Laws against possession of objects because of what you "might" do with it. Extrapolates into laws against possession of 3D printers because of what you "might" do with what you "might" print.
The concept of an easy to use effective 3D printer quickly undermines object prohibition.
That is odd, considering Libertarians are some of the most emotionally-driven, unreasonable people around:)
Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?
Implicitly, by asking for proof.
You guys are like a cargo-cult. Libertarians know what science and reason sound like, and try to emulate it so people will think their whacko beliefs are somehow supported by science.
Claiming the title 'reason' for your ideological rantings demonstrates you are unwilling to debate. You've made your mind up, convinced yourselves (in this case, that contrary to all the evidence, mass gun ownership is great) and then declared everyone who dares point out the gaping flaws in your argument as irrational.
You could teach Bell & Howell a thing or two about projection.
I just have a curious mind. I'd honestly like to know if your basing your position on empirical data, if it's just a stereotype that you've created, or if there are some other underpinnings. Though at this point, I think that I have my answer.
Here's a review that may interest you. May the cargo dropping gods bless you with their bounty:
Would banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide
A review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf It's quite a surprise.
Actually, it's illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons made after May 1986. For the remaining automatic weapons (pre may '86); any purchase (dealer to civilian or civilian to civilian) requires a lengthy background check, fingerprint cards, a $200 excise tax and a 3 to 9 month processing delay as the forms are processed through the BATF and background checks are performed by the FBI.
The price range of automatic weapons ranges from $3000 for an automatic MAC 10 to $15000 for an M16.
In contrast, the combination of glass bottles and gasoline requires no such background check, is much more affordable and creates much more widespread and indiscriminate destruction. My point is that the term and concept of "gun-crime" is as illogical as "spoon-calories", or "penis-rape", or "crow-bar burglary". Further gun regulations imposed on the non-criminally minded Americans would be an iron-door-paper-house security scenario. It would provide an old stage for acting out additional plays of security theater that would rival the TSA.
If you're curious about existing gun regulations and the burden, ask an American gun-shop owner about all of the bureaucracy that they have to struggle with. It's easy to assume that the media's narrative is accurate. It's not. You've seen it with technical stories. I don't believe that it's due to a nefarious agenda other than profit through sensationalism and the cost of getting details correct. They often blur the lines between semi-auto and full-auto. If a rifle is black and has a pistol grip and removable magazine, then it gets called a "military style" or "military assault" rifle even though the military wouldn't consider it to be an assault rifle.
Next, our 2nd amendment is written in a very particular way as part of its checks and balances. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because our government's authority comes expressly and voluntarily from the people, there must be a mechanism with which to resist should the government (federal or state), militia, or other citizens attempt to take more authority than was given to them through law. It's very apparent that it wasn't written for hunting, or sport. Penn and Teller have a very good youtube video on the subject. Now, the argument would be: "But if the US became a tyrannical government, what are the civilians with semi auto rifles going to do against a modern army with UAVs, Tanks, Helicopters, Aircraft carriers, etc?" 2 things:> 1st: We have a civilian volunteer army. Think through the implications of that statement. 2nd: Can you think of this situation in history? A massive, highly technical military force against a poor equipped indigenous guerrilla force. We've played both sides throughout American history and have many examples where the local indigenous forces either kicked butt, or made the fight so costly that it ended. The first one started in 1776 and the guerrilla force was us. A more modern example would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The large, technical force didn't fare so well.
With regards to the story. The genie is out of the bottle. Multiple genies are out and have been for some time. No one can put them back in. Guns are in this country and as the Japanese said during WWII about the problems with invading mainland America: "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." A semi-auto (and likely a full auto) gun can be manufactured surprisingly easy.
