Great, so what's your point exactly? When they said 'assured' the premise must be that the possiblity is there just because the sources are available and licensed to permit others to the continue should they so desire. What else can it mean given the context? Proprietary means that you have no assurances that the product CAN live beyond its producer's will because there is no possibility of such. Do you not agree? BTW, *ALL* of FOSS is free. That's what the "F" stands for. It seems to me that either you disagree that FOSS would be interested in VB or that FOSS could not organize a replacement for VB or else something that I just can't figure out.
Can anyone explain to me how a F/OSS project implies assurances of continued support while there is demand for said support?
Sure. Pay for it or do it for yourself. The idea is that as long as there is motivated demand there will be motivated supply. You have to remember, with FOSS you *can* continue the development. With the alternatives, you are at the mercy of the provider.
No its a fork. They continue to develop and support both versions and both continue in different directions. Just because it is all internal and not from competing vendors doesn't mean it is not a fork.
Besides, fundamentally, Windows 2003 is a fork of Windows XP which is a fork of Windows 2000 which is a fork of NT. During their anti-trust trial Mictosoft asked why they were being punsihed for competing vigorously. Competition, after all, yields better products, better efficiencies and more choice. Naturally, they never meant it: now they blatantly say that more choice is bad for customers.
here's some fun: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:alliance
Of course, this is just the begining. This is a good sign that the powers that be are starting to shake in their boots. They will continue their volleys and increase the intensity and ferocity of their attacks as their empires crumble. Its actually kind of fun to see them twisting in the wind like this.
Microsoft: we don't have a email record because we weren't interested in the technology.
Judge: but you were interested enough in it to integrate the technology into your own products?
Microsoft: oh, we were interested in using it, just not paying for it.
Unfortunately, they were never punished. They settled the case. Proving once again that you can flaunt any law so long as your pockets are bigger than your foes.
I'd like to say, first, that I am not seeking a simple solution to a complex problem. Rather, I'm seeking a simpler solution and also one that is more fair. When I said nothing changes, I meant that one should assume that individual payments and total revenues didn't change. Obviously the process would change. The hypothetical question was if you would agree that the process was simpler. If I read you correctly, you do not agree. Personally I'd prefer a standards body over the current system.
I wonder from where the justification of taxing unused income (ie. savings) comes. Note that in a consumption model there is still room to tax investment transactions and services. It is noted too that at some point savings will become expenditures so it is not as if savings will go untaxed forever. I also wonder why a governments expenditures should exceed a fraction of the total expenditures made.
As for distribution, those with the most money will undoubtedly spend the most and hence pay the most taxes. It is not inconceivable that investment transactions and services could be taxed. I would be surprised if a model couldn't be developed that preserved the status quo in terms of overall contributions and from whence they came.
That said, I admit I haven't thought hard enough about all of the details on this type of scheme. Compliance may turn out to be much more difficult than it is even with income tax. As you appear to know of what you speak I will accept the argument that the current system isn't completely unreasonable. I would posit, though, that there may be alternatives that (at least on the face of it) are more efficient and fair and that there yet may exist a consumption based model that could achieve those goals.
"The bottom line is, getting rid of income tax in favour of raising sales (or consumption) taxes would make you the rich man's best friend."
I can have worse friends. Never-the-less, I disagree with you -- I still think consumption tax is more fair. I also didn't suggest that property tax be repealed (though I am not entirely against that either). As I suggested, you could have a gradient of tax levels based on a good's necessity. That way you can accomodate the poor and the rich.
Besides, their are other ways to affect the distribution of wealth. For example, you can have 100% (or thereabouts) death tax -- you came into the world with nothing, you leave with nothing. This has the benefit of encouraging consumption.
Finally, the balance you describe is highly debatable, not at all transparent, arbitrary and overtly complicated for all parties. If you think wealth should be distributed, come out and say so -- I won't oppose that. I'm just saying that when all is said and done, income tax is a very good way of achieving that.
BTW: the burden of income tax rests largely on the middle-class, not the wealthy. Indeed, the middle and lower classes carry nearly all of societies burdens.
But I have a hypothetical to ask: assume you can arrange consumption taxes in such a way that no-ones situation actually changes. Would you agree in that case that it is a better system just on the virtue of simplicity?
I love that thinking: it is unfair that tangible items get taxed, ergo we should tax intangible items FOR FAIRNESS. Why not abandon tangible goods taxes? Isn't that equally fair?
To be honest, I'm in favour of consumption taxes and I think they can be higher than they are and ought be universal but only on condition that income tax be eliminated for all time! Think of the benefits: no more confusing income tax laws, no more tax evasion (you consume, you pay).
