; selective enforcement does not count, and is, in my opinion, extremely evil)
I do think we have a little too much regulation in certain areas (drugs, tobacco, and alchohol are my pet peeves). However, I have to disagree about guns and hunting licenses. First, gun regulation might not keep guns out of all the criminal hands, but it will keep guns out of hands of people who simply shouldn't have one.
How? I guarantee you that ANYONE who wants a gun badly enough can get one. I could get one in high school for 50 bucks. I also guarantee you that regulation does not stop crime. If regulation keeps guns out of the hands of those who 'simply shouldn't have one', where do gang members get their guns? Are they registered? Where do the Uzis and AK-47s come from? Please tell me how regulation applies to the black market. Also, you mentioned drugs, tobacco, and alcohol as examples of too much regulation, yet do you honestly know anyone who is not able to find those things if they look? I know my first taste of alcohol came well before my 21st birthday, even though the regulations say it couldn't have.
Gun registration has another upside as well. If all the legal guns are supposed to be registered, then it's much easier to track guns used in crimes.
Actually, many times registration *complicates* tracking the guns, because they are registered to a legal owner who has never used them to commit a crime, but have been stolen. Now, when the police find the body of crack addict a, and find the gun used by crack addict b in the trash can, they have to investigate the registered owner, even though he had no part in the crime. It's also fairly trivial to file a serial number, so no one would know where a particular gun came from. Also, if someone is going to use their personally registered gun in a crime, it most likely would be a 'crime of passion', in which case a knife would do as well, or a baseball bat. I don't see anyone pushing for those to be registered. Bottom line: Criminals will not follow regulatory laws, and honest citizens that *will* follow them don't need to be regulated. It's an unenforceable law with no purpose other than to make people *feel* safer, and to appease those who don't believe in our right to own guns. I suppose they'd rather people just went back to bludgeoning or stabbing each other to death. It's not like murder and armed robbery were invented with gunpowder, you know. We also had war before guns. The problem with gun control can be summed up in one sentance: If somebody wants you dead badly enough, you will die. It doesn't matter to me if someone shoots me, stabs me, whacks me on the head, poisons me, drowns me, whatever. The result is the same. All the laws and regulations on Earth won't change that simple fact. It applies to terrorists as well. All of these homeland security things we're doing are nearly pointless. There's no reason to become totally lax, but subjecting old women and little kids to strip searches just because they wanna go to Disneyworld is FUCKING STUPID. Not only do our stupidly comprehensive 'security measures' inconveniece the 99.99999999% of travelers that AREN'T up to anything nefarious, they also provide thousands of false positives for (so far) no prevention. I mean, the shoe bomber went right through all that elaborate security, only to screw up at the last minute. Airport security had nothing to do with his failure. People have smuggled all manner of weapons onto planes, just to prove that the security isn't all that good. Yet we still spend billions on it, for no reason other than the appearance of safety. All it does is waste time and money.
Second, hunting licenses I believe are usually less to regualte the hunters and more to regulate how many animals get killed.
Yes....that is what they are *intended* to do, but again, why bother making something a law, and spending sooooo much to administer it, and yet it is for all intents and purposes unenforceable. How many vans and trucks with campers/bed covers do you see each day? Any one of them could contain MANY illegally shot animals. Poa
Most people outside the IT Industry use computers as a tool, a means to an end.
Umm...I'm *in* the IT industry, and that's what I use them for. In this instance, the computer I'm currently using is a tool which allows me to view and post on slashdot. I don't think I want to know what *your* use is, because if it isn't a means to an end, it's the end itself, and that's just disturbing.
And yet there are NO requirements in place to ensure people are competant when using that (potentially dangerous) tool.
What, you mean like a chainsaw? Don't need a license for that. Don't need to pass a test, and you can do a LOT more damage with a chainsaw than a 'net connection. If you don't believe me, we'll have a duel: you get a net connection (but the computer's bolted down), and I get a chainsaw. Let's go three rounds and we'll see who does more damage. How about a welding torch? You sometimes need a license to get a job using em, but you can buy a welding torch without one. How about riding lawnmowers, javelins, machetes, barbecue grills with propane tanks on em? ginsu knives? hammers? what about books? television? board games? coconuts? band saws? ladders? Each of the former can do more actual damage than can a 'net connection. Should everything we use require testing and registration? Who would enforce and dispense these permits? Would we then have cops busting down our doors because they heard music and they didn't have a copy of our radio permits on file? Do you really not see how stupid all this regulation is? There was a time when you could buy a driver's license at Sears...and they didn't even make you take a test. Did the world blow up? No. There was a time when you didn't have to have a license to own a gun. Oddly enough, not only are people still around, but some bad people aren't registering their guns! Who knew that a criminal wouldn't follow a regulatory law? Regulations such as the one you propose and many that are actually in existence suffer from the same problem: those who are conscientious enough to get the regulation are unlikely to misuse their privelege, while those who intend to misuse the privelege do not follow the regulations. Example: Joe Dentist purchases a handgun for home protection. He fills out all registration forms, completes the basic safety test, and waits 2 weeks to be approved. Meanwhile, Billy Bob Criminal wants to rob a liquor store. He calls his friend Danny Jay Fence, and buy from him a stolen gun. That same day, he robs a liquor store and kills the clerk. In this example, regulation did NOTHING to stop the criminal from getting/using a gun, and Joe Dentist was put through 2 weeks of hoopla for no reason. We claim we're protecting people, but in reality people are no safer. In your example, suppose there is a test one must pass to begin computing. How long do you think the answers will stay with these people? I see people every day who at one time passed a driving test, yet who now do REALLY STUPID things. I can't count the number of people who *know* what virus scanners do, and who *know* they should run them, but who don't. There's a major difference between passing a test and day to day usage 5 years down the road. Personally, I don't believe we should regulate driving, guns, hunting/fishing licenses, any of that stuff. If some complete dumbass wants to build a bazooka-powered jetpack, let him. If he kills himself, no big loss. If he kills someone else, well, there's already a law against that, and it's much easier to enforce than some crappy regulation. We shouldn't be preserving the dregs of the gene pool from their own idiocy. Let's not put instructions on toothpaste anymore. If someone can't figure out how to use toothpaste, THEY DO NOT NEED TO REPRODUCE. Shit, if there's anything that NEEDS to be regulated which isn't, there you have it. Reproduction. We all get sad when we see pictures of starving kids from other countries....yet, even though there has been too little food for the population, the people there KEEP HAVING KIDS. Whether you
Thank you for brightening my day! Your idiocy is refreshing, and your lack of comprehension is amusing. If you really *are* that stupid, my condolences. If, as I'd rather believe, you're looking to annoy people, I'm afraid that's failed. Your posts today have given me very much amusement. Now I'll let you get back to fucking your Uncle Dad. Have a nice day!
