If it weren't doing 3000-4000+ fps, sure. The.223 is a tiny bullet, but when it's going that fast, it's a drywall/stucco/person killer
Sure, but when it's going that fast it also fragments on impact, tumbles, and otherwise does energy bleeding things.
Many cop agencies were using the.223 HK33 (not sure if thats right, but basically the MP5-like sub gun), but stopped because of overpenetration during SWAT raids.
Here's an article from a gun rag that actually asserts SWAT teams are mixing 9mm and.223 ARs for a mix of weapons, some that won't overpenetrate, and others that can shoot through walls if the need arises. Oddly, the.223 is the "safe" gun, while the 9mm is used to go through walls as the need arises.
Like I said, it's a gun rag, so take that with a big assed grain of salt.
This is something I've looked at quite a bit. That and I've had experience shooting through buildings with an M-16;)
I haven't paid too much attention to this issue--a 12ga loaded with #4 shot seems to be a great idea that doesn't need improving on, to my mind--so normally I would cede the question to your greater experience in the matter... but the anecdotal evidence I've seen (google and groups search for ".223 drywall overpenetration" brought quite a few resultes) offsets your anecdotal evidence, so I still think the jury is out on this one.
True, training can overcome any inherant problems an operator would have with any particular safety system. OTOH, a simpler safety system makes training easier and therefore can make better operators ( all things being equal ). Note, for instance, what USMC SPECOPS types like in a.45
I'll note that in this case "simpler safety system" doesn't relate to the point I made. The difference between the Kimber Series I and Series II is a hammer block safety--i.e. internal. The external thumb safety and the grip safety are still there, which is what I was talking about.
Apparently, the hammer block safety on the Series II can sometimes cause the weapon not to return to battery after being fired... I can see why the spec ops guys would be more concerned about that than the possibility that their weapon will discharge after being dropped.
And despite being a Democrat, I am not a strict gun control person - I don't think we all should have registered smart guns. I think the real issue here is that the hard core NRA member types don't want to see this tech ever hit manufacturing because they are afraid it will be forced on them. I don't really want to see it forced on them, I don't think forcing "secure" access on your own personal property, for guns, or computers, is appropriate (see Slashtrolls, I'm being consistent in my views!)
I think you summed the situation up perfectly. Welcome to my friends list.
You know, if there were more Democrats like you, I think Tuesday would have resulted in a significantly different outcome.
Gun owners who think they're such an expert that they can forgo the safety features of a weapon scare me
I agree with you in principle, but as in all things there are exceptions. For example, if I owned a Browning Hipower, you can bet that the weapon's magazine safety would be disabled. That said, carrying something like a 1911 in "condition zero" is something only an idiot would do.
about as much as people who think a.223 rifle is a good home defense weapon.
I think the jury's still out on that one. I've read a few things that suggest.223 might actually overpenetrate less--at least in the case of drywall--than a heavy handgun bullet. It seems counter intuitive, and I'm not ready to replace the.40 cal Glock in the nightstand with an AR-15, but it's worth waiting for more data and not simply dismissing out of hand.
What about all the other time. Do you want to have a gun that at any time can go off?
Go to a gunstore. Buy any firearm you see, it doesn't matter which. Load the weapon, place it on a table, and take two steps back. I guarantee that the weapon will NEVER just "go off" without some sort of external act.
Besides if I snuck up behind you and put one in your head, will you have any more time to react if you hadn't had the safety on?
Ah, yes, "excellent" point. Just because there's a situation where someone is dead before they even know they're in danger that invalidates other points raised about how fractions of a second matter when your life is on the line. Quite a clever debater, you are.
No serious gun owner would want this. No police officer would ever use this. When you need your gun to fire, it has to work. There's no room for error.
I agree completely. The story submitter obviously doesn't understand any of the issues involved, particularly due to his flip dismissals. "Few have qualms," and "figurative emergency situations," my ass. The only people that don't have qualms are those who are trying to push legislation requiring this, and frankly the WORST time for a firearm to have a problem is when you desperately need it! The idea that "it only won't work if you're covered in blood" is absurd on it's face--if I'm covered in blood, I probably have more need of a working gun that at any time in my life, which is quite possibly about to end.
In short, this entire story should be modded, -1, Clueless.
A lot of serious gun owners won't even use handguns with a safety. Because if the safety is on in the fraction of a second you it to work, you're dead.