True, prices will rise to compensate and there will be trade effects but all of those can be corrected for through various measures. For example, savings will be larger. Its easier, its fairer and more efficient. It is also easier to implement general fairness. Essentialls can be taxed at a lower rate than luxuries. Instead of discriminating based on income, you diferentiate based on purchase preferences and needs. Income tax was supposedly a temporary (wartime) measure. Its long term implications were never properly evaluated and it is the wrong way for governments to go about collecting revenue.
The problem with rants is that they have more cutting words than words cut -- they are filled with diatribe and not fact. For example, good Marcus tells us that the reason Windows won was due to consistency. BULL SHIT. It won because it was cheaper than Unix, was pushed onto new computers using illegal monopoly practices and had a good many inexepensive and productive development tools available for it. In other words, it entered the consumer market whereas Unix was content to ignore consumers. Microsoft entered the corporate marketplace much later and when it do so, its first competitor was not the Unix bretheren but rather Novell and its lan networking products. I was there just like Marcus and I too used the gammut of products from DOS to Vaxen to Unixes of many flavour to Novell to Macs to Windows 2 and beyond. I can assure you he is talking out of his ass.
"We are determined to find people who illegally distribute music, whichever peer-to-peer network they use, and to make them compensate the artists and labels they are stealing from."
If anything, it is the labels / artists who should have to pay fines everytime they rattle off phrases like that. I bet they don't use that sort of language in court. No one is stealing anything from anyone. There is no property that is being exchanged, nor has anyone's actions resulted in someone somehow losing any material item. They make it sound like every d/l song is a lost sale and that a lost sale should be counted as an asset. Maybe at Enron, but that's completely bogus.
What is happening is that people are illegally infringing on the labels / artists right to distribute (ie. copy) said material. That is not stealing. If someone goes into a library and photocopies an entire copyrighted book, they are infringing on the copyright owner's right to issue copies; however, that does not compare to the person who goes into a bookstore and removes from the bookstore, without paying, the same book. THAT is stealing! Both are committing an illegal activity but they are exceptionally different in character.
I very much appreciate your offer and perhaps I will take you up on it sometime; however, I really never intended to get into the gun debate itself -- if you see my first post in this thread, you will see I was using the analogy ironically and further, I only said what an earlier (wiser) poster refused to name directly.
For all I know, you are just as likely to be worldly and have lived in, participated in and studied other cultures as not. If you have, then you will at least have some experience as to what it means to live in a culture with gun control laws. Your situation with your lady friend, as you present it, sounds rather like a special case (and quite dramatic and serious, I should add). Although you may find it natural to say that the best defense is to have the best weapon in hand, you are no doubt aware that other modern cultures have rejected this notion. While they still face generally the same variety of crimes and violent crimes (no society has a monopoly on criminals) as committed in the US you will find that generally the rate of these is significantly less in cultures which show little or no tolerance for guns and weapons. Why is that? I'm not going to try to answer that for you. If you have had the opportunity to experience it for yourself you may begin to understand my position.
Again, I don't particularly feel the need to enter a full debate on the issue at this point -- it is not particularly interesting to me as I feel secure in my own situation. Besides, better minds than mine have eloquently made the crucial arguments.
I will add though, a main reason why I think it is difficult to debate this issue with my American friends and neighbors (whether on slashdot or not) and why I am compelled to decline your request. It is somewhat perceptual and somewhat based on what I see as an ingrained belief -- the belief that gun ownership is a right. I hardly have to tell you that it seems to stem from an interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Most in this thread have agreed (and I do believe it is the correct interpretation) that the spirit of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that no govenrment may enforce tyranny on its populace by virtue of a monopoly of the militia and its armaments. Most (I can't recall, but I believe you have as well) have also agreed that this stipulation is anachronistic -- it doesn't pertain to or match today's experience. An armed populace will prevent neither a foreign body or the prevailing local governments from acts of tyranny. It is a matter of size, organization and resources.
So the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, while valid, creates a situation that does not address the problem it was intended to face. It has produced a well armed populace where it is clear that the aims of having such are not feasible. Its like running a nuclear reactor without any transmission capability. You are getting all of the lethal pollution without any benefit, particularly not the intended benefit (it may have side-effects that are beneficial as well as detrimental, but in either case, the intended purpose -- the raison d'etre -- is not viable).