If so, just what do you plan to cut in order to meet a balanced budget? Shall we cut:
* The Military.
No.
* NASA.
* HHS (Health and Human Services).
* HUD (Housing and Urban Development, which included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan backing).
* FDA (Federal Drug Administration).
* FBI and other law enforcement activities.
* Infrastructure support, etc etc etc.
Yes, mostly.
It's obvious we both care about this issue quite a bit, and I don't want to end up just frustrating both of us. Every response I have to what you're saying is predicated upon the notion that the government is doing way more than it should, that it should be *radically* scaled back, and I don't believe that you would find that assertion palatable. Similarly I find your responses to be coming from a viewpoint that is contrary to what I believe most deeply. I assure you, you will never convince me that big national government is good or that I have any *legal* responsibility to pay for someone else's laziness or stupidity or bad luck (although I personally think I have a *moral* obligation, I consider that none of the government's business) Also, I realize that it's equally unlikely that I'll convince you that states should be more powerful and that most of the national government should be dismantled, and that people should be responsible for their *own* well-being. It's not a new debate, and I don't see what can be gained from further back and forth except frustration. I am willing to agree to disagree.
We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption,
What do you consider low income? People who make 30k or under, if they have any kids, pay *no* income tax. At least 40% of people in this country pay no income tax. If you believe that payroll taxes should be cut, fine...I'm with you. But saying that bush's tax cut was 'for the rich' is very misleading and ultimately breeds nothing but class hatred, which isn't good for anyone. We should severely slash our government's budget and severely reduce its sphere of influence. We should, but instead we bitch about 'the rich', forgetting that if there weren't any rich people, there would be far fewer employers. I find it terribly amusing how people can hate 'the rich' so much, when even our poor are rich compared to the poor in many countries. Also, I've found that people's definition of 'rich' changes with their own bank balance. 'Rich' is apparently anyone with more than you, while 'poor' is apparently having the same or less income. If you want to oppose the bush administration, fine. Just don't call the tax cut 'for the rich', because it wasn't. I still want to know what people think will happen when fewer than 30% of the country is responsible for the *entire* income tax burden. It is coming, and it won't be pretty. Also, I heard bill clinton bitching about how he wants to pay taxes and he doesn't want the 80k he's going to save with bush's tax cut....but I don't see him donating it to the government. You can do that, you know, but even the very people who bitch the most about this tax cut won't take the opportunity to do so. That tells me far more than their rhetoric ever could.
OK, ignoring your obvious lack of proofreading, *you* posted that the government is spending twice for its software. *I* didn't come out with an assertion. *You* did. I said that in my experience (working on an Air Force base), your assertion was wrong. You're perfectly free to doubt my word, but doubting my word does not provide proof of your assertion. All I asked was that you back up an assertion that you made with proof. The fact that you think that makes me 'pompus' is a sign of your limited intelligence. I'm suuuuuure you know what the word means....even though you have no clue how to spell it. (yes, that was sarcasm, peabrain.) Tell you what, how about this: When I make a baseless assertion, rather than shooting yours down, I'll provide proof. However, since *you* were the one who came out with the 'government is spending twice' thing, *you* have the burden of proof. *I* didn't make your statement. If you can't back it up, shut the fuck up. Assuming, that is, that you know how, you unbelieveable moron. I'll make a deal with you, if you have the mental capacity to understand it: You back your assertion up with proof, then I'll provide my proof as to why you are wrong (or fail to). That way, we go in the logical order, and something might be accomplished. However, since there *is* no proof for your ridiculous assertion, I expect no more than the silly crap you've been posting, simply attacking me (in a very ineffectual way) instead of backing up what you originally said. If you don't want me to 'come at you lie you have to prove this and that' then don't go around spouting 'this and that' and I won't ask you to prove it.
Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year.
You're such a moron. Tax cuts are supposed to be for people who...PAY TAXES. In this 'for the rich' tax cut, people who don't pay taxes are getting between $400-$3k back that they didn't even pay into the system....I'd like to see a 'rich' person that gets more money back from the IRS than he or she gives to it. Wake up. National income taxes shouldn't even be neccesary. Before WWII, we managed to run the whole damn country without them. Will you be happy when 75% of the population is on government assistance and the 25% that's left paying for it moves away? Who's going to subsidize your huge government bureaucracies then? A tax cut shouldn't be an entitlement program, yet this one is and it's STILL being attacked as for the 'rich'. You must think 20k a year is 'rich'.