What you don't see on the news regularly that is skewing the perspective is how many legally owned concealed carry weapons are around. I was taught to shoot from a very early age. I carry my Glock 26 wherever I go (where legally allowed). Yet, it doesn't make for very sexy news. Therefore, you don't hear about it. You don't hear about it, therefore your whole base of experience is from it going wrong. There are many examples (on a fairly regular basis) of a concealed
"At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' "
Read the above, and please describe how this (in any way) is a good idea. Please help us all to understand how we could have taken the above quote out of context, and that considering the promotion of ideas should qualify as "aggression".
Here, let me play a scenario for you...
I submit that Sergei Korotkov just initiated an aggressive act against all countries who recognize the individual right's of free speech. Thus, this is an act of war by his own definition. He has chosen allies, and began the first battle in a war.
See what I did there?
To claim that the expression of information or ideas can be classified as acts of aggression is in itself aggression looking for a trigger. It boils down to a simplistic excuse to attack others if you don't like what they are saying to you and your citizens.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff. Example: Wikipedia claims that democracy is good. That's a clearly aggressive act against totalitarian states. Justification to retaliate in this war granted unless you censor us from your political beliefs!
Justifying one thing as aggression carries with it the implication that you're just in defending against such "aggression" with more aggression. The more that the definition of aggression expands, the more aggression we'll all experience.
From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation’s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset"
So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15% owned by the public sector and the 85% owned by the private sector. Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.
Every good gamer knows you don't play a FPS with a joystick. You'll get your ass handed to you. I see then adding a nice optical Logitech mouse in the future. Seriously, I see these being used in a defensive way at first. Which could possibly induce more interaction with your (the term victim seems like spin) unknown. Since you could get your remote eyes and ears closer without the fear of dying.
Both of which can cause fights (in your hypothetical situation). Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that it's the FAA's responsibility to regulate anything that could cause a fight. A rude person does not need a cell phone to cause a fight. Here's a list of things that by your argument's premise should be regulated by the FAA:
Putting on perfume with a barbecue brush
Screaming kid ignored by the parents
Flatulence (Flatulent Ass Administration)
General rude behavior
Spoiling airplane movies
Stealing
The list goes on. The airline has to take responsibility! You can't possibly prevent everything that "could" cause a fight. The airline can identify troublemakers and threaten to never let them fly with their airline again, or add a surcharge for rude-listed passengers. Many ways that are outside of the FAA's scope. I want the FAA to worry about accident history, maintenance checks, pilot health and security etc. Not if some flatulent obnoxious SOB decides to yell at his screaming kids for not screaming loud enough. The pilot is far removed from the situation and is behind a locked door. Our Mr. SOB is not going to bring the plane down, just tick everyone off. Besides, an airline policy would be much quicker to put in place than an FAA regulation.
The FAA has no business trying to keep people from being rude. Why should the FAA regulate rudeness. Should the FTC be concerned with people talking loudly or on cellphones in theaters? It should be up to the airline if phones are not to be used.
Example: Excuse me sir, if you keep up the loud obnoxious cellphone talking, we'll be forced to tazer you and sit you between the three body odor offenders in row F.
The FAA should only be concerned if there's a valid problem with equipment interferrance. Which I would hope not, because then we'd be forced to use those $4.50/min credit card phones on the seat-backs.
The/. reader who modded me offtopic, that doesn't understand the link between online pr0n, and the study saying that blindness can result from staring at a computer screen too long? That's rich. I say it's denial.
You mean tech support that speaks broken English with a thick accent, or tech support that talk down right suthurn. Seriously though, I've met plenty of highly skilled technical people who sound like traditional "rednecks". As strange as that sounds. Television has given everyone the impression that if you have a southern accent, you're the classic redneck hick that prizes his bass boat more than his family and home. "Saw that tornadee' We culd'a been kilt or even worse, lost our satee'lite dish." Every culture and part of the country have them, it's just that the news crews in the southeast love to find these people to interview after a natural disaster. Really, can you hold it against them, they're funny! I'm from Alabama, don't get offended.