Despite this, most in this thread who adhere to handguns (and dismissed the notion of them being useful to protect the citizenry) have gone on to rationalize gun ownership vis a vis their supposed (but highly debatable) use for self-defense. The important point that is nearly impossible to get across (because of the ingrained belief of the right to hold arms based on the 2nd ammendment) is that the 2nd ammendment neither in spirit or word, authorizes the right to arms for the use of self-protection in private affairs nor does it authorize the use against other citizens, law-abiding or not. We have a strawman -- a shell game -- a switcheroo -- where one right is appropriated and applied in a completely different situation for which the right was never secured. When we foreigners look at situations like this and try to understand the American thinking in this situation, it is often difficult to begin to understand it fro
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans. Your comments are very good, but fundamentally guns are weapons, p2p is not. There are subtleties of each which, to uncover in an unbiased manner demand a level of introspection that we can't reasonably achieve here. So we banter, instead. Maybe we're bored.
I just want to say that I have a long standing respect for the American people and the wonderful things they have contributed. Unfortunately, that image has been severly tainted these last few years (or maybe decades). Biases exist everywhere. How many posts in this very thread did you notice which mentioned "frenchy", "dirty-hippie", "liberal zealot", "FUD", etc. Its a two-way fence and on surely you know that on slashdot, mud is often slung with a tongue in cheek, yes? No worries. I'm not offended. You needn't be either.
First of all, what do you mean "how many times a gun is used?" Guns are never not used. They continue to do their thing whether they are being fired or not. They are threatening just being. Besides, you are presupposing that all of the so-called legal activities OUGHT be legal. We are discussing whether P2P ought be legal (which currently, it IS). Guns are used by analogy. Therefore, we must discuss if guns OUGHT be legal, not that they are. You can't show that guns OUGHT be legal because they already are.
You are making things up. The only exposure I have personally had to P2P in the last couple of years is BitTorrent and all I've used it for it to download or seed recent linux distros. That's it. I bet it happens WAY WAY more than you suspect. I also posit this: guns are more dangerous in both their "legal" and "illegal" uses than P2P is in its legal and illegal uses.
I never said that P2P could not be used for evil and I didn't say that guns were made for evil doing. I'm saying that I can't think of any non-evil doing uses for guns (no more example please, I've already seem what people thing is not evil) and that on the whole, guns are far less neutral than P2P.
I'd rather a world filled with P2P criminals than gun criminals. Anyday.
Don't be ridiculous. It has never expanded through conquest (at least OFFICIALLY, it has occupied territories, eg: Philipines, Korea, etc) because of legal recourse. I'm glad though to hear your attitude: it means the American spirit that went into writing the consititution, declaration, et al, are still alive.
"We're having a sensible conversation, what will this do to our karma?"
My *real* karma won't be affected. What the mods make of all of this is up to them. I really could care less.
"Hmmm... what definition of legitimate am I using them... I don't know. "Morally right" perhaps?"
It would seem so. Apparently, morality has nothing to do with it. After looking it up, it appears to mean, generally, "lawful". I would have thought it had a moral angle too. Live and learn.
Here's a book you probably never heard of -- only because it is a book on Canadian politics (!) and lets be honest, even if you are from Canada chances are you never heard of it. I bring it up only because in order to frame the Canadian identity question, it is impossible to not first consider the influence of America. Professor Grant shows with simple lucidity that America is exactly like every other Empire that proceeded it with one exception -- it does not expand its borders of influence through military conquest per se. This is a consequence of the fact that the American constitution (or one of the documents) prohibits such activity. On the other hand, America has a broader influence (economic, social, cultural and foreign policy) than any other single culture or Empire that proceeded it. While it does not fit the traditional guise of "Empire" it most certainly *is* an Empire in every way that matters. The book is but a thin volume but really really well written (especially considering its subject matter) and it distills far more insight than one would expect from such a slight tome. Despite being written in the mid-sixties and for a Canadian audience, I wouldn't doubt that its insights are particularly relevant to the American experience at this point in history.
I would debate some more about guns but I don't like guns, I don't need guns and you aren't making any defence of actually keeping guns. Besides, I sort of got into this gun thing by accident by taking up the thread at a point that, in retrospect, was troll laden (who would have thought that guns would be a hot-button issue?) I don't own a gun. I probably shouldn't argue over the merit of guns with people who do own guns.
One thing I learned about gun folks: if its not the King of England after them, its an alligator. You know how alligators come into populated areas and eat people for no good reason? Of course you need a gun. Its a multi-purpose tool: on the one hand, it is the vindicator of freedom and on the other, it is the subduer of nature. Don't forget -- they are great for cracking nuts!! Of course, the best thing guns are for is killing. If you have some killing that needs done -- use a gun.
Oh, and speaking of nuts -- Texas. "Whydya shoot 'im?" "He needed Killin'". "Ahhh." The right to kill someone because they TP'd your house. Fantastic!! It fills my heart with ease knowing that every damn person I pass on the street is 1) carrying a gun, 2) feels that they have the right to be a judge, a jury and an executioner. That's a great system because it doesn't discriminate against anyone's right to ruin someone else's day. It amazes me that there are still people with guns who DON'T live in Texas. What are they waiting for? Texas was made for them!