And no, the answers to all the world's problems are not necessarily in space, unless Tang and pens that can write upside down can stop war and famine.
So I suppose that unless something can stop war and famine, it isn't worth doing? I mean...we only got tons of great medical technology from the space program...who needs MRIs and CAT scans? They don't stop war and famine! Not to mention the interesting effects on nerve regeneration that happen in space, I mean...allowing nerve-damaged people the opportunity to feel or see or hear again...that's worthless, because it doesn't stop war and famine. Of course, by that logic, nothing in the history of the planet has ever been worth anything because we yet have war and famine to this day. Perhaps being able to have a seperate planet for each elitist clique that wants one can help end war, and the abundance of resources could help end famine...of course, it will take time, cost money, and won't directly benefit joshua404 right away...so it's worthless.
its easy to say disprove, its hard to prove something, sorry i cant give you the hard data on that one, cause its probably pretty confidential stuff i am sure
Um..so confidential that they have an article that slashdot picked up about it...it's easy to say 'the gov't pays twice for stuff', it's hard to prove. They get a decent deal from microsoft, and yeah it's a lot of money, but it's also a lot of computers....$950 for software for 4 years isn't bad. I'm not in the military, i just work at an air force base. I agree that *some* money to run the gov't comes from taxes....but if you think that the only source of revenue the US government has is tax money...you're an idiot. No one's saying they get stuff free...I'm just saying that they're not paying for *this software* twice, like you said they were. when you say 'to each his own' are you referring to alternate realities?
You said they were paying for the software *twice*, now you're saying we're paying for it *once*...which was my point...you're *supposed* to pay for things once. the military buys computers from dell at a discount, which have dell recovery cds and which have windows on them prinstalled, but not office or anything else. Then, the military buys licenses from microsoft for windows and office and images them onto the computers. now, if they were paying for everything twice, which they aren't, you could find "proof" of it and that's what I asked for. You made an assertion which you can not back up and now you're backpedaling. "proof" is needed before you make a statement.
Slashdot Mirror
California did not refuse to construct new plants... ...nobody _wanted_ to invest in building a plant...
Oh, I'm sorry, I always thought refusal meant you didn't want to do something, and acceptance meant you did want to. I see now that's all a conservative lie! Refusal means you DO want to, and not wanting to means you accept...wait, now I'm even more confused than you are.
I would think that if no one wanted to construct new plants, that would mean no new plants were built...How is that not refusing to build new ones?
"Bob, I think we should build a new power plant."
"Nah, I don't want to. It isn't financially smart."
"Ok, well, as long as you don't want to, we won't build one... just don't refuse to!"
"Well, that's what I just did."
"Oh Bob, you're so silly, don't you know that words only mean what we want them to these days?"
...how the administration blatantly lied to justify the war...
...or how the war in Iraq is a total debacle...
...or how their relationship with the Saudis compromises their own unwinable war on terror...
...or how their foreign policy has made us either hated or humiliated in every corner of the planet...
...their domestic policy has crushed our civil rights like a nutsack under their heel...
...while enriching their corporate masters at our expense...
...It's like you can't just turn on the news anymore and watch your president land on an aircraft carrier and wave a flag and be happy.
Which is your (and their) opinion. Nice of them to share their opinions while supposedly reporting facts.
Which is contradicted by reporters who are *there*. Not to mention that the Iraqis who no longer fear that they or their children will be tortured or killed for holding unpopular opinions would probably not agree with you or CNN either, and which is again total opinion. Nice reporting, again.
So now CNN can predict the future too? Where were they on 9/10/2001?
Hated by the French, who profited from Saddam's reign, to the tune of billions that should have gone to the Iraqi people? Hated by the Russians who see their chance at recovering the $12 billion they lent Saddam go byebye? Hated by Muslims whose religion has been twisted by those with their own agenda to make us hated anyhow?
Nice try. Homeland security was unanimously voted for. That means liberals voted for it too. Stop trying to blame national hysteria that affected liberals in power just as much as a result of the Bush administration's actions, because it simply isn't. You may want to conveniently forget the Democrats who spoke so eloquently for the creation of the dept. of homeland security, but I have not.
That's what *all* politicians do, except *some* of those at the local level. If you think the liberal politicians are any less under the thumb of special interests, you're not only foolish, you're deluding yourself. Again, being blind to your side's faults (especially when they're the very ones you're railing against) is rather unrealistic. Where do you think most campaign money comes from? Hint: it isn't from regular people choosing to donate that money to their favorite candidate. That does happen, but it isn't the major source of major party candidates.
Umm, that's exactly what I watched for like 2 weeks. In fact they just did another story about it on CNN the other day. What an important story! Almost as important as 16 words or 8 lines or whatever the meme of the day is regarding intelligence that HAS YET TO BE INVALIDATED. The Brits believe it, but I suppose trusting allies is against the liberal platform or something.
I wish they'd just focus on the important stuff like the Kobe trial or put a bunch of talk shows on where they yell about how stupid liberals are. That always makes me feel better.
Sure. As if the Kobe trial wasn't big news on every freaking channel for days. I suppose CNN wouldn't stoop to covering a celeberity trial, huh? Nah. They wouldn't spend months on something like that, a celeberity accused of some crime. They wouldn't ignore serious stories in favor of something like that, would they? No white broncos on CNN. No sir. They don't care about ratings, just reporting the facts and allowing people to come up with their own opinions....HAHAHAhahaha sorry I just couldn't say that with a straight face.
Also, I've yet to see anyone besides bill o'reilly actually yell about how stupid liberals are. Personally, I don't find liberals to be stupid, but I sure do find some of the pages from the 'liberal's guide to blaming everything on Bush' to be quite funny.
