Generally a gun banner is someone who doesn't know anything about firearms, doesn't WANT to know and most especially wants to wallow in the fear their ignorance produces.
Why is it that a certain segment of the gun-owning populace immediately jumps to the conclusion that there's some grand-scale movement to try to completely ban guns every time limitations on gun ownership are brought up? I think the great majority of the country (even the blue states) is okay with gun-ownership in the hands of responsible adults, but there should be certain barriers before being allowed to purchase a gun. Psychological evaluations (especially for a license to carry a concealed weapon), a background check, and a mandatory waiting period without any gun-show loopholes seem perfectly reasonable to me. It's not something I feel particularly strong about, but I also don't see any reason guns should be 100% easy to obtain.
They are also highly likely to be unstable people projecting their own instability onto the public at large.
Well, that's certainly an interesting, completely unfounded statement...
But had he been planning a school shooting, is it not good to be safe rather than sorry?
I think that is a very dangerous argument...for instance, maybe you're a terrorist. I don't know, maybe you are, maybe you're not. Maybe we should look up your bank statements to be sure. Maybe we should tap your phone. Maybe we should root through your stuff when you're not home. You're probably not a terrorist, but you've probably played a video game or two. A GAMER! Maybe you own a hammer...we'll just have to bring you down to the precinct to see what you plan on doing with your hammer. Have you had thoughts of hurting people with your hammer? Maybe other people have hammers, too! Maybe we should start putting cameras in everybody's homes, just to make sure they're not breaking any laws. I mean, if you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about, right? Is it not good to be safe rather than sorry?
No kidding. Much as you may like to think so, you're not the only one who's done academic research before. Interestingly, you seem to have somehow missed the fact that the journalistic article I linked to is a summary of the first journal article that you linked to. This is stated right in the article, "their findings appear in the June issue of Communication Monographs in an article titled 'Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game.'"
That would be the first article that you linked to.
A quick look at the summary of that article (you know, the first one you linked to) shows this statement: "The findings did not support the assertion that a violent game will cause substantial increases in real-world aggression."
Are you sure you've actually read any of these articles?
I don't see any articles that you've mentioned that look to be anything more than anecdotal arguments. A student or teacher's perception is hardly useful for anything more than suggesting that further study is warranted. The only way to draw conclusions about this sort of thing is with solid statistical evidence that gamers are more likely than the general public to be violent, of which I have never seen. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. You also haven't stated what journals these articles appear in. Not all journals are created equally. Many are somewhat less than neutral on certain topics.
I was simply pointing out standard school policy. Also, take note that the hammer was in his bedroom, not the garage.
Still, standard school policy is one thing. I think the sorts of zero-tolerance policies that have 7-year olds expelled from school for pointing a straw at a fellow student are ridiculous. This policy, however, borders on criminal by extending into the privacy of the students home.
The hammer stems from the 'zero tolerance' policy. Anything that could be used as a weapon is confiscated.
The hammer was in his home. School's can't seriously think their zero tolerance policies can govern what may or may not be present in a student's home. There's not even any proof that the hammer belonged to him, and not, for instance, his parents, who are well within their legal rights to own a hammer.
Wow, this is really frightening. They've taken a kid who had the knowledge and initiative to build a 3D map of his school, who hasn't done a single illegal thing, and kicked him out of school based on the fact that someone in his family owns a hammer. A hammer. Who among us doesn't own a hammer? I own three. One's kind of small for hanging pictures. Another one is a normal sized hammer that I've had for a long time, and the third is one that replaced my normal hammer when my neighbor borrowed it for 2 months. Am I a criminal because of my hammer collection?
This is so ridiculous that it hurts. There's been no scientific evidence that gamers--even gamers who enjoy violent video games--are any more likely to be violent people. And there's certainly been no evidence that game developers or game modders are any more likely to be violent people. Where do authorities get off assuming that someone with an active imagination, who enjoys the fantasy of games, is a terrorist? I hope he sues the school board, and wins.