On a serious note, the problem with guns is that if you can't trust your government with them, how in hell can you trust your "neighbor" with them? Moreso, if you are so untrusting of everyone (isn't that a sign of instability?) then how can anyone trust YOU with a gun?
Man, I am so sorry I got into this gun thing. I forgot how much Americans love guns. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
I wasn't laughing at the interpretation, I was laughing at the idea that it still means something in todays "civil" society. Oh sure, everyone needed a gun in-case the King of England came a-knocking way-back before there was a nation and a militia. Surely you have read that that was a very long time ago? Do you really think little 'ol you sitting on your pile of hand guns is keeping the rest of the world at bay? Is it keeping the US government off your back? It seems to me that 100 million people should have rushed into Washington with their guns a blaring back the moment the Dept of Homeland Security was created and began usurping their everyday rights and privledges (they probably didn't because no one threatened to mess with the second ammendment, yes?). These gun rights are all a bunch of lip-talk from people who are too damned afraid to sleep at night unless they have a gun under their pillow, a twitching finger on the trigger. What a life.
What else were guns good for two hundred years ago -- ergo what other reasons were there to have the pretext for a right to bear arms law? Lessee, if you needed to kill an indian or keep slaves in line -- use a gun! Take revenge on the person sleeping with your wife? GUN! Open a bottle? GUN!! GUN!! GUN!!
Basically, I heard the rhetoric. I read the book. I saw the thousand movies it spawned. I still don't "buy it". Its one of those ideas that sounds real good and proper on paper but when you extend it out two hundred years its just a bloody mess. Or maybe you just have to have been born there to appreciate it? I always get the feeling that few countries have citizens that enjoy a good Flag Waving and Goose Stepping more than America.
I don't know -- where I live, it would be considered a detriment to one's life to NEED a gun. You see, over here we think that the right to have a weapon implies the right to use the weapon and therefore implies the right to kill. That's something do not accept.
"yah, that whole being explicitly granted in the constitution thing helps a little too I think..."
Its not like the constitution was handed down to a moses like figure on the mount by god. Its a document written by people that was probably mostly appropriate at the time to protect the interests of the people writing it. Its not like there isn't a government body and judicial system that is forever interpreting, modifying and ammending those all-mighty documents of confederation.
"What's this? Are these facts? I specifically asked for _statistics_!"
Excellent post, even though neither of us seems to be using the proper definition of legitimate (which is "lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law").
1a) You can not poop gold because that is not in accordance with physical laws (unless you actually eat gold, I suppose). Whether you should or not is therefore irrelevant.
1b) ahh, so you agree. In this day and age, the 2nd ammendment holds no bearing because it can not achieve its aims.
2a) I'm not arguing against using deadly force, am I? I am arguing the legitimate uses of guns. Are you implying it is impossible to defend oneself WITHOUT a gun?
2b) Like I said, it was a catch-22. "Cops need guns because civilians have guns." "Civilians need guns because cops have guns." Legitimate? I think not.
"Now I know how god must feel when HE'S holding a gun!"
Its funny because you seriously seem to think that despite having the most (and best) armaments in the world, it is the great unwashed -- but armed -- populace that are keeping invaders at bay.
By-the-way, as to your question regarding whether I read the Bill of Rights or not, Of COURSE I read it -- I'm Canadian.
Hmm. I didn't say LEGAL, I said LEGITIMATE. According to your comments, legitimate uses for guns are:
1) overthrowing governments 2) jewlery for police officers
as for 1) isn't civil protest more appropriate than armed overthrow? Didn't the mahatma regain a country and win over the mind and hearts of people everywhere with that concept? Besides, have you noticed how the US government reacts when it is attacked (or percieves an attack? or suggests it has been attacked?) You'd need something bigger a little bit bigger than a handgun to deal with *that* noise. Sorry, guns can't do what you claim for that case 1) so it is not a legitimate use.
as for 2) can't officers wear nose rings like everyone else? Seriously, not all officers carry guns (eg. most Bobbies still do not); however, most US officers will tell you that they MUST carry guns -- after all, the *bad guys* have guns. Where I'm from, that's called a catch-22. I'll grant that it is probably prudent for an _officer_ to carry a gun, but I still think it is less than legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, so what's your point exactly? When they said 'assured' the premise must be that the possiblity is there just because the sources are available and licensed to permit others to the continue should they so desire. What else can it mean given the context? Proprietary means that you have no assurances that the product CAN live beyond its producer's will because there is no possibility of such. Do you not agree? BTW, *ALL* of FOSS is free. That's what the "F" stands for. It seems to me that either you disagree that FOSS would be interested in VB or that FOSS could not organize a replacement for VB or else something that I just can't figure out.