For the record, I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian, and I find the liberal's insistenc
If you were talking to me (you replied to my post, after all) no, i wasn't making that point in this particular case. I was simply pointing out to the poster I replied to that his arguments started with assumptions of questionable reality, then added vaguaries only tenuously connected to said assumption, then finished out either with a non-sequiter or a blantantly inappropriate conclusion. That's all I wanted to point out to the grandparent poster. Your point on censorship is taken, and I will say that even with all the confusion about various definitions, had the agreement presented when you create your account on friendster stated that you could make false profiles, instead of explicitly denying you that privelege, and they were only removing those 'fakesters' that they didn't like, I could live with people calling it censorship. However, as the agreement to join clearly states that fake accounts/statements are not allowed, it isn't friendster who is breaking the rules. Being deleted for breaking clearly posted rules that you agreed to can in no way, shape, or form be considered censorship.
The definition of 'censorship' does not have the word 'government' in it.
Whatever. Depends where you go to find the definition you prefer to use. I guess the Roman censors weren't part of the government. I guess the 'offical' or 'authority' part of the definition doesn't mean government. Yes, I know m-w.com doesn't put it in the definition, however why not check around? You'll surely find it, unless you choose not to. Whatever it says on m-w.com, the connotation alone is certainly one of authority or officials, of which the owner of a matchmaking website is neither.
If the idea behind the group is to share each other's comments about the news, and the control involves governing the content of those comments, how is that not censorship?
You're a tool. Look up the definition of 'censorship' and answer your own retarded question. Try not to start arguments with 'if'.
If the site depends upon a given flow of visitors to fund ever increasing bandwidth and equipment costs, does free speech depend upon escaping from that system?
I stand corrected.
If you are the biggest tool on slashdot, does your mom depend on your government assistance?
See how the above sentence begins with an unprovable assumption, adds in something only vaguely related and not at all applicable, and then ends with a non-sequiter? That's what you've done in your post.
When you create an infrastructure for people to communicate with, you must make a basic choice: are you the publisher, or only the provider?
Scenario:
I decide to start my own club, and I decide it will be a, say, fantasy football club, and that the only people allowed in will be those with an interest in fantasy football, and that most discussion *during the club meetings* will be about fantasy football.
Given the above scenario, I've created a private infrastrucure for communication, dedicated to one thing: fantasy football. Now, someone says they want to join, and says that they like fantasy football and wish to discuss it, but then come meeting time they show up dressed in a multi-colored jumpsuit with one of those stupid jester hats on, and only want to sing '60s folk tunes. If I kick this person out of my club, am I censoring them? Hell no. They can go somewhere else and sing whatever they want. I'm not denying them the *right* to say whatever they want, I'm just protecting my club member's right to do what they signed up for in the first place. That's not censorship. Now, if the government created a webforum for all US citizens to use however they wanted (ostensibly) and then they started deleting profiles they didn't like, *that* would be censorship. However, if the government started a web forum for discussion of tax policies, and they deleted all profiles that did not discuss tax policies, that would NOT be censorship. If a system is designed for a certain use, and people are not using it for that, the creator of the system can remove them. That isn't censorship. It says before you join up what the site is for. If you don't want to use it for that, go somewhere else. There is no 'well-defined constitution' on friendster.com that says you can be anyone other than yourself, or that you can post fake pictures/profiles. Your example and reasoning are both flawed.
I thought a PC case was a metal box to stop EM radiation/interference etc surely cutting huge holes in your case isnt going to do much other than piss off the local Taxi firm,ham radio,cb,baby alarms,ambulances,fire tenders,baby alarms,police oh and probably kill the fish.
first: If your computer puts out enough EMI to do more than (perhaps) fuzz your tv picture (if the computer is very close to the tv), then you've got bigger problems.
second: The fish in the FA are plastic. How exactly would EMI kill them? Wouldn't they have to be alive first?
third: People run their computers with the panels off quite often, and I haven't heard of anyone interfering with taxi firms, ham radio people, CB people or police/ambulances/fire trucks/senators/maytag repairmen. now baby alarms? what the fuck is a baby alarm? babies have been spotted! sound the alarm! *wooot* *wooot*...perhaps it's a conception alarm? Anyhow, haven't heard of any problems with those either.
why bother having interference laws and emission regulations egh ?
I've often wondered that myself. If someone manages to somehow create enough EMI from their house to cause problems, just ask them to find better shielding for whatever they're doing, or stop. So, are you a complete dolt, or just a troll? The world may never know.
nice troll. I'd rather believe that than to think that someone actually believes that the rich are the only ones who benefit from police, fire depts, blah blah etc. See, the problem isn't that poor people are only getting a little bit of money to survive. It's that the money those people are getting is less than half of what is paid into the system they're getting it from. This system also encourages dependancy and has so many cracks in it the people who *don't* fall through them are the exception. Police departments in poor neighborhoods cost taxpayers more than those in rich neighborhoods. Same with hospitals. If you really believe that the rich benefit most from *government spending* as differentiated from legislative preference (which the rich do get and which is despicable), you are wrong.
Also, if you make 100,000 dollars a year, you will be paying more than 40% to the goverment, currently. Sure, it's still more than the guy who makes 40 grand is getting, but so what? What incentive is there to get rich if your bills outpace your earnings? Why should you work 6 months out of the year for the government? They're not doing a good enough JOB to be worth 6 months of my valuable time.
.. I've wandered into a King of the Hill newsgroup?