Now this, I disagree with. While I like my Glocks, particularly for the reason you describe (the KISS principle is in play here--the only thing you need remember to do is aim and pull the trigger) pistols like the 1911 are excellent defensive guns even though there are multiple external safety devices that need to be disengaged before firing.
The key is, of course, training--anybody who knows how to use a 1911 will tell you that disengaging the safeties adds no time and minimal complexity. The grip safety is deactivated simply by grasping the weapon, and the thumb safety should come off as the weapon is being presented. By the time the gun is on target, it's in the same condition as a Glock would be.
One need look no further than IPSC and IDPA competition shooting--sports that are all about speed, speed, speed--to reinforce this. 1911 based guns are the preferred choice of all the top competitors.
the share price of SCOX is still higher than it was pre-litigation. So Darl has actually increased shareholder value since the days before litigation.
Are you sure about that? There's more to the value of a company than its share price--like the number of shares outstanding, for example. What happens when you factor in the dilution from Baystar and RBC? I'm guessing that SCO is likely worth less now than it was.
It seems to be, watching from the outside, there were so many different ways to vote, depending on where you were, whether it was electronic voting machines (and each of those were from different vendors)or paper ballots. In addition, the whole confusion and legal challenges to "provisional" and "absentee" ballots just muddied the waters even further
Given that you're watching from the outside, it's completely forgivable that you don't realize that when the United States votes, it's not having one monolithic electition, but rather 51 distinct separate elections.
In that sense, monoculture isn't neccessarily wanted--the reason that people in South Dakota don't want people in New York telling them how to handle their elections is the same reason they vote for such different types of candidates in the first place.
in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!
What do you mean "given?" Voting equipment is left up to the individual counties. Anybody using old and broken down equipment, or not enough equipment, or Diebold equipment, need place the blame for that right at the foot of their county election commissioner.
In Ohio's Cuyahoga county, that would be Jimmy Dimora, a democrat. Just like the woman that designed the infamous butterfly ballot of 2000 was a democrat. And how the place with all the hanging chads in 2000 was run by democrat controlled election committees with democrat commissioners of election.
If you want to piss and moan, piss and moan at your own party before you start implying conspiracies.
Re:one of the more famous misquotes there
on
Greatest Equations Ever
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A classic misquote. The verse actually runs, "The love of money is the root of all evil," but this joke wouldn't be as funny that way.
It's still funny--you just have to change the punchline to "The love of money is the root of all women."
the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly
Six million jews and millions of other "undesirables" would disagree with you... at least they would disagree with you if they hadn't been exterminated by the Nazis. I'm not denying the US has its problems right now, but to compare us to the Nazis is just absurd.
Journalism isn't about information anymore - it's about the survival of one's public voice. If you see indications that your local news, or the national news, might be leaning to support only one group, then you need to call bias to support your own agenda, ideals, and needs. If it works, some other group will be calling bias in a few weeks, and the medium overall hovers around the middle.
Problem: quite a few people actually prefer their news come from a biased source--it's more about the guy on TeeVee validating what you already believe instead of giving you the tools to make your own judgements.
Prediction: If we had an environment where news sources were openly biased in favor of one side or another, and there was a third category that truly was "fair and balanced," the fair and balanced news source would go out of business in short order as 90%+ of the people went to the polarity that was most agreeable to their world view.
I'm sure my karma will suffer for this (someone has already been through here and blown their mod points modding this entire conversation offtopic) but unlike the majority of the people on the other side of this argument, you're stating your opinion clearly and rationally. You're worth responding to.
I fail to see another logical way to interpret it. There's a tenet of Constitutional construction that all the words in there, are in there for a reason and you must interpret them in a way that's meaningful. If the "right... to keep and bear arms" wasn't modified by the need to maintain a militia, then why was the militia clause attached to it?
I understand your position. Indeed, the 2nd amendment is more difficult to interpret than any other part of the bill of rights, because it's the only amendment that has its own preamble. There are those (like yourself) that view that preamble as a limit on that right, and there are those (like me) that see it as a justification for that right.
With this confusion in mind, I think its acceptable to go to other sources--namely the writings of the people who wrote the constitution. Most of our founders (who had just fought a war against what they perceived as tyranny that had, ironically enough, started when the government tried to sieze an arms cache) were quite clear about their opinions on the individual's right to bear arms.