Can anyone explain to me how a F/OSS project implies assurances of continued support while there is demand for said support?
Sure. Pay for it or do it for yourself. The idea is that as long as there is motivated demand there will be motivated supply. You have to remember, with FOSS you *can* continue the development. With the alternatives, you are at the mercy of the provider.
Of course you knew that and are just trolling.
The different Windows versions/SKUs are essentially branches off the same tree NOT forks.
What the hell do you think a fork is? I stand by what I said.
No its a fork. They continue to develop and support both versions and both continue in different directions. Just because it is all internal and not from competing vendors doesn't mean it is not a fork.
Besides, fundamentally, Windows 2003 is a fork of Windows XP which is a fork of Windows 2000 which is a fork of NT. During their anti-trust trial Mictosoft asked why they were being punsihed for competing vigorously. Competition, after all, yields better products, better efficiencies and more choice. Naturally, they never meant it: now they blatantly say that more choice is bad for customers.
here's some fun: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:alliance
Of course, this is just the begining. This is a good sign that the powers that be are starting to shake in their boots. They will continue their volleys and increase the intensity and ferocity of their attacks as their empires crumble. Its actually kind of fun to see them twisting in the wind like this.
exaclty!
Microsoft: we don't have a email record because we weren't interested in the technology.
Judge: but you were interested enough in it to integrate the technology into your own products?
Microsoft: oh, we were interested in using it, just not paying for it.
Unfortunately, they were never punished. They settled the case. Proving once again that you can flaunt any law so long as your pockets are bigger than your foes.
Strangely, he left out Mexico.
Thanks for the stats, that was enlightening.
I'd like to say, first, that I am not seeking a simple solution to a complex problem. Rather, I'm seeking a simpler solution and also one that is more fair. When I said nothing changes, I meant that one should assume that individual payments and total revenues didn't change. Obviously the process would change. The hypothetical question was if you would agree that the process was simpler. If I read you correctly, you do not agree. Personally I'd prefer a standards body over the current system.
I wonder from where the justification of taxing unused income (ie. savings) comes. Note that in a consumption model there is still room to tax investment transactions and services. It is noted too that at some point savings will become expenditures so it is not as if savings will go untaxed forever. I also wonder why a governments expenditures should exceed a fraction of the total expenditures made.
As for distribution, those with the most money will undoubtedly spend the most and hence pay the most taxes. It is not inconceivable that investment transactions and services could be taxed. I would be surprised if a model couldn't be developed that preserved the status quo in terms of overall contributions and from whence they came.
That said, I admit I haven't thought hard enough about all of the details on this type of scheme. Compliance may turn out to be much more difficult than it is even with income tax. As you appear to know of what you speak I will accept the argument that the current system isn't completely unreasonable. I would posit, though, that there may be alternatives that (at least on the face of it) are more efficient and fair and that there yet may exist a consumption based model that could achieve those goals.
Greetings.
"The bottom line is, getting rid of income tax in favour of raising sales (or consumption) taxes would make you the rich man's best friend."
I can have worse friends. Never-the-less, I disagree with you -- I still think consumption tax is more fair. I also didn't suggest that property tax be repealed (though I am not entirely against that either). As I suggested, you could have a gradient of tax levels based on a good's necessity. That way you can accomodate the poor and the rich.
Besides, their are other ways to affect the distribution of wealth. For example, you can have 100% (or thereabouts) death tax -- you came into the world with nothing, you leave with nothing. This has the benefit of encouraging consumption.
Finally, the balance you describe is highly debatable, not at all transparent, arbitrary and overtly complicated for all parties. If you think wealth should be distributed, come out and say so -- I won't oppose that. I'm just saying that when all is said and done, income tax is a very good way of achieving that.
BTW: the burden of income tax rests largely on the middle-class, not the wealthy. Indeed, the middle and lower classes carry nearly all of societies burdens.
But I have a hypothetical to ask: assume you can arrange consumption taxes in such a way that no-ones situation actually changes. Would you agree in that case that it is a better system just on the virtue of simplicity?
I love that thinking: it is unfair that tangible items get taxed, ergo we should tax intangible items FOR FAIRNESS. Why not abandon tangible goods taxes? Isn't that equally fair?
To be honest, I'm in favour of consumption taxes and I think they can be higher than they are and ought be universal but only on condition that income tax be eliminated for all time! Think of the benefits: no more confusing income tax laws, no more tax evasion (you consume, you pay).
