A minor clarification, but important in its own right: The Holocaust was not committed by the government of the Reich on citizens of the Reich. That distinction is entirely beside the point. The/German/ government, with power granted/lawfully/ to/Hitler/, performed those atrocities against many/German/ citizens. If the American goverment started killing off some group, and started calling themselves something else, it would still be a government against the "governed."
Also, I think the other examples were also to show not that governments all abuse their people, but simply that they abuse in general.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
>It's not as if Browne is going to take all the >money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we >know it needs to be phased out - it does not >work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or >at least a derivative of those plans.
Umm, what nobody seems to realize is that there/is/ no money in Social Security. Not a dime. It's all spent. You know why there's a budget surplus? It's not because the President is a great guy, or Congressional officials know what they're doing. No! It's because SS receipts are larger and larger due to an increasing workforce, and the Baby Boom generation has not yet started to retire en masse. Instead of SS money being compounded, as was the original plan (and would have almost guaranteed solvency for a long, long time), it is spent as soon as it is received. That's why Browne plans to establish private accounts for those already dependant, funded by auctioning off unnecessary federal holdings. SS is a scam. Only so long as the taxation of the workforce exceeds inflation and "interest" on SS payments made by those retired will Social Security be solvent. I for one choose not to involve myself in that system, do not pay, will never voluntarily receive. I do not approve of using institutionalized theft for anything, no matter how noble. The ends do not justify the means. Some may find that stance distasteful, but I am simply choosing another route for retirement. Social Security was never meant for one person to pay for another, so I'm not screwing anyone but those too short-sighted to realize that Republicrats are damned liars and thieves. Every single bloody one of them. Without exception. Only if you do not receive tax money that is not yours are you not a thief. You may rationalize it, but it'll always be theft.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Keeping the federal government out of law enforcement means keeping them from usurping control of states, such as the federal government meddling in what eventually became the murder of Peter McWilliams.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism but more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Oh no, people might have to *gasp* learn to fend for themselves, and not be dependent on money stolen, yes, stolen, from others. Taxes are theft. You don't pay, we lock you up. You don't capitulate, we shoot you. You are an accessory to theft. You like the Socialist government programs, because you've decided that the money of others should be yours, and you've decided that it should go to others who did not earn it lawfully. I want to live my life without having to pay others to live. I'm lucky enough now to work without having my money stolen, but most aren't. I'm lucky enough to realize that participating in federal programs is tantamount to out-and-out theft, but most aren't. I don't like to steal, and I don't like others stealing from me. Browne is the only candidate who doesn't endorse theft as a way to equalize (and control) everyone. Browne s the only candidate who realizes that I can take care of myself, and that I should not expect to live on the wealth of others, unless it is give freely. Don't be a thief. Thieves suck.
"Don't even think about voting for someone other than a Republicrat, because your person won't win, andit'll just make everything worse because you voted for someone you believed in."
It's unfortunate that so many people believe this. Do you know the sort of impact that could be had if all the people who bought into this sort of BS actually looked at/all/ the candidates and voted with their own views? We wouldn't have a two-party system, I'll tell you that...
By and large, not everyone, or even a majority of people, are Socialists, but we've had Socialist presidents for a long, long time.
If, for your youthful indiscretions (speaking mainly of drugs), you had spent 10, 20, or 50 years in prison, do you think you would be a better person?
It just depends on how hard you push your box. You are correct in your own experience, but naive to think that yours is the only experience. There are plenty of W2K boxes out there that need rebooting much more frequently, whether they are run by someone inexperienced with maintaining them, or pushing them harder than they can handle (not hard to do).