And when taking that into consideration, it removes almost all of the underlying dirtiness the comment attempted to make. It changes the entire tone of the situation. Even if you disagree with the war or the president, you should at least be honest in it and you grips.
Technically speaking, my original comment didn't really place any value judgments on the fact that I think the government will be more lenient when it comes to censoring pro-war blogging soldiers. While I am generally a free-speech advocate, I do think that soldiers in the field should be subject to government censorship. Soldiers knowingly give up certain rights when they enlist. My original comment was merely stating (in a somewhat sarcastic tone) that I wouldn't be surprised if the Army tends to censor anti-war blogs more than pro-war blogs. I'm not sure how that's flamebait, or really all that revolutionary of a concept. Even you're saying that it's been happening for a very long time. So how is it all that surprising or inaccurate of a point of view?
Not sure how this is flamebait. The Bush administration has been pretty openly trying to manipulate public perception of the war. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if this was a step toward trying to silence those in the military who have come out with statements against it.
Very good quote, thanks. What exactly is the "intellectual property" here? Has the number been copyrighted?
I am in no way supporting the censorship of this key, but they actually could technically get into legal trouble over it being on their site. The DMCA outlaws the distribution of information that allows others to crack encryption algorithms. This is the same crap that happened with DeCSS, and university professors have actually gotten into legal problems over papers on encryption algorithms because of it.
All of these instances are examples of how the DMCA infringes on the guaranteed right to free speech in America. We're not talking about profanity. We're not talking about death threats. This is intelligent, academic discourse that is being trampled by a provision of a law that forces publishers of websites and other media to become censors for the government.
They do, but that's not (again, as I understand this) enough to make US patent law applicable to those sales. The product has to be "made" in the US.
Doesn't this seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of software? I mean, the software isn't the CD, it's the stuff on the CD...every copy of it is identical to the original...the transmission medium should be completely irrelevant.
The ruling is that OS installs from a master disk made in the US don't qualify as US-made export goods themselves, and therefore aren't subject to US patents.
But doesn't Microsoft still get paid for each OEM copy of Windows that is sold, regardless of whether an actual CD was sent for each computer or not? Also, don't computers oversees come with an official copy of the Windows CD? Last I checked, they do here...although, it has been awhile since I've purchased a computer rather than building it myself...
Patient your software, but every single line of code must be submitted, and that is all that is covered. That exact string of code, not the idea behind the code.
There's no reason to patent that, it's protected by copyright law...
I still don't understand what makes algorithms and software OBVIOUSLY not patentable.
I think one problem with software patents is that many companies have patented technology, that while it may not be a 100% obvious technology, is something that another entity could come up with completely on their own, without even knowing that somebody else has patented the idea. I have no problem with a patent preventing someone from steeling a technology, but I find it very disturbing when companies apply for patents just to keep others from using a technology...for instance, Vonage v. Verizon.
For example, the RIAA worked with the recording industry to establish techniques and standards for "storing" bass on vinyl by attenuating it, but incorporating offsetting amplification to restore the bass to its correct presence allowing for more music on a single vinyl disk. Thus the RIAA was there to ensure or help ensure the best possible music experience.
I believe what you're referring to is usually called RIAA equalization, or the RIAA curve.
How could they not get slapped in court? What judge could take such a claim seriously?
If they actually start enforcing this, I'm just going to start an internet radio station with my own music. Other artists should do the same. Just let them try to sue me for royalties on music that I wrote/recorded/produced.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally a gun banner is someone who doesn't know anything about firearms, doesn't WANT to know and most especially wants to wallow in the fear their ignorance produces.
Why is it that a certain segment of the gun-owning populace immediately jumps to the conclusion that there's some grand-scale movement to try to completely ban guns every time limitations on gun ownership are brought up? I think the great majority of the country (even the blue states) is okay with gun-ownership in the hands of responsible adults, but there should be certain barriers before being allowed to purchase a gun. Psychological evaluations (especially for a license to carry a concealed weapon), a background check, and a mandatory waiting period without any gun-show loopholes seem perfectly reasonable to me. It's not something I feel particularly strong about, but I also don't see any reason guns should be 100% easy to obtain.