True, prices will rise to compensate and there will be trade effects but all of those can be corrected for through various measures. For example, savings will be larger. Its easier, its fairer and more efficient. It is also easier to implement general fairness. Essentialls can be taxed at a lower rate than luxuries. Instead of discriminating based on income, you diferentiate based on purchase preferences and needs. Income tax was supposedly a temporary (wartime) measure. Its long term implications were never properly evaluated and it is the wrong way for governments to go about collecting revenue.
The problem with rants is that they have more cutting words than words cut -- they are filled with diatribe and not fact. For example, good Marcus tells us that the reason Windows won was due to consistency. BULL SHIT. It won because it was cheaper than Unix, was pushed onto new computers using illegal monopoly practices and had a good many inexepensive and productive development tools available for it. In other words, it entered the consumer market whereas Unix was content to ignore consumers. Microsoft entered the corporate marketplace much later and when it do so, its first competitor was not the Unix bretheren but rather Novell and its lan networking products. I was there just like Marcus and I too used the gammut of products from DOS to Vaxen to Unixes of many flavour to Novell to Macs to Windows 2 and beyond. I can assure you he is talking out of his ass.
"We are determined to find people who illegally distribute music, whichever peer-to-peer network they use, and to make them compensate the artists and labels they are stealing from."
If anything, it is the labels / artists who should have to pay fines everytime they rattle off phrases like that. I bet they don't use that sort of language in court. No one is stealing anything from anyone. There is no property that is being exchanged, nor has anyone's actions resulted in someone somehow losing any material item. They make it sound like every d/l song is a lost sale and that a lost sale should be counted as an asset. Maybe at Enron, but that's completely bogus.
What is happening is that people are illegally infringing on the labels / artists right to distribute (ie. copy) said material. That is not stealing. If someone goes into a library and photocopies an entire copyrighted book, they are infringing on the copyright owner's right to issue copies; however, that does not compare to the person who goes into a bookstore and removes from the bookstore, without paying, the same book. THAT is stealing! Both are committing an illegal activity but they are exceptionally different in character.
Besides, copyright is a stupid law to begin with.
We welcome our new American Overlords!
So continues the expansion of the American Empire.
I very much appreciate your offer and perhaps I will take you up on it sometime; however, I really never intended to get into the gun debate itself -- if you see my first post in this thread, you will see I was using the analogy ironically and further, I only said what an earlier (wiser) poster refused to name directly.
For all I know, you are just as likely to be worldly and have lived in, participated in and studied other cultures as not. If you have, then you will at least have some experience as to what it means to live in a culture with gun control laws. Your situation with your lady friend, as you present it, sounds rather like a special case (and quite dramatic and serious, I should add). Although you may find it natural to say that the best defense is to have the best weapon in hand, you are no doubt aware that other modern cultures have rejected this notion. While they still face generally the same variety of crimes and violent crimes (no society has a monopoly on criminals) as committed in the US you will find that generally the rate of these is significantly less in cultures which show little or no tolerance for guns and weapons. Why is that? I'm not going to try to answer that for you. If you have had the opportunity to experience it for yourself you may begin to understand my position.
Again, I don't particularly feel the need to enter a full debate on the issue at this point -- it is not particularly interesting to me as I feel secure in my own situation. Besides, better minds than mine have eloquently made the crucial arguments.
I will add though, a main reason why I think it is difficult to debate this issue with my American friends and neighbors (whether on slashdot or not) and why I am compelled to decline your request. It is somewhat perceptual and somewhat based on what I see as an ingrained belief -- the belief that gun ownership is a right. I hardly have to tell you that it seems to stem from an interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Most in this thread have agreed (and I do believe it is the correct interpretation) that the spirit of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that no govenrment may enforce tyranny on its populace by virtue of a monopoly of the militia and its armaments. Most (I can't recall, but I believe you have as well) have also agreed that this stipulation is anachronistic -- it doesn't pertain to or match today's experience. An armed populace will prevent neither a foreign body or the prevailing local governments from acts of tyranny. It is a matter of size, organization and resources.
So the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, while valid, creates a situation that does not address the problem it was intended to face. It has produced a well armed populace where it is clear that the aims of having such are not feasible. Its like running a nuclear reactor without any transmission capability. You are getting all of the lethal pollution without any benefit, particularly not the intended benefit (it may have side-effects that are beneficial as well as detrimental, but in either case, the intended purpose -- the raison d'etre -- is not viable).