The legal issue may be won, but do you really see the proliferation of copies on the internet decreasing? As for polygamy, you have to look at the entire issue. The US govt did not stamp it out by force. It was more an issue of extortion. They would not make Utah a state unless the proctice was given up. The choice was up to the Mormons to make, and they chose that which was believed to be more important to the group. The Mormons are (and historically have been) well organised, and strongly support that which they believe in (for the most part). However, this is one issue in which they would not likely have been resolved any other way. Also, I didn't say that people who copy music think they are "right," merely that they believe in doing it because of the convenience (which I didn't actually state clearly.:) As for encrypting digital signals, such as sattelite, you're right that it is insecure. However, my point about signals still stands. If it can be perceived, it can be copied. My example of copying music was a fairly quick and dirty hack job. With a little time and effort, putting together a digital-out directly off of the decoder would be no problem. Since you're making an exact digital duplicate, you're going to have an output of exactly the same quality as you hear audibly. If you have decent equipment, nobody is going to know the difference except those with much higher-quality equipment. For people who spend the money for equipment of high enough quality to detect the difference, I doubt that copying music will become much of an issue except maybe for personal mixes of music they already own. Mileage will vary, of course. Consider that only audio/videophiles tend to care about such a miniscule difference in quality, and someone like that will be forced by their very nature to buy retail to ensure top quality. If you look at reproductions in all of the current writeable media (VHS cassettes, tapes, CDs, MDs, etc.), this becomes evident. Such copying is common, and will likely continue to be, because, back to a previous point, as long as a signal can be perceived, it can be copied by some means. Encryption only protects until it is decrypted to be viewed, and after that it is no problem to copy.
You're right that it is vague, but the point is to punish intent, not possession of something specific. Under this law, you could be charged with the crime of criminal possession of a credit card, if your intent was to use that card to break into someplace.
I disagree. I see it as being completely feasible. Unless players have no audio-out capability, it will be easily possible to make a digital replica in a non-restrictive format. Even if there is no audio-out, you can take one of those special players, remove the speaker leads, and attach an audio patch, and then plug it into a souncard's digital input. There are always ways around restrictions on hardware and software. Take sattelite subscribers for example. Viewing is restricted in a manner much similar to your description. However, there are people who have broken the hardware locks and now distribute this tech to others. It's the same for every other pay service of a non-physical nature in existence. Those who want access are almost always close to par with those striving to restrict that same access. I don't see that changing in the near future. To attempt to squelch something so many believe in doing is an exercise in futility, and invariably backfire. Just examine such examples as Christianity, bacteria, and the DeCSS fiasco.
"And where do these small independant programmers get the money to produce this software and keep it updated?"
"And where do thes small independant authors get the money to write these books?"
"And where do these small independant radio stations get the money to produce these programs and keep a station running?"
There are many more examples of the same sort of question. The answer is, there are always people willing to finance this sort of endeavor. It only take a little looking, and maybe even *gasp* a little hard work.
Oh, I forgot, Slashdot == technology. Since when does a motto like "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." mean explicity technology? I'm sorry, but step out of your little box for a second. In addition, you might also want to consider how much these movies actually do have to do with technology. If you can't, I don't feel like helping you, though I'll give you a tiny hint. Ever hear of the term computer animation? I'm sorry, but this is something that a lot of geeks love to hear about. Right up there with Star Trek. Yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with technology on the surface. I'm supposed to care why? I personally don't really care for Star Trek, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get my panties in a twist just because a story is posted dealing with it. "Oh no! It's not a technology-based story!/. has become so evil!" Grow up. The world does not revolve around you or your ideas on what/. should be. It's a medium for people around the world to come together, which is why there are articles posted that will likely be of interest to a large group of people (like Star Wars, which, even if you don't care about it, is interesting to a large portion of the/. audience.) Sorry for the rant, but frankly, your hoity-toity attitude pissed me off. In the future, why don't you set your frickin' prefs so people who are interested in stories like this can discuss without having to deal with your petty bs about how stories like this suck. Take it up with the people who post the stories if you're so down on it. If enough people do, then maybe it'll change. In the meantime, my post was providing a valid (IMO) point: if you don't like it, don't read it. If you do read it, the jokes on you, but you annoy the hell out of everyone else who actually is interested in the subject matter.
Personally, I'd like to see a user squelch list option that could parse stories for comments posted by specific users, and then hide them. As for the problem of ACs, set your threshold. Unfortunately, even many good AC posts don't get moderated up.
And one of the nice things about/. is that it caters to a lot of different interests. If you don't like a specific topic, you can very easily block that topic from appearing. Then your sensibilities don't have to be offeneded when you see something posted that you think has no business on/. As well, it frees up bandwidth used in nitpicky posts, because those posts become unnecessary. Maybe you can customize your preferences next time so that you can save everyone's time without adding to the amount of useless drivel posted here. Just my opinion...
Gives him justice by not even mentioning his name, but attributing an AC motor built by him (with his patent number stamped onto it) to Edison? That's a sick sense of justice...