I have been a salesman of propane and propane accessories for 25 years, and I resent your implication!
you don't just take a nail file to a gun serial number as they're on the barrel
This applies to guns manufactured recently, not to the many many old guns out there. In fact, after 2000, guns are now required to have a second, hidden serial number. However, serial numbers have not *always* been on the barrel, and not all of them are imprinted deeply enough to violate the integrity of the barrel when fired, or at least not for the few times a gun with a filed-off serial number is going to be fired. also, sure there's a risk, but have you ever seen a zip gun? probably not, though I'd rather fire a filed-off serial number gun 30 times than a zip gun once. thanks for incorrectly correcting me. I never said you took a nail file to it, and I didn't say a 2 year old could do it, I said it was 'fairly trivial', and it is. Search google for 'filed off serial number gun' and you'll find that out for yourself. I've personally known several people over the years that have had guns w/filed off serial numbers. I love how on Slashdot, people expect *me* to ignore my own experience because they have a different *theory*, or they read something conflicting on the internet. I don't expect you to put more stock in my words than in your own personal experience, but I'm afraid that I will have to put more stock in my own personal experience than in your 1995 school research. Also, just as a hint, ususally, there are more than 2 ways to do something. Not always, I'll grant, but usually. Also, you can get guns at flea markets, and I'm not sure where they come from, but they're mysteriously bare of serial numbers. again, you don't have to believe me, but all you have to do is go to a few flea markets, and your experience will parallel mine, I'm sure. (qualification: I'm in texas, your state may vary.)
That's not true. If we suddenly deregulated driving I bet hundreds of people who now don't drive would start driving.
Why would you suppose that? Would they suddenly be able to afford a car? It isn't like you have to be Einstein to pass a DMV test, and once you pass you never have to do it again. Wow, that's real effective.
Parents might start letting their kids on the road at 14.
If their child is mature enough, why shouldn't they? If the child isn't, they're legally responsible. So why shouldn't they have to actually be PARENTS? The government can't watch over us and make all our decisions. Besides, nothing's stopping the kid from taking the car joyriding, just because they don't have a license. I really don't see what benefit you get, other than having a pretty much mandatory ID, even though our founding fathers didn't want anything like that to exist. I guess they didn't know what they were doing.
In my opinion we should close those loopholes. The problem is not that we are trying to regulate guns, its that we are only doing a half-assed job. They're simply trying to apease the NRA and the anti-gun groups at the same time.
In Britain, they've closed the loopholes I mentioned and most of the others, as private gun ownership is almost unheard of, legally. However they still have plenty of gun crime and gun deaths. In Switzerland, where guns are not regulated in any way, save that each household with a male of a certain age *must* have one, they have very little gun crime, and the majority of that is caused by people who are transients, and not residents of Switzerland. So, the heavily regulated country has problems with gun violence, the unregulated one (where gun education is mandatory in public school) has very very little. Yet you continue to argue that regulation is the answer. It doesn't make logical sense.
What makes those laws unenforceable?
Whenever a person gets ticketed for speeding, there are many many many more who are not ticketed. Many people speed, and yet they do not get daily tickets, and they have no reasonable expectation of being ticketed during any one violation. That is what makes it unenforceable.
I once had a state trooper who was teaching a defensive driving class tell me that you should go up to 5 miles over the speed limit if the traffic around you is. That's a freaking law enforcement officer telling his defensive driving class to break the law. It would be like making spoons illegal. How on Earth would you expect to enforce that law? No one would fear having one because they would have no reasonable expectation of being caught. It would be an unenforceable law.
I might get away with murder too, but that doesn't mean it's an uneforceable law.
The vast majority of murders are solved. Can you say that for the vast majority of speeders? Not with a straight face. Murderers have a reasonable expectation of being caught. Murder is not often overlooked, while speeding is overlooked EXTREMELY often. Ask yourself this: on any given day, are you more likely to get away with something like: not having a dog license, speeding, not having a ham radio license, not having a driver's license, not having insurance; or are you more likely to get away with murder? I would rather have cops out looking for murderers than people with no dog license, if it's all the same to you.
That's all fine and dandy if you're a millionaire. But what happens if you do $100,000 damage to me an my property? How are you going to compensate me?
If I didn't have the cash on hand, I'd probably go buy insurance. My problem isn't with the insurance industry, per se, it's with the state telling me that by law, I MUST take the gamble that is insurance. If I could change the law to read: You must be able to show proof of insurance or other proof that you are solvent, instead of 'you must have insurance period point blank' that would be fine with me. However, I don't see any reason why driving is
Well you seem to be under the impression that a regulation is worthless unless everyone actually follows it. I would say that is just stupid.
Actually, I said that regulations are useless because the people who follow it don't *need* regulating, and the people who don't follow it don't care what the regulation is.
Does everyone driving a car right now have a valid license? Not by a long shot. Does that mean we should stop licensing drivers? No way.
Why not? If we stopped licensing drivers, would that make killing pedestrians legal? Of course not. Drivers were not always licensed, and yet somehow the country survived.
Does everyone driving have valid insurance. Nope. Does that mean we should do away with the law? Nope.
The states which have insurance laws for driving (mine included) should do away with those laws, yes. You are and should be required to be liable for any damage you cause, but that should only include an insurance company if you wish it to. I have never caused an accident in over 12 years of driving, yet every month for those 12 years I have paid money to an insurance company because it is required by law. It has never been neccessary and it should not be legally required.
I could buy 2 more cars with what I have basically lit on fire and burned up by paying it to an insurance company for a service I do not wish to have that I only get because it is required by law. During this time, I have been hit by 3 uninsured motorists, and though in 2 cases I was paying for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, my insurance company weaseled out of paying me anything. This law has done NOTHING for me but cost me a shitload of money and make some insurance company's profits higher.