What you're missing is this little boundry that has to be pierced on the way to space called "The Atmosphere". The idea which was mentioned in the article I read is to boost with a rocket up to where the scramjet can kick in, then, as you exit the atmosphere, another rocket kicks in. This could save some of the load where not as much liquid oxegen is needed for the launch. Sorry for the sarcasm. I can't help it, it's a speech impediment.
What the hell's this?
I want you to do me a favor.
This line here, this is the main power|supply to the control bay circuits, right?
Well, most of them, yeah.
What other ones are there?
Well, all the environment circuits|are fed to this one here.
Yeah, but this is the one|that feeds into Hal, right?
-Yeah.|-All right.
i want you to install|this little baby right about there...
...inside the cable trunk.
i want you to put it where nobody|can find it without a deliberate search.
No shit?
No shit.
Hey, this is pretty neat.
A nonconducting blade so there won't be|any short circuits when you trigger it.
-Where's your remote control?|-if i trigger it.
The control's in my compartment.|The red calculator. You've seen it.
Oh, yeah.
Put in nine nines, take the square root|and press the integer. That's all.
-in an emergency, even you can do it.|-What kind of emergency?
Well, if i knew,|i wouldn't need that stupid thing, would i?
Chandra would have kittens|if he found out.
He's not gonna find out, is he?
It doesn't break down to Libral or Conservative. You are correct in that IP isn't property in the normal sense, however it can be benificial to protect in certain cases. Copyrights and patents are intended to add value to a concept and to get it into the public. Let's say that a company spends R&D money (read: pay employees and other companies who also pay employees) to develop a better way of making widgets. They would never spend so much money if they couldn't get a return from it as well as a competative advantage. Without patents, companies would be less likely to innovate, and more likely to throw entry-level employees and natural resources at it. Competition and IP go hand in hand. Company B sees what Company A is doing, and spends more R&D money to create a better way to make their brand of widgets. Now, here's where things go wrong. Pantents and Copyrights do not expire based on the expense and effort put into them. Laws around them are constantly being extended. Example Company A files a patent for Super-Widget which took their janitor 1 hour to develop. Company B files for one on their Uber-Widget which is more complex and hence took a team of people 20 years to develop. The same expiration period for both. Now on copyrights, joe blow writes a top 10 pop-ballad over a cup of coffee in a night, publishes it, and 15 years later, the record industry can sue little Suzy 10-year old and her grandma for $10,000. There has to be some kind of balance. Sure, a more talented band could make more than that on the rights to the song, but People are trying to get a higher value for an idea than the idea is worth in the first place. It's just not as simple as saying "Strong IP laws favor the big companies - weak IP laws favor the little guy more" BS! I don't see Sheryl Crow and Metallica campaigning for Bush. (As info corporations are people). I think copyrights come down to this. Is there a value to a song or book? If there is value, then there is marketable IP. I don't care if your the RIAA, a record label, or a starving musician. Now what the value is and how to price it I think is where all of the debate is centered. Just don't give me that crap about Liberals care for people while Conservatives only care for corporations. Greed exists in any party. (I'm talking about you Fritz!) People usually only see 2 possibilities 1. eliminate copyrights and patents or 2. Keep it the way it is. My gripe is that we should develop a better system of patents and copyrights. Perhaps a peer review process for patents, since the USPTO can't seem to understand the concepts of obvious and prior art. Also, expiration dates should closly reflect the reasonable (not incurred) R&D costs. A company doesn't need to be able to push out an expiration date just because they research something poorly. Find the balance between rewarding innovation and the benefit of releasing patents and copyrights to the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws against possession of objects because of what you "might" do with it. Extrapolates into laws against possession of 3D printers because of what you "might" do with what you "might" print. The concept of an easy to use effective 3D printer quickly undermines object prohibition.
That is odd, considering Libertarians are some of the most emotionally-driven, unreasonable people around :)
Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?
Implicitly, by asking for proof.