Despite this, most in this thread who adhere to handguns (and dismissed the notion of them being useful to protect the citizenry) have gone on to rationalize gun ownership vis a vis their supposed (but highly debatable) use for self-defense. The important point that is nearly impossible to get across (because of the ingrained belief of the right to hold arms based on the 2nd ammendment) is that the 2nd ammendment neither in spirit or word, authorizes the right to arms for the use of self-protection in private affairs nor does it authorize the use against other citizens, law-abiding or not. We have a strawman -- a shell game -- a switcheroo -- where one right is appropriated and applied in a completely different situation for which the right was never secured. When we foreigners look at situations like this and try to understand the American thinking in this situation, it is often difficult to begin to understand it fro
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans. Your comments are very good, but fundamentally guns are weapons, p2p is not. There are subtleties of each which, to uncover in an unbiased manner demand a level of introspection that we can't reasonably achieve here. So we banter, instead. Maybe we're bored.
I just want to say that I have a long standing respect for the American people and the wonderful things they have contributed. Unfortunately, that image has been severly tainted these last few years (or maybe decades). Biases exist everywhere. How many posts in this very thread did you notice which mentioned "frenchy", "dirty-hippie", "liberal zealot", "FUD", etc. Its a two-way fence and on surely you know that on slashdot, mud is often slung with a tongue in cheek, yes? No worries. I'm not offended. You needn't be either.
Best Regards.
First of all, what do you mean "how many times a gun is used?" Guns are never not used. They continue to do their thing whether they are being fired or not. They are threatening just being. Besides, you are presupposing that all of the so-called legal activities OUGHT be legal. We are discussing whether P2P ought be legal (which currently, it IS). Guns are used by analogy. Therefore, we must discuss if guns OUGHT be legal, not that they are. You can't show that guns OUGHT be legal because they already are.
You are making things up. The only exposure I have personally had to P2P in the last couple of years is BitTorrent and all I've used it for it to download or seed recent linux distros. That's it. I bet it happens WAY WAY more than you suspect. I also posit this: guns are more dangerous in both their "legal" and "illegal" uses than P2P is in its legal and illegal uses.
I never said that P2P could not be used for evil and I didn't say that guns were made for evil doing. I'm saying that I can't think of any non-evil doing uses for guns (no more example please, I've already seem what people thing is not evil) and that on the whole, guns are far less neutral than P2P.
I'd rather a world filled with P2P criminals than gun criminals. Anyday.
Don't be ridiculous. It has never expanded through conquest (at least OFFICIALLY, it has occupied territories, eg: Philipines, Korea, etc) because of legal recourse. I'm glad though to hear your attitude: it means the American spirit that went into writing the consititution, declaration, et al, are still alive.
Cheers
"We're having a sensible conversation, what will this do to our karma?"
8 86 292573/102-3649919-6064127?v=glanceq up.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=808
My *real* karma won't be affected. What the mods make of all of this is up to them. I really could care less.
"Hmmm... what definition of legitimate am I using them... I don't know. "Morally right" perhaps?"
It would seem so. Apparently, morality has nothing to do with it. After looking it up, it appears to mean, generally, "lawful". I would have thought it had a moral angle too. Live and learn.
Here's a book you probably never heard of -- only because it is a book on Canadian politics (!) and lets be honest, even if you are from Canada chances are you never heard of it. I bring it up only because in order to frame the Canadian identity question, it is impossible to not first consider the influence of America. Professor Grant shows with simple lucidity that America is exactly like every other Empire that proceeded it with one exception -- it does not expand its borders of influence through military conquest per se. This is a consequence of the fact that the American constitution (or one of the documents) prohibits such activity. On the other hand, America has a broader influence (economic, social, cultural and foreign policy) than any other single culture or Empire that proceeded it. While it does not fit the traditional guise of "Empire" it most certainly *is* an Empire in every way that matters. The book is but a thin volume but really really well written (especially considering its subject matter) and it distills far more insight than one would expect from such a slight tome. Despite being written in the mid-sixties and for a Canadian audience, I wouldn't doubt that its insights are particularly relevant to the American experience at this point in history.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0
http://www.m
I would debate some more about guns but I don't like guns, I don't need guns and you aren't making any defence of actually keeping guns. Besides, I sort of got into this gun thing by accident by taking up the thread at a point that, in retrospect, was troll laden (who would have thought that guns would be a hot-button issue?) I don't own a gun. I probably shouldn't argue over the merit of guns with people who do own guns.
So how about that file-swapping fad?
One thing I learned about gun folks: if its not the King of England after them, its an alligator. You know how alligators come into populated areas and eat people for no good reason? Of course you need a gun. Its a multi-purpose tool: on the one hand, it is the vindicator of freedom and on the other, it is the subduer of nature. Don't forget -- they are great for cracking nuts!! Of course, the best thing guns are for is killing. If you have some killing that needs done -- use a gun.