That's actually not the case. Consider the Declaration of Independence. It was basically a long diatribe concerning the various things that the men who drafted it felt were injustices being wrought upon the Colonies. The political process under which the Colonies became free was about keeping such injustices from happening again. This intent led to what they felt were strict safeguards upon the liberties of the people of the Colonies. That was the reason the Constitution was drafted. They did it in sort of an inverse fashion. Instead of being a document protecting rights, it was a document meant to limit the government to nothing not specifically granted. Everything not specified in either federal of state constitutions is not any business of the government. Unfortunately, the couple broad phrases left in the federal Constitution left the door open for an abuse of powers (Commerce Clause being the big one.) The Bill of Rights should never have been put in, because it has been turned into a list of the only rights people are entitled too. However, I can't say that if it wasn't included things would have been better, since I don't know. You are right that the 2nd Amendment was a protection against foreign invasion. What army would want to invade a country where they're facing armed locals at every turn? They'd have to kill everyone, and the intent of most invading armies is to subjugate, rather than eradicate. However, it was also a check on the domestic government, because most were not naive enough to believe that the power inherent in any government would not tend to attract those easily corrupted. It is evident when examining various writings of the time that it was a protection against all governments, foreign and domestic. Also, I didn't mean to imply that it was to bring down the government. The legitimate place of the federal government would never put a citizen in a place where he would have to use force against a government agent. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world of legitimate government, as can be seen by the gross abuses and misconduct of many, many civil servants, as well as the general dissatisfaction of most Americans concerning the gov't (look at voter turnout as an indication of apathy at the least.) Building a bunker in Costa Rica's looking better and better.;)
I've heard it's getting that way in Aussieland, but I haven't talked to anyone there about it directly, so I can't say. Don't know anything about NZ, but the rest I'd tend to agree with. I think the best example I've heard about would be Singapore, but mostly second-hand stories, so I don't know exactly how draconian they are.:)
The laws aren't really draconian, per se, but again, you've got to look at the context of the situation. In the US, the historical context of the right to bear arms stems from governmental abuses, which the right is supposed to help squelch. It was written to mean the commonly available armaments of the day, eg. rifles, knives, etc. What is commonly available now are rifles (hunting and assault), handguns, shotguns, and knives. Out of the commonly available armaments of the day, most people should have access to any and all of the above. What's the truth? Well, you can buy hunting rifles and some shotguns without registering the weapon. Most tactical and combat knives are banned, because they're concealed weapons. You have to register most handguns, and then you have to get a permit to carry them, unless you wear in an open holster. Assault rifles have been largely restricted, even though they are the most common military armament. The rationale is that the "public" welfare comes before individual rights, and unfortunately, many people have come to believe that. Contrary to that belief, the right of the individual comes far before the government or the "public" in the United States.
As for the point of protecting yourself from police abuse, I meant true police abuse, not just flashing it at them. That would get you shot. However, if a police officer is criminally violating your rights, it is your legal right and duty to resist with as much force as necessary (don't remember the various case citations off the top of my head.) If I felt my life was being threatened by a cop, I would have little problem doing what was necessary to stop him/her. Unfortunately, in comes police corruption, because I'd become a target even if I was fully within my rights. Unfortunately, I don't see change close on the horizon. It's a slow, steady buildup of people sick to death with the powermongers who have banded together under the umbrella of legitimacy in order to control those around them. This is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to stop, and that's why you see so much about gun control being hyped so as to seem necessary for the safety of all. When only the government has guns, you've got a police state.
Anyway, I'll cut this off, since I could rant all day about the illegitimacy of the US government.:) (In a nutshell, if it's not a power granted by the fed and state constitutions, it's forbidden to them. Like any socialistic program that's out there now)
Yes, but you have to look at the nation itself in the context of the study. Most nations are smaller than the US, which always means that they are more manageable from a police standpoint. What they're managing is a populace that is completely, or nearly completely (and almost universally registered), disarmed, through draconian laws which give them almost complete power over the populace. Criminal sentences are usually very harsh, and though this all may sound good, you have to look at the other side of the coin: very little protection for people from police abuse of power, and most people are aware that, even if there aren't blatant abuses on these powers, many officers are still prone to act as if they are above the law. It's also good to look at the gross incidence of crime. Yes, violent crimes drop, but non-violent crimes more than make up for it in incidence. Would write more, but I gotta go.:)
*chuckle* Very true, but consider the circumstances of most crimes like this. The thief is generally more interested in as little resistance as possible, and this generally does not include killing the victim first. Thieves who would do that are probably doing that already, so an armed society wouldn't change their tactics any (well, except that they'd have to be even more careful picking their targets.) The less confrontational thieves would doubtfully adopt the approach of killing their targets to insure zero resistance. Basically, my point was that an armed society would make crime much less appealing to the majority of those out there who prey on people weaker than themselves.