You guys are like a cargo-cult. Libertarians know what science and reason sound like, and try to emulate it so people will think their whacko beliefs are somehow supported by science.
Claiming the title 'reason' for your ideological rantings demonstrates you are unwilling to debate. You've made your mind up, convinced yourselves (in this case, that contrary to all the evidence, mass gun ownership is great) and then declared everyone who dares point out the gaping flaws in your argument as irrational.
You could teach Bell & Howell a thing or two about projection.
I just have a curious mind. I'd honestly like to know if your basing your position on empirical data, if it's just a stereotype that you've created, or if there are some other underpinnings. Though at this point, I think that I have my answer.
Here's a review that may interest you. May the cargo dropping gods bless you with their bounty:
Would banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide
A review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
It's quite a surprise.
Actually, it's illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons made after May 1986. For the remaining automatic weapons (pre may '86); any purchase (dealer to civilian or civilian to civilian) requires a lengthy background check, fingerprint cards, a $200 excise tax and a 3 to 9 month processing delay as the forms are processed through the BATF and background checks are performed by the FBI.
The price range of automatic weapons ranges from $3000 for an automatic MAC 10 to $15000 for an M16.
In contrast, the combination of glass bottles and gasoline requires no such background check, is much more affordable and creates much more widespread and indiscriminate destruction. My point is that the term and concept of "gun-crime" is as illogical as "spoon-calories", or "penis-rape", or "crow-bar burglary". Further gun regulations imposed on the non-criminally minded Americans would be an iron-door-paper-house security scenario. It would provide an old stage for acting out additional plays of security theater that would rival the TSA.
If you're curious about existing gun regulations and the burden, ask an American gun-shop owner about all of the bureaucracy that they have to struggle with. It's easy to assume that the media's narrative is accurate. It's not. You've seen it with technical stories. I don't believe that it's due to a nefarious agenda other than profit through sensationalism and the cost of getting details correct. They often blur the lines between semi-auto and full-auto. If a rifle is black and has a pistol grip and removable magazine, then it gets called a "military style" or "military assault" rifle even though the military wouldn't consider it to be an assault rifle.
Next, our 2nd amendment is written in a very particular way as part of its checks and balances. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because our government's authority comes expressly and voluntarily from the people, there must be a mechanism with which to resist should the government (federal or state), militia, or other citizens attempt to take more authority than was given to them through law. It's very apparent that it wasn't written for hunting, or sport. Penn and Teller have a very good youtube video on the subject. Now, the argument would be: "But if the US became a tyrannical government, what are the civilians with semi auto rifles going to do against a modern army with UAVs, Tanks, Helicopters, Aircraft carriers, etc?" 2 things:> 1st: We have a civilian volunteer army. Think through the implications of that statement. 2nd: Can you think of this situation in history? A massive, highly technical military force against a poor equipped indigenous guerrilla force. We've played both sides throughout American history and have many examples where the local indigenous forces either kicked butt, or made the fight so costly that it ended. The first one started in 1776 and the guerrilla force was us. A more modern example would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The large, technical force didn't fare so well.
With regards to the story. The genie is out of the bottle. Multiple genies are out and have been for some time. No one can put them back in. Guns are in this country and as the Japanese said during WWII about the problems with invading mainland America: "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." A semi-auto (and likely a full auto) gun can be manufactured surprisingly easy.
What you don't see on the news regularly that is skewing the perspective is how many legally owned concealed carry weapons are around. I was taught to shoot from a very early age. I carry my Glock 26 wherever I go (where legally allowed). Yet, it doesn't make for very sexy news. Therefore, you don't hear about it. You don't hear about it, therefore your whole base of experience is from it going wrong. There are many examples (on a fairly regular basis) of a concealed
That is odd, considering Libertarians are some of the most emotionally-driven, unreasonable people around :)
Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?