Is there a black market for guns. Sure. Can criminals get a gun without going through loopholes. Sure. Does that mean we should stop regulating guns? That's a tricker issue. I say no.
It's not the black market that makes guns so available, it's the grey market. Flea markets, gun shows, 'collector' sales, all these can be used to obtain a handgun with no registration and no wait time, and it is quasi-legal. I'm not *just* referring to the black market, although it is certainly there. As I said, anyone who wants to badly enough will find out. Flea markets and gun shows advertise in many newspapers and on tv and radio as well.
If regulation has saved one life, I think it's worth it. Just remember, not everyone knows how to get a black market gun.
That's a very hard to fulfil 'if' statement. For example, suppose you see me in the middle of the Sahara desert, waving a mysterious pendant around. You ask me what I'm doing, and I tell you I'm keeping the sharks away. When you tell me that there aren't any sharks in the Sahara desert, I just say "see? It's working! I'm SAVING LIVES!"
Please tell me how regulation has saved a life. That's just like saying that airport security has prevented millions of terrorist attacks. It's not prevention if the intention wasn't there, and proving that someone had the idea to do something but chose not to is impossible. In contrast, each gun fatality in this country is a life lost that registration did *not* save. Here's a hint: Guns are completely illegal in Britain, yet they still have gun deaths each year. How can that be? Also, they have nicely complimentary murder rates per population with the rest of the civilized world, though with lower gun deaths compared to the USA. People are still getting killed, just not by guns. Yay, that's a victory. Guess all that regulation isn't stopping the grim reaper, huh?
Personally, if I ever feel that my life is in danger, like someone sends me a death threat or something, I'm not going to wait 2 weeks to get a gun. I'm going to go to a pawn shop or a flea market or something, and get one *that day*, because if you've ever had someone threaten you, and you try to go to the cops with it, they don't give a shit. I would never use a gun ex
I forgot this quote in my previous reply.
If anyone who wants to can just go out and kill them any time they want that leads to problems. The only way I see to stop that from happening is to regulate hunters.
How does regulation stop them? Why does a line of words in a book in the courthouse mean I can't go get a gun and shoot whatever I want? I mean, sure, there *may* be penalties to me after the deed is done, but how does the law PREVENT it? I've known people who did offseason hunting to supplement their food supply, and regulations never stopped them. See, the thing that we need to realize as a society is that fear of punishment is of limited effectiveness in preventing undesirable behavior. I don't know if you've ever worked with 5 year old kids, but if not, they will demonstrate my point very clearly to you. They can learn rules, repeat rules, point out others who are breaking the rules, but if they decide they want to do something that is against the rules, they are going to just do it. The same thing applies to adult laws and regulations. I can carve 'Don't hit me' in stone or make 3 foot high letters that say it and stand right behind them, but if someone wants to hit me, and they don't understand or don't care about punishment, they're going to do it. You act as though people *can't* just go out and kill whatever they want, whenever they want. However, that's just not true. If they fear the consequences, perhaps they *will* not do it, but that doesn't mean they *can* not, and there is no law on earth that PREVENTS them from doing it. Law enforcement is reactive, and should always be. They solve cases, not prevent them, as a rule. I just don't understand making laws and regulations that are not and cannot be enforced. (by cannot be enforced, I mean cannot be enforced fully and impartially; selective enforcement does not count, and is, in my opinion, extremely evil)
I do think we have a little too much regulation in certain areas (drugs, tobacco, and alchohol are my pet peeves). However, I have to disagree about guns and hunting licenses. First, gun regulation might not keep guns out of all the criminal hands, but it will keep guns out of hands of people who simply shouldn't have one.
How? I guarantee you that ANYONE who wants a gun badly enough can get one. I could get one in high school for 50 bucks. I also guarantee you that regulation does not stop crime. If regulation keeps guns out of the hands of those who 'simply shouldn't have one', where do gang members get their guns? Are they registered? Where do the Uzis and AK-47s come from? Please tell me how regulation applies to the black market. Also, you mentioned drugs, tobacco, and alcohol as examples of too much regulation, yet do you honestly know anyone who is not able to find those things if they look? I know my first taste of alcohol came well before my 21st birthday, even though the regulations say it couldn't have.
Gun registration has another upside as well. If all the legal guns are supposed to be registered, then it's much easier to track guns used in crimes.
Actually, many times registration *complicates* tracking the guns, because they are registered to a legal owner who has never used them to commit a crime, but have been stolen. Now, when the police find the body of crack addict a, and find the gun used by crack addict b in the trash can, they have to investigate the registered owner, even though he had no part in the crime. It's also fairly trivial to file a serial number, so no one would know where a particular gun came from. Also, if someone is going to use their personally registered gun in a crime, it most likely would be a 'crime of passion', in which case a knife would do as well, or a baseball bat. I don't see anyone pushing for those to be registered.