Your example doesn't follow. If everyone has a gun, then the criminals will know everyone has a gun. Thus, there aren't many easier targets. Yes, there would still be crime, but the incidence of violent crime would drop just a couple percent.:)
This is the very reason why there's a 2nd Amendment. How much do you think the feds would abuse people if 100% of the population carried a 9mm? (And before you say there'd be too much killing and crime, put the word "criminals" in place of "feds.") Police are no different than plumbers. One protects those who can't or don't protect themselves, the other does plumbing for those who can't do it themselves.
Yes, but this is often the case because the feds would have legally raped him even more than they have if his lawyer hadn't done so. They treated Mitnik guilty until proven innocent, which is not the way American jurisprudence was built to run.
What most people in America don't realize is that if you're convicted of a felony, you get rights granted by the government. They revoke your civil rights. Kevin will have no rights except what he's told he can. Many felons have no 2nd Amendment rights, and it has little bearing on whether or not they were even considered violent criminals. Most felons have zero right to privacy (for those textualists out there, shut up, it's called the tenth amendment.) The same goes for the right to vote in many states. And the list goes on...
Okay, didn't catch that the first time I read it. My point still stands though, that since you're talking about buying two IDE controller cards in order to get decent performance, you can buy a SCSI controller (and drives) which will outperform the IDE controller and drives in every category for only a marginal increase in spending. (Considering the life expectancy comparing IDE and SCSI drives, that margin drops even lower, since the replacement rate of SCSI drives tends to be much lower than their IDE counterparts.)
Slashdot Mirror
A minor clarification, but important in its own right: The Holocaust was not committed by the government of the Reich on citizens of the Reich. That distinction is entirely beside the point. The /German/ government, with power granted /lawfully/ to /Hitler/, performed those atrocities against many /German/ citizens. If the American goverment started killing off some group, and started calling themselves something else, it would still be a government against the "governed."
Also, I think the other examples were also to show not that governments all abuse their people, but simply that they abuse in general.
>It's not as if Browne is going to take all the >money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we >know it needs to be phased out - it does not >work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or >at least a derivative of those plans.
/is/ no money in Social Security. Not a dime. It's all spent. You know why there's a budget surplus? It's not because the President is a great guy, or Congressional officials know what they're doing. No! It's because SS receipts are larger and larger due to an increasing workforce, and the Baby Boom generation has not yet started to retire en masse. Instead of SS money being compounded, as was the original plan (and would have almost guaranteed solvency for a long, long time), it is spent as soon as it is received. That's why Browne plans to establish private accounts for those already dependant, funded by auctioning off unnecessary federal holdings. SS is a scam. Only so long as the taxation of the workforce exceeds inflation and "interest" on SS payments made by those retired will Social Security be solvent. I for one choose not to involve myself in that system, do not pay, will never voluntarily receive. I do not approve of using institutionalized theft for anything, no matter how noble. The ends do not justify the means. Some may find that stance distasteful, but I am simply choosing another route for retirement. Social Security was never meant for one person to pay for another, so I'm not screwing anyone but those too short-sighted to realize that Republicrats are damned liars and thieves. Every single bloody one of them. Without exception. Only if you do not receive tax money that is not yours are you not a thief. You may rationalize it, but it'll always be theft.
Umm, what nobody seems to realize is that there
Keeping the federal government out of law enforcement means keeping them from usurping control of states, such as the federal government meddling in what eventually became the murder of Peter McWilliams.