"At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' "
Read the above, and please describe how this (in any way) is a good idea. Please help us all to understand how we could have taken the above quote out of context, and that considering the promotion of ideas should qualify as "aggression".
Here, let me play a scenario for you... I submit that Sergei Korotkov just initiated an aggressive act against all countries who recognize the individual right's of free speech. Thus, this is an act of war by his own definition. He has chosen allies, and began the first battle in a war.
See what I did there?
To claim that the expression of information or ideas can be classified as acts of aggression is in itself aggression looking for a trigger. It boils down to a simplistic excuse to attack others if you don't like what they are saying to you and your citizens.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff. Example: Wikipedia claims that democracy is good. That's a clearly aggressive act against totalitarian states. Justification to retaliate in this war granted unless you censor us from your political beliefs!
Justifying one thing as aggression carries with it the implication that you're just in defending against such "aggression" with more aggression. The more that the definition of aggression expands, the more aggression we'll all experience.
From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation’s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset" So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15% owned by the public sector and the 85% owned by the private sector. Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.
I concur. Liberty for people & liberty for software (free or free-marked).
I'd have to reconfigure all of my first person shooters!
Every good gamer knows you don't play a FPS with a joystick. You'll get your ass handed to you. I see then adding a nice optical Logitech mouse in the future. Seriously, I see these being used in a defensive way at first. Which could possibly induce more interaction with your (the term victim seems like spin) unknown. Since you could get your remote eyes and ears closer without the fear of dying.
Both of which can cause fights (in your hypothetical situation). Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that it's the FAA's responsibility to regulate anything that could cause a fight. A rude person does not need a cell phone to cause a fight. Here's a list of things that by your argument's premise should be regulated by the FAA:
Putting on perfume with a barbecue brush
Screaming kid ignored by the parents
Flatulence (Flatulent Ass Administration)
General rude behavior
Spoiling airplane movies
Stealing
The list goes on. The airline has to take responsibility! You can't possibly prevent everything that "could" cause a fight. The airline can identify troublemakers and threaten to never let them fly with their airline again, or add a surcharge for rude-listed passengers. Many ways that are outside of the FAA's scope. I want the FAA to worry about accident history, maintenance checks, pilot health and security etc. Not if some flatulent obnoxious SOB decides to yell at his screaming kids for not screaming loud enough. The pilot is far removed from the situation and is behind a locked door. Our Mr. SOB is not going to bring the plane down, just tick everyone off. Besides, an airline policy would be much quicker to put in place than an FAA regulation.
The FAA has no business trying to keep people from being rude. Why should the FAA regulate rudeness. Should the FTC be concerned with people talking loudly or on cellphones in theaters? It should be up to the airline if phones are not to be used.
Example: Excuse me sir, if you keep up the loud obnoxious cellphone talking, we'll be forced to tazer you and sit you between the three body odor offenders in row F.
The FAA should only be concerned if there's a valid problem with equipment interferrance. Which I would hope not, because then we'd be forced to use those $4.50/min credit card phones on the seat-backs.
using my portion of the sun!
All those cats that put forth the effort and hard work to earn their PHDs.
The /. reader who modded me offtopic, that doesn't understand the link between online pr0n, and the study saying that blindness can result from staring at a computer screen too long? That's rich. I say it's denial.
It is true!
You mean tech support that speaks broken English with a thick accent, or tech support that talk down right suthurn.
Seriously though, I've met plenty of highly skilled technical people who sound like traditional "rednecks". As strange as that sounds. Television has given everyone the impression that if you have a southern accent, you're the classic redneck hick that prizes his bass boat more than his family and home. "Saw that tornadee' We culd'a been kilt or even worse, lost our satee'lite dish." Every culture and part of the country have them, it's just that the news crews in the southeast love to find these people to interview after a natural disaster. Really, can you hold it against them, they're funny!
I'm from Alabama, don't get offended.