Oh, and speaking of nuts -- Texas. "Whydya shoot 'im?" "He needed Killin'". "Ahhh." The right to kill someone because they TP'd your house. Fantastic!! It fills my heart with ease knowing that every damn person I pass on the street is 1) carrying a gun, 2) feels that they have the right to be a judge, a jury and an executioner. That's a great system because it doesn't discriminate against anyone's right to ruin someone else's day. It amazes me that there are still people with guns who DON'T live in Texas. What are they waiting for? Texas was made for them!
On a serious note, the problem with guns is that if you can't trust your government with them, how in hell can you trust your "neighbor" with them? Moreso, if you are so untrusting of everyone (isn't that a sign of instability?) then how can anyone trust YOU with a gun?
Man, I am so sorry I got into this gun thing. I forgot how much Americans love guns. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
I wasn't laughing at the interpretation, I was laughing at the idea that it still means something in todays "civil" society. Oh sure, everyone needed a gun in-case the King of England came a-knocking way-back before there was a nation and a militia. Surely you have read that that was a very long time ago? Do you really think little 'ol you sitting on your pile of hand guns is keeping the rest of the world at bay? Is it keeping the US government off your back? It seems to me that 100 million people should have rushed into Washington with their guns a blaring back the moment the Dept of Homeland Security was created and began usurping their everyday rights and privledges (they probably didn't because no one threatened to mess with the second ammendment, yes?). These gun rights are all a bunch of lip-talk from people who are too damned afraid to sleep at night unless they have a gun under their pillow, a twitching finger on the trigger. What a life.
What else were guns good for two hundred years ago -- ergo what other reasons were there to have the pretext for a right to bear arms law? Lessee, if you needed to kill an indian or keep slaves in line -- use a gun! Take revenge on the person sleeping with your wife? GUN! Open a bottle? GUN!! GUN!! GUN!!
Basically, I heard the rhetoric. I read the book. I saw the thousand movies it spawned. I still don't "buy it". Its one of those ideas that sounds real good and proper on paper but when you extend it out two hundred years its just a bloody mess. Or maybe you just have to have been born there to appreciate it? I always get the feeling that few countries have citizens that enjoy a good Flag Waving and Goose Stepping more than America.
I don't know -- where I live, it would be considered a detriment to one's life to NEED a gun. You see, over here we think that the right to have a weapon implies the right to use the weapon and therefore implies the right to kill. That's something do not accept.
"yah, that whole being explicitly granted in the constitution thing helps a little too I think..."
Its not like the constitution was handed down to a moses like figure on the mount by god. Its a document written by people that was probably mostly appropriate at the time to protect the interests of the people writing it. Its not like there isn't a government body and judicial system that is forever interpreting, modifying and ammending those all-mighty documents of confederation.
"What's this? Are these facts? I specifically asked for _statistics_!"
Excellent post, even though neither of us seems to be using the proper definition of legitimate (which is "lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law").
1a) You can not poop gold because that is not in accordance with physical laws (unless you actually eat gold, I suppose). Whether you should or not is therefore irrelevant.
1b) ahh, so you agree. In this day and age, the 2nd ammendment holds no bearing because it can not achieve its aims.
2a) I'm not arguing against using deadly force, am I? I am arguing the legitimate uses of guns. Are you implying it is impossible to defend oneself WITHOUT a gun?
2b) Like I said, it was a catch-22. "Cops need guns because civilians have guns." "Civilians need guns because cops have guns." Legitimate? I think not.
"Now I know how god must feel when HE'S holding a gun!"
Again, excellent post -- thanks for the response!
Its funny because you seriously seem to think that despite having the most (and best) armaments in the world, it is the great unwashed -- but armed -- populace that are keeping invaders at bay.
By-the-way, as to your question regarding whether I read the Bill of Rights or not, Of COURSE I read it -- I'm Canadian.
Yeah, of course you are right. Of course, those were very strange years for me :)
Hmm. I didn't say LEGAL, I said LEGITIMATE. According to your comments, legitimate uses for guns are:
1) overthrowing governments
2) jewlery for police officers
as for 1) isn't civil protest more appropriate than armed overthrow? Didn't the mahatma regain a country and win over the mind and hearts of people everywhere with that concept? Besides, have you noticed how the US government reacts when it is attacked (or percieves an attack? or suggests it has been attacked?) You'd need something bigger a little bit bigger than a handgun to deal with *that* noise. Sorry, guns can't do what you claim for that case 1) so it is not a legitimate use.
as for 2) can't officers wear nose rings like everyone else? Seriously, not all officers carry guns (eg. most Bobbies still do not); however, most US officers will tell you that they MUST carry guns -- after all, the *bad guys* have guns. Where I'm from, that's called a catch-22. I'll grant that it is probably prudent for an _officer_ to carry a gun, but I still think it is less than legitimate.
"Guns don't kill people -- I kill people."