Oh no, people might have to *gasp* learn to fend for themselves, and not be dependent on money stolen, yes, stolen, from others. Taxes are theft. You don't pay, we lock you up. You don't capitulate, we shoot you. You are an accessory to theft. You like the Socialist government programs, because you've decided that the money of others should be yours, and you've decided that it should go to others who did not earn it lawfully. I want to live my life without having to pay others to live. I'm lucky enough now to work without having my money stolen, but most aren't. I'm lucky enough to realize that participating in federal programs is tantamount to out-and-out theft, but most aren't. I don't like to steal, and I don't like others stealing from me. Browne is the only candidate who doesn't endorse theft as a way to equalize (and control) everyone. Browne s the only candidate who realizes that I can take care of myself, and that I should not expect to live on the wealth of others, unless it is give freely. Don't be a thief. Thieves suck.
"Don't even think about voting for someone other than a Republicrat, because your person won't win, andit'll just make everything worse because you voted for someone you believed in."
/all/ the candidates and voted with their own views? We wouldn't have a two-party system, I'll tell you that...
It's unfortunate that so many people believe this. Do you know the sort of impact that could be had if all the people who bought into this sort of BS actually looked at
By and large, not everyone, or even a majority of people, are Socialists, but we've had Socialist presidents for a long, long time.
If, for your youthful indiscretions (speaking mainly of drugs), you had spent 10, 20, or 50 years in prison, do you think you would be a better person?
yup.
It just depends on how hard you push your box. You are correct in your own experience, but naive to think that yours is the only experience. There are plenty of W2K boxes out there that need rebooting much more frequently, whether they are run by someone inexperienced with maintaining them, or pushing them harder than they can handle (not hard to do).
The legal issue may be won, but do you really see the proliferation of copies on the internet decreasing? :)
As for polygamy, you have to look at the entire issue. The US govt did not stamp it out by force. It was more an issue of extortion. They would not make Utah a state unless the proctice was given up. The choice was up to the Mormons to make, and they chose that which was believed to be more important to the group. The Mormons are (and historically have been) well organised, and strongly support that which they believe in (for the most part). However, this is one issue in which they would not likely have been resolved any other way.
Also, I didn't say that people who copy music think they are "right," merely that they believe in doing it because of the convenience (which I didn't actually state clearly.
As for encrypting digital signals, such as sattelite, you're right that it is insecure. However, my point about signals still stands. If it can be perceived, it can be copied. My example of copying music was a fairly quick and dirty hack job. With a little time and effort, putting together a digital-out directly off of the decoder would be no problem. Since you're making an exact digital duplicate, you're going to have an output of exactly the same quality as you hear audibly. If you have decent equipment, nobody is going to know the difference except those with much higher-quality equipment. For people who spend the money for equipment of high enough quality to detect the difference, I doubt that copying music will become much of an issue except maybe for personal mixes of music they already own. Mileage will vary, of course. Consider that only audio/videophiles tend to care about such a miniscule difference in quality, and someone like that will be forced by their very nature to buy retail to ensure top quality. If you look at reproductions in all of the current writeable media (VHS cassettes, tapes, CDs, MDs, etc.), this becomes evident. Such copying is common, and will likely continue to be, because, back to a previous point, as long as a signal can be perceived, it can be copied by some means. Encryption only protects until it is decrypted to be viewed, and after that it is no problem to copy.
You're right that it is vague, but the point is to punish intent, not possession of something specific. Under this law, you could be charged with the crime of criminal possession of a credit card, if your intent was to use that card to break into someplace.
I disagree. I see it as being completely feasible. Unless players have no audio-out capability, it will be easily possible to make a digital replica in a non-restrictive format. Even if there is no audio-out, you can take one of those special players, remove the speaker leads, and attach an audio patch, and then plug it into a souncard's digital input. There are always ways around restrictions on hardware and software. Take sattelite subscribers for example. Viewing is restricted in a manner much similar to your description. However, there are people who have broken the hardware locks and now distribute this tech to others. It's the same for every other pay service of a non-physical nature in existence. Those who want access are almost always close to par with those striving to restrict that same access. I don't see that changing in the near future. To attempt to squelch something so many believe in doing is an exercise in futility, and invariably backfire. Just examine such examples as Christianity, bacteria, and the DeCSS fiasco.
"And where do these small independant programmers get the money to produce this software and keep it updated?"
"And where do thes small independant authors get the money to write these books?"
"And where do these small independant radio stations get the money to produce these programs and keep a station running?"