What you're missing is this little boundry that has to be pierced on the way to space called "The Atmosphere". The idea which was mentioned in the article I read is to boost with a rocket up to where the scramjet can kick in, then, as you exit the atmosphere, another rocket kicks in. This could save some of the load where not as much liquid oxegen is needed for the launch. Sorry for the sarcasm. I can't help it, it's a speech impediment.
Just wondering. What is it about (food grade)meat that prevents humans from being a potential false-positive.
They have zero to hide.
"Oh, but if you love me, you'll plug-in for a chat" The war is lost, before the battle had begun.
What the hell's this?
I want you to do me a favor.
This line here, this is the main power|supply to the control bay circuits, right?
Well, most of them, yeah.
What other ones are there?
Well, all the environment circuits|are fed to this one here.
Yeah, but this is the one|that feeds into Hal, right?
-Yeah.|-All right.
i want you to install|this little baby right about there...
...inside the cable trunk.
i want you to put it where nobody|can find it without a deliberate search.
No shit?
No shit.
Hey, this is pretty neat.
A nonconducting blade so there won't be|any short circuits when you trigger it.
-Where's your remote control?|-if i trigger it.
The control's in my compartment.|The red calculator. You've seen it.
Oh, yeah.
Put in nine nines, take the square root|and press the integer. That's all.
-in an emergency, even you can do it.|-What kind of emergency?
Well, if i knew,|i wouldn't need that stupid thing, would i?
Chandra would have kittens|if he found out.
He's not gonna find out, is he?
Sounds like an emulator equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. I can't say if this is real or vapor for certain, but it sure sets off my BS alarm.
Or plastic cups and plates.
By committing suicide now.
It doesn't break down to Libral or Conservative. You are correct in that IP isn't property in the normal sense, however it can be benificial to protect in certain cases. Copyrights and patents are intended to add value to a concept and to get it into the public. Let's say that a company spends R&D money (read: pay employees and other companies who also pay employees) to develop a better way of making widgets. They would never spend so much money if they couldn't get a return from it as well as a competative advantage. Without patents, companies would be less likely to innovate, and more likely to throw entry-level employees and natural resources at it. Competition and IP go hand in hand. Company B sees what Company A is doing, and spends more R&D money to create a better way to make their brand of widgets. Now, here's where things go wrong. Pantents and Copyrights do not expire based on the expense and effort put into them. Laws around them are constantly being extended. Example Company A files a patent for Super-Widget which took their janitor 1 hour to develop. Company B files for one on their Uber-Widget which is more complex and hence took a team of people 20 years to develop. The same expiration period for both. Now on copyrights, joe blow writes a top 10 pop-ballad over a cup of coffee in a night, publishes it, and 15 years later, the record industry can sue little Suzy 10-year old and her grandma for $10,000. There has to be some kind of balance. Sure, a more talented band could make more than that on the rights to the song, but People are trying to get a higher value for an idea than the idea is worth in the first place. It's just not as simple as saying "Strong IP laws favor the big companies - weak IP laws favor the little guy more" BS! I don't see Sheryl Crow and Metallica campaigning for Bush. (As info corporations are people). I think copyrights come down to this. Is there a value to a song or book? If there is value, then there is marketable IP. I don't care if your the RIAA, a record label, or a starving musician. Now what the value is and how to price it I think is where all of the debate is centered. Just don't give me that crap about Liberals care for people while Conservatives only care for corporations. Greed exists in any party. (I'm talking about you Fritz!) People usually only see 2 possibilities 1. eliminate copyrights and patents or 2. Keep it the way it is. My gripe is that we should develop a better system of patents and copyrights. Perhaps a peer review process for patents, since the USPTO can't seem to understand the concepts of obvious and prior art. Also, expiration dates should closly reflect the reasonable (not incurred) R&D costs. A company doesn't need to be able to push out an expiration date just because they research something poorly. Find the balance between rewarding innovation and the benefit of releasing patents and copyrights to the public domain.