They are also highly likely to be unstable people projecting their own instability onto the public at large.
Well, that's certainly an interesting, completely unfounded statement...
Vegemite is a watered down, sweetened copy of the British product Marmite
I had vegemite once. It's been awhile, but IIRC, it reminded me quite a bit of beef bullion.
But had he been planning a school shooting, is it not good to be safe rather than sorry?
I think that is a very dangerous argument...for instance, maybe you're a terrorist. I don't know, maybe you are, maybe you're not. Maybe we should look up your bank statements to be sure. Maybe we should tap your phone. Maybe we should root through your stuff when you're not home. You're probably not a terrorist, but you've probably played a video game or two. A GAMER! Maybe you own a hammer...we'll just have to bring you down to the precinct to see what you plan on doing with your hammer. Have you had thoughts of hurting people with your hammer? Maybe other people have hammers, too! Maybe we should start putting cameras in everybody's homes, just to make sure they're not breaking any laws. I mean, if you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about, right? Is it not good to be safe rather than sorry?
A lot more research needs to be done on this topic, I am not arguing that. But to date, there are no hardcorefacts.
Which is why the arrest, in this instance, should not have been made.
Your link is journalistic and is not scientific
No kidding. Much as you may like to think so, you're not the only one who's done academic research before. Interestingly, you seem to have somehow missed the fact that the journalistic article I linked to is a summary of the first journal article that you linked to. This is stated right in the article, "their findings appear in the June issue of Communication Monographs in an article titled 'Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game.'"
That would be the first article that you linked to.
A quick look at the summary of that article (you know, the first one you linked to) shows this statement: "The findings did not support the assertion that a violent game will cause substantial increases in real-world aggression."
Are you sure you've actually read any of these articles?
I don't see any articles that you've mentioned that look to be anything more than anecdotal arguments. A student or teacher's perception is hardly useful for anything more than suggesting that further study is warranted. The only way to draw conclusions about this sort of thing is with solid statistical evidence that gamers are more likely than the general public to be violent, of which I have never seen. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. You also haven't stated what journals these articles appear in. Not all journals are created equally. Many are somewhat less than neutral on certain topics.
;-) If I had mod points, you'd get them.
I was simply pointing out standard school policy. Also, take note that the hammer was in his bedroom, not the garage.
Still, standard school policy is one thing. I think the sorts of zero-tolerance policies that have 7-year olds expelled from school for pointing a straw at a fellow student are ridiculous. This policy, however, borders on criminal by extending into the privacy of the students home.
The hammer stems from the 'zero tolerance' policy. Anything that could be used as a weapon is confiscated.
The hammer was in his home. School's can't seriously think their zero tolerance policies can govern what may or may not be present in a student's home. There's not even any proof that the hammer belonged to him, and not, for instance, his parents, who are well within their legal rights to own a hammer.
Wow, this is really frightening. They've taken a kid who had the knowledge and initiative to build a 3D map of his school, who hasn't done a single illegal thing, and kicked him out of school based on the fact that someone in his family owns a hammer. A hammer. Who among us doesn't own a hammer? I own three. One's kind of small for hanging pictures. Another one is a normal sized hammer that I've had for a long time, and the third is one that replaced my normal hammer when my neighbor borrowed it for 2 months. Am I a criminal because of my hammer collection?
This is so ridiculous that it hurts. There's been no scientific evidence that gamers--even gamers who enjoy violent video games--are any more likely to be violent people. And there's certainly been no evidence that game developers or game modders are any more likely to be violent people. Where do authorities get off assuming that someone with an active imagination, who enjoys the fantasy of games, is a terrorist? I hope he sues the school board, and wins.
And when taking that into consideration, it removes almost all of the underlying dirtiness the comment attempted to make. It changes the entire tone of the situation. Even if you disagree with the war or the president, you should at least be honest in it and you grips.