There are many more examples of the same sort of question. The answer is, there are always people willing to finance this sort of endeavor. It only take a little looking, and maybe even *gasp* a little hard work.
Oh, I forgot, Slashdot == technology. Since when does a motto like "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." mean explicity technology? I'm sorry, but step out of your little box for a second. In addition, you might also want to consider how much these movies actually do have to do with technology. If you can't, I don't feel like helping you, though I'll give you a tiny hint. Ever hear of the term computer animation? I'm sorry, but this is something that a lot of geeks love to hear about. Right up there with Star Trek. Yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with technology on the surface. I'm supposed to care why? I personally don't really care for Star Trek, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get my panties in a twist just because a story is posted dealing with it. "Oh no! It's not a technology-based story! /. has become so evil!" Grow up. The world does not revolve around you or your ideas on what /. should be. It's a medium for people around the world to come together, which is why there are articles posted that will likely be of interest to a large group of people (like Star Wars, which, even if you don't care about it, is interesting to a large portion of the /. audience.) Sorry for the rant, but frankly, your hoity-toity attitude pissed me off. In the future, why don't you set your frickin' prefs so people who are interested in stories like this can discuss without having to deal with your petty bs about how stories like this suck. Take it up with the people who post the stories if you're so down on it. If enough people do, then maybe it'll change. In the meantime, my post was providing a valid (IMO) point: if you don't like it, don't read it. If you do read it, the jokes on you, but you annoy the hell out of everyone else who actually is interested in the subject matter.
Personally, I'd like to see a user squelch list option that could parse stories for comments posted by specific users, and then hide them. As for the problem of ACs, set your threshold. Unfortunately, even many good AC posts don't get moderated up.
And one of the nice things about /. is that it caters to a lot of different interests. If you don't like a specific topic, you can very easily block that topic from appearing. Then your sensibilities don't have to be offeneded when you see something posted that you think has no business on /. As well, it frees up bandwidth used in nitpicky posts, because those posts become unnecessary. Maybe you can customize your preferences next time so that you can save everyone's time without adding to the amount of useless drivel posted here.
Just my opinion...
Gives him justice by not even mentioning his name, but attributing an AC motor built by him (with his patent number stamped onto it) to Edison? That's a sick sense of justice...
That's actually not the case. Consider the Declaration of Independence. It was basically a long diatribe concerning the various things that the men who drafted it felt were injustices being wrought upon the Colonies. The political process under which the Colonies became free was about keeping such injustices from happening again. This intent led to what they felt were strict safeguards upon the liberties of the people of the Colonies. That was the reason the Constitution was drafted. They did it in sort of an inverse fashion. Instead of being a document protecting rights, it was a document meant to limit the government to nothing not specifically granted. Everything not specified in either federal of state constitutions is not any business of the government. Unfortunately, the couple broad phrases left in the federal Constitution left the door open for an abuse of powers (Commerce Clause being the big one.) The Bill of Rights should never have been put in, because it has been turned into a list of the only rights people are entitled too. However, I can't say that if it wasn't included things would have been better, since I don't know. You are right that the 2nd Amendment was a protection against foreign invasion. What army would want to invade a country where they're facing armed locals at every turn? They'd have to kill everyone, and the intent of most invading armies is to subjugate, rather than eradicate. However, it was also a check on the domestic government, because most were not naive enough to believe that the power inherent in any government would not tend to attract those easily corrupted. It is evident when examining various writings of the time that it was a protection against all governments, foreign and domestic. Also, I didn't mean to imply that it was to bring down the government. The legitimate place of the federal government would never put a citizen in a place where he would have to use force against a government agent. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world of legitimate government, as can be seen by the gross abuses and misconduct of many, many civil servants, as well as the general dissatisfaction of most Americans concerning the gov't (look at voter turnout as an indication of apathy at the least.) Building a bunker in Costa Rica's looking better and better. ;)
I've heard it's getting that way in Aussieland, but I haven't talked to anyone there about it directly, so I can't say. Don't know anything about NZ, but the rest I'd tend to agree with. I think the best example I've heard about would be Singapore, but mostly second-hand stories, so I don't know exactly how draconian they are. :)
:) (In a nutshell, if it's not a power granted by the fed and state constitutions, it's forbidden to them. Like any socialistic program that's out there now)
The laws aren't really draconian, per se, but again, you've got to look at the context of the situation. In the US, the historical context of the right to bear arms stems from governmental abuses, which the right is supposed to help squelch. It was written to mean the commonly available armaments of the day, eg. rifles, knives, etc. What is commonly available now are rifles (hunting and assault), handguns, shotguns, and knives. Out of the commonly available armaments of the day, most people should have access to any and all of the above. What's the truth? Well, you can buy hunting rifles and some shotguns without registering the weapon. Most tactical and combat knives are banned, because they're concealed weapons. You have to register most handguns, and then you have to get a permit to carry them, unless you wear in an open holster. Assault rifles have been largely restricted, even though they are the most common military armament. The rationale is that the "public" welfare comes before individual rights, and unfortunately, many people have come to believe that. Contrary to that belief, the right of the individual comes far before the government or the "public" in the United States.