Bottom line: Criminals will not follow regulatory laws, and honest citizens that *will* follow them don't need to be regulated. It's an unenforceable law with no purpose other than to make people *feel* safer, and to appease those who don't believe in our right to own guns. I suppose they'd rather people just went back to bludgeoning or stabbing each other to death. It's not like murder and armed robbery were invented with gunpowder, you know. We also had war before guns. The problem with gun control can be summed up in one sentance: If somebody wants you dead badly enough, you will die. It doesn't matter to me if someone shoots me, stabs me, whacks me on the head, poisons me, drowns me, whatever. The result is the same. All the laws and regulations on Earth won't change that simple fact. It applies to terrorists as well. All of these homeland security things we're doing are nearly pointless. There's no reason to become totally lax, but subjecting old women and little kids to strip searches just because they wanna go to Disneyworld is FUCKING STUPID. Not only do our stupidly comprehensive 'security measures' inconveniece the 99.99999999% of travelers that AREN'T up to anything nefarious, they also provide thousands of false positives for (so far) no prevention. I mean, the shoe bomber went right through all that elaborate security, only to screw up at the last minute. Airport security had nothing to do with his failure. People have smuggled all manner of weapons onto planes, just to prove that the security isn't all that good. Yet we still spend billions on it, for no reason other than the appearance of safety. All it does is waste time and money.
Second, hunting licenses I believe are usually less to regualte the hunters and more to regulate how many animals get killed.
Yes....that is what they are *intended* to do, but again, why bother making something a law, and spending sooooo much to administer it, and yet it is for all intents and purposes unenforceable. How many vans and trucks with campers/bed covers do you see each day? Any one of them could contain MANY illegally shot animals. Poa
Most people outside the IT Industry use computers as a tool, a means to an end.
Umm...I'm *in* the IT industry, and that's what I use them for. In this instance, the computer I'm currently using is a tool which allows me to view and post on slashdot. I don't think I want to know what *your* use is, because if it isn't a means to an end, it's the end itself, and that's just disturbing.
And yet there are NO requirements in place to ensure people are competant when using that (potentially dangerous) tool.
What, you mean like a chainsaw? Don't need a license for that. Don't need to pass a test, and you can do a LOT more damage with a chainsaw than a 'net connection. If you don't believe me, we'll have a duel: you get a net connection (but the computer's bolted down), and I get a chainsaw. Let's go three rounds and we'll see who does more damage. How about a welding torch? You sometimes need a license to get a job using em, but you can buy a welding torch without one. How about riding lawnmowers, javelins, machetes, barbecue grills with propane tanks on em? ginsu knives? hammers? what about books? television? board games? coconuts? band saws? ladders? Each of the former can do more actual damage than can a 'net connection. Should everything we use require testing and registration? Who would enforce and dispense these permits? Would we then have cops busting down our doors because they heard music and they didn't have a copy of our radio permits on file? Do you really not see how stupid all this regulation is? There was a time when you could buy a driver's license at Sears...and they didn't even make you take a test. Did the world blow up? No. There was a time when you didn't have to have a license to own a gun. Oddly enough, not only are people still around, but some bad people aren't registering their guns! Who knew that a criminal wouldn't follow a regulatory law? Regulations such as the one you propose and many that are actually in existence suffer from the same problem: those who are conscientious enough to get the regulation are unlikely to misuse their privelege, while those who intend to misuse the privelege do not follow the regulations. Example: Joe Dentist purchases a handgun for home protection. He fills out all registration forms, completes the basic safety test, and waits 2 weeks to be approved. Meanwhile, Billy Bob Criminal wants to rob a liquor store. He calls his friend Danny Jay Fence, and buy from him a stolen gun. That same day, he robs a liquor store and kills the clerk. In this example, regulation did NOTHING to stop the criminal from getting/using a gun, and Joe Dentist was put through 2 weeks of hoopla for no reason. We claim we're protecting people, but in reality people are no safer. In your example, suppose there is a test one must pass to begin computing. How long do you think the answers will stay with these people? I see people every day who at one time passed a driving test, yet who now do REALLY STUPID things. I can't count the number of people who *know* what virus scanners do, and who *know* they should run them, but who don't. There's a major difference between passing a test and day to day usage 5 years down the road.
Personally, I don't believe we should regulate driving, guns, hunting/fishing licenses, any of that stuff. If some complete dumbass wants to build a bazooka-powered jetpack, let him. If he kills himself, no big loss. If he kills someone else, well, there's already a law against that, and it's much easier to enforce than some crappy regulation. We shouldn't be preserving the dregs of the gene pool from their own idiocy. Let's not put instructions on toothpaste anymore. If someone can't figure out how to use toothpaste, THEY DO NOT NEED TO REPRODUCE. Shit, if there's anything that NEEDS to be regulated which isn't, there you have it. Reproduction. We all get sad when we see pictures of starving kids from other countries....yet, even though there has been too little food for the population, the people there KEEP HAVING KIDS. Whether you
You must not know very much about computers and how differences between systems can expose problems in driver programming.
*You* must not know many users.
Thank you for brightening my day! Your idiocy is refreshing, and your lack of comprehension is amusing. If you really *are* that stupid, my condolences. If, as I'd rather believe, you're looking to annoy people, I'm afraid that's failed. Your posts today have given me very much amusement.
Now I'll let you get back to fucking your Uncle Dad.
Have a nice day!
If so, just what do you plan to cut in order to meet a balanced budget? Shall we cut:
* The Military.
No.
* NASA.
* HHS (Health and Human Services).
* HUD (Housing and Urban Development, which included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan backing).
* FDA (Federal Drug Administration).
* FBI and other law enforcement activities.
* Infrastructure support, etc etc etc.
Yes, mostly.
It's obvious we both care about this issue quite a bit, and I don't want to end up just frustrating both of us. Every response I have to what you're saying is predicated upon the notion that the government is doing way more than it should, that it should be *radically* scaled back, and I don't believe that you would find that assertion palatable. Similarly I find your responses to be coming from a viewpoint that is contrary to what I believe most deeply. I assure you, you will never convince me that big national government is good or that I have any *legal* responsibility to pay for someone else's laziness or stupidity or bad luck (although I personally think I have a *moral* obligation, I consider that none of the government's business) Also, I realize that it's equally unlikely that I'll convince you that states should be more powerful and that most of the national government should be dismantled, and that people should be responsible for their *own* well-being. It's not a new debate, and I don't see what can be gained from further back and forth except frustration. I am willing to agree to disagree.