Technically speaking, my original comment didn't really place any value judgments on the fact that I think the government will be more lenient when it comes to censoring pro-war blogging soldiers. While I am generally a free-speech advocate, I do think that soldiers in the field should be subject to government censorship. Soldiers knowingly give up certain rights when they enlist. My original comment was merely stating (in a somewhat sarcastic tone) that I wouldn't be surprised if the Army tends to censor anti-war blogs more than pro-war blogs. I'm not sure how that's flamebait, or really all that revolutionary of a concept. Even you're saying that it's been happening for a very long time. So how is it all that surprising or inaccurate of a point of view?
I don't see how that's relevant to politics right now. There have been many presidents who supported slavery. Doesn't make it right.
Not sure how this is flamebait. The Bush administration has been pretty openly trying to manipulate public perception of the war. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if this was a step toward trying to silence those in the military who have come out with statements against it.
But this level of control over blogs and emails could potentially be very stifling to the point of effectively eliminating soldier blogs altogether.
Oh, I'm sure they'll still allow blogs by soldier who are supportive of the war. Especially if they're "loyal bushies"...
Very good quote, thanks. What exactly is the "intellectual property" here? Has the number been copyrighted?
I am in no way supporting the censorship of this key, but they actually could technically get into legal trouble over it being on their site. The DMCA outlaws the distribution of information that allows others to crack encryption algorithms. This is the same crap that happened with DeCSS, and university professors have actually gotten into legal problems over papers on encryption algorithms because of it.
All of these instances are examples of how the DMCA infringes on the guaranteed right to free speech in America. We're not talking about profanity. We're not talking about death threats. This is intelligent, academic discourse that is being trampled by a provision of a law that forces publishers of websites and other media to become censors for the government.
Thompson Financial, Bank of America, and AIG.
So you mean that some of those Bank of America SPAMs are actually coming from Bank of America computers? Woh...
They do, but that's not (again, as I understand this) enough to make US patent law applicable to those sales. The product has to be "made" in the US.
Doesn't this seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of software? I mean, the software isn't the CD, it's the stuff on the CD...every copy of it is identical to the original...the transmission medium should be completely irrelevant.
There's these...but they are kind of pricey:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/7aa8/
The ruling is that OS installs from a master disk made in the US don't qualify as US-made export goods themselves, and therefore aren't subject to US patents.
But doesn't Microsoft still get paid for each OEM copy of Windows that is sold, regardless of whether an actual CD was sent for each computer or not? Also, don't computers oversees come with an official copy of the Windows CD? Last I checked, they do here...although, it has been awhile since I've purchased a computer rather than building it myself...
Patient your software, but every single line of code must be submitted, and that is all that is covered. That exact string of code, not the idea behind the code.
There's no reason to patent that, it's protected by copyright law...
s/steeling/stealing/i
I still don't understand what makes algorithms and software OBVIOUSLY not patentable.
I think one problem with software patents is that many companies have patented technology, that while it may not be a 100% obvious technology, is something that another entity could come up with completely on their own, without even knowing that somebody else has patented the idea. I have no problem with a patent preventing someone from steeling a technology, but I find it very disturbing when companies apply for patents just to keep others from using a technology...for instance, Vonage v. Verizon.
And you think they will shy away from this just because it is your music?
No, but I'll be more than happy to go to court over it. There's no way a judge would give them the right to force me to pay them for my own music.
For example, the RIAA worked with the recording industry to establish techniques and standards for "storing" bass on vinyl by attenuating it, but incorporating offsetting amplification to restore the bass to its correct presence allowing for more music on a single vinyl disk. Thus the RIAA was there to ensure or help ensure the best possible music experience.
I believe what you're referring to is usually called RIAA equalization, or the RIAA curve.
How could they not get slapped in court? What judge could take such a claim seriously?
If they actually start enforcing this, I'm just going to start an internet radio station with my own music. Other artists should do the same. Just let them try to sue me for royalties on music that I wrote/recorded/produced.