As for the point of protecting yourself from police abuse, I meant true police abuse, not just flashing it at them. That would get you shot. However, if a police officer is criminally violating your rights, it is your legal right and duty to resist with as much force as necessary (don't remember the various case citations off the top of my head.) If I felt my life was being threatened by a cop, I would have little problem doing what was necessary to stop him/her. Unfortunately, in comes police corruption, because I'd become a target even if I was fully within my rights. Unfortunately, I don't see change close on the horizon. It's a slow, steady buildup of people sick to death with the powermongers who have banded together under the umbrella of legitimacy in order to control those around them. This is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to stop, and that's why you see so much about gun control being hyped so as to seem necessary for the safety of all. When only the government has guns, you've got a police state.
Anyway, I'll cut this off, since I could rant all day about the illegitimacy of the US government.
Yes, but you have to look at the nation itself in the context of the study. Most nations are smaller than the US, which always means that they are more manageable from a police standpoint. What they're managing is a populace that is completely, or nearly completely (and almost universally registered), disarmed, through draconian laws which give them almost complete power over the populace. Criminal sentences are usually very harsh, and though this all may sound good, you have to look at the other side of the coin: very little protection for people from police abuse of power, and most people are aware that, even if there aren't blatant abuses on these powers, many officers are still prone to act as if they are above the law. It's also good to look at the gross incidence of crime. Yes, violent crimes drop, but non-violent crimes more than make up for it in incidence. Would write more, but I gotta go. :)
*chuckle* Very true, but consider the circumstances of most crimes like this. The thief is generally more interested in as little resistance as possible, and this generally does not include killing the victim first. Thieves who would do that are probably doing that already, so an armed society wouldn't change their tactics any (well, except that they'd have to be even more careful picking their targets.) The less confrontational thieves would doubtfully adopt the approach of killing their targets to insure zero resistance. Basically, my point was that an armed society would make crime much less appealing to the majority of those out there who prey on people weaker than themselves.
Your example doesn't follow. If everyone has a gun, then the criminals will know everyone has a gun. Thus, there aren't many easier targets. Yes, there would still be crime, but the incidence of violent crime would drop just a couple percent. :)
This is the very reason why there's a 2nd Amendment. How much do you think the feds would abuse people if 100% of the population carried a 9mm? (And before you say there'd be too much killing and crime, put the word "criminals" in place of "feds.") Police are no different than plumbers. One protects those who can't or don't protect themselves, the other does plumbing for those who can't do it themselves.
Flames will be summarily ignored.
Yes, but this is often the case because the feds would have legally raped him even more than they have if his lawyer hadn't done so. They treated Mitnik guilty until proven innocent, which is not the way American jurisprudence was built to run.
What most people in America don't realize is that if you're convicted of a felony, you get rights granted by the government. They revoke your civil rights. Kevin will have no rights except what he's told he can. Many felons have no 2nd Amendment rights, and it has little bearing on whether or not they were even considered violent criminals. Most felons have zero right to privacy (for those textualists out there, shut up, it's called the tenth amendment.) The same goes for the right to vote in many states. And the list goes on...
Okay, didn't catch that the first time I read it. My point still stands though, that since you're talking about buying two IDE controller cards in order to get decent performance, you can buy a SCSI controller (and drives) which will outperform the IDE controller and drives in every category for only a marginal increase in spending. (Considering the life expectancy comparing IDE and SCSI drives, that margin drops even lower, since the replacement rate of SCSI drives tends to be much lower than their IDE counterparts.)