We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption,
What do you consider low income? People who make 30k or under, if they have any kids, pay *no* income tax. At least 40% of people in this country pay no income tax. If you believe that payroll taxes should be cut, fine...I'm with you.
But saying that bush's tax cut was 'for the rich' is very misleading and ultimately breeds nothing but class hatred, which isn't good for anyone. We should severely slash our government's budget and severely reduce its sphere of influence. We should, but instead we bitch about 'the rich', forgetting that if there weren't any rich people, there would be far fewer employers. I find it terribly amusing how people can hate 'the rich' so much, when even our poor are rich compared to the poor in many countries. Also, I've found that people's definition of 'rich' changes with their own bank balance. 'Rich' is apparently anyone with more than you, while 'poor' is apparently having the same or less income. If you want to oppose the bush administration, fine. Just don't call the tax cut 'for the rich', because it wasn't. I still want to know what people think will happen when fewer than 30% of the country is responsible for the *entire* income tax burden. It is coming, and it won't be pretty. Also, I heard bill clinton bitching about how he wants to pay taxes and he doesn't want the 80k he's going to save with bush's tax cut....but I don't see him donating it to the government. You can do that, you know, but even the very people who bitch the most about this tax cut won't take the opportunity to do so. That tells me far more than their rhetoric ever could.
OK, ignoring your obvious lack of proofreading, *you* posted that the government is spending twice for its software. *I* didn't come out with an assertion. *You* did. I said that in my experience (working on an Air Force base), your assertion was wrong. You're perfectly free to doubt my word, but doubting my word does not provide proof of your assertion. All I asked was that you back up an assertion that you made with proof. The fact that you think that makes me 'pompus' is a sign of your limited intelligence. I'm suuuuuure you know what the word means....even though you have no clue how to spell it. (yes, that was sarcasm, peabrain.)
Tell you what, how about this: When I make a baseless assertion, rather than shooting yours down, I'll provide proof. However, since *you* were the one who came out with the 'government is spending twice' thing, *you* have the burden of proof. *I* didn't make your statement. If you can't back it up, shut the fuck up. Assuming, that is, that you know how, you unbelieveable moron. I'll make a deal with you, if you have the mental capacity to understand it: You back your assertion up with proof, then I'll provide my proof as to why you are wrong (or fail to). That way, we go in the logical order, and something might be accomplished. However, since there *is* no proof for your ridiculous assertion, I expect no more than the silly crap you've been posting, simply attacking me (in a very ineffectual way) instead of backing up what you originally said. If you don't want me to 'come at you lie you have to prove this and that' then don't go around spouting 'this and that' and I won't ask you to prove it.
Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year.
You're such a moron. Tax cuts are supposed to be for people who...PAY TAXES. In this 'for the rich' tax cut, people who don't pay taxes are getting between $400-$3k back that they didn't even pay into the system....I'd like to see a 'rich' person that gets more money back from the IRS than he or she gives to it. Wake up. National income taxes shouldn't even be neccesary. Before WWII, we managed to run the whole damn country without them. Will you be happy when 75% of the population is on government assistance and the 25% that's left paying for it moves away? Who's going to subsidize your huge government bureaucracies then? A tax cut shouldn't be an entitlement program, yet this one is and it's STILL being attacked as for the 'rich'. You must think 20k a year is 'rich'.
And no, the answers to all the world's problems are not necessarily in space, unless Tang and pens that can write upside down can stop war and famine.
So I suppose that unless something can stop war and famine, it isn't worth doing? I mean...we only got tons of great medical technology from the space program...who needs MRIs and CAT scans? They don't stop war and famine! Not to mention the interesting effects on nerve regeneration that happen in space, I mean...allowing nerve-damaged people the opportunity to feel or see or hear again...that's worthless, because it doesn't stop war and famine. Of course, by that logic, nothing in the history of the planet has ever been worth anything because we yet have war and famine to this day. Perhaps being able to have a seperate planet for each elitist clique that wants one can help end war, and the abundance of resources could help end famine...of course, it will take time, cost money, and won't directly benefit joshua404 right away...so it's worthless.
best tagline ever.
best movie ever.
'gee ricky, i'm sorry your mom blew up.'
its easy to say disprove, its hard to prove something, sorry i cant give you the hard data on that one, cause its probably pretty confidential stuff i am sure
Um..so confidential that they have an article that slashdot picked up about it...it's easy to say 'the gov't pays twice for stuff', it's hard to prove. They get a decent deal from microsoft, and yeah it's a lot of money, but it's also a lot of computers....$950 for software for 4 years isn't bad.
I'm not in the military, i just work at an air force base. I agree that *some* money to run the gov't comes from taxes....but if you think that the only source of revenue the US government has is tax money...you're an idiot. No one's saying they get stuff free...I'm just saying that they're not paying for *this software* twice, like you said they were. when you say 'to each his own' are you referring to alternate realities?
You said they were paying for the software *twice*, now you're saying we're paying for it *once*...which was my point...you're *supposed* to pay for things once.
the military buys computers from dell at a discount, which have dell recovery cds and which have windows on them prinstalled, but not office or anything else. Then, the military buys licenses from microsoft for windows and office and images them onto the computers. now, if they were paying for everything twice, which they aren't, you could find "proof" of it and that's what I asked for. You made an assertion which you can not back up and now you're backpedaling. "proof" is needed before you make a statement.