I also come back to the fact that in order for your definition to work, "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment must be a different "the people" then is mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments.
But I do maintain that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with keeping weapons for "personal protection"
I agree with you--it bugs me to no end that whenever a politician tries to tout his gun rights credentials, he'll talk about how he supports "the 2nd amendment rights of hunters and sportsmen."
The 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting, or target shooting, or self defense, or anything like that--its main purpose is to act as the final check in our system of checks and balances. The idea is that government should not have a monopoly on force.
that's the job of the police and it's obviously best performed by them.
There were no police in 1791. Professional police forces came about in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The ridiculous number of handgun deaths in densely populated areas and in association with other crimes demonstrates a strong public policy need to regulate gun ownership
I disagree with this--urban gun control laws take firearms out of the hands of the law abiding, leaving criminals largely unaffected. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. make it extremely difficult to own firearms--indeed, in Chicago and D.C. it's completely illegal to own a handgun (and in D.C. any other guns you might own are required to be kept disassembled.) However, those three cities have very high numbers of crimes involving firearms, and handguns in particular.
The laws are worse than useless--criminals have no trouble acquiring firearms, but the law abiding are disarmed! And the anti-gun response to this is that the laws aren't strict enough, and that we need more of them!
I just believe that this is possible without infringement on the 2nd amendment, logically construed.
This might surprise you, but I agree with you: it IS possible to pass laws that one would nominally call gun control laws without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. However, laws like those I noted above do NOT fall into this category--the state deciding who may or may not own a gun (for downright arbitrary reasons) most certainly constitutes an infringement. OTOH, the gun control act of 1968 that set up the FFL system doesn't infringe (at least not directly) nor does the Brady Bill as written (though as implemented is a different story.) The recently expired Assault Weapons ban was most certainly an infringement.
The part that goes "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" apparently, since that's what everyone omits when they talk about the 2nd amendment.
The whole thing won't fit into a slash sig, otherwise it would be there. I'll note that when correcting my excerpt, you declined to add in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" which is what folks like you seem to omit when they bring up the subject.
That said, I fail to see how the beginning of the amendment, which lays out its purpose, sufficiently modifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to the point where you conclude that it's okay to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Trained with a citizen's militia lately?
I'm guessing that if I had, I'd fall squarely into your definition of "people who shouldn't have guns." By the way, read 10 USC 311. You might be surprised.
The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Welcome to my friends list.
The fact that the left screams about the right-wing bias of the media, while the right talks about the liberal bias of the media should be enough to clue people into the fact that there's a larger story here... but no one really seems interested in that--it's easier just to pretend they're on the other guy's side and whine about it.
As you so eloquently put it, the media is simply profitable. The only side the media is on is the media's.
I can remember downloading the 1993 Rush album (Counterparts) in 8KHz Sun.au format, just so I could hear it early. I still bought the album when it came out. This was before Napster or mp3s were around.
Said file didn't come from ftp.ludd.luth.se, did it? Man, I fondly remember the days of low bitrate.au files from Sweeden.
Digs at GWB aside, the responses dont match his normal speech patterns. It does indeed seem unlike something he would write.
I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.
That said, I think you also have to realize that even assuming that Bush and Kerry wrote their own responses (I'm assuming Nader actually did, he seems to be that sort of candidate) those responses have been checked by numerous advisers and changes to the wording suggested to, and likely made by, the candidates.
but what the fuck do you think the israeli snipers do, shooting british peace activists who are trying to get palistinian children out of the line of fire are doing? or the israeli snipers who shoot through hospital windows at doctors trying to save the lives of those who have been injured but the tanks, jet fighters, and helicopter gunships firing at civilians
Cite it. Israel goes after militants and their leadership, not civilians. Show me a news report (and NOT from Al Jezeera--but the BBC will do nicely) that offers any credible evidence of this.
You do not stop such violence by commiting worse acts yourself, you talk and compromise.
"Worse acts?" They drop bombs on terrorists and civilians get killed in the crossfire, and this is somehow worse than someone blowing up a bus full of people?
And hell, the Israelis HAVE been willing to talk--which, I think, is quite civilized of them given that the people they're trying to compromise with want nothing less than to destroy their nation (even after Oslo, that little bit about seeking the destruction of Israel is still in the PLO's charter.)
My error I don't know why I put 7.68 mm. I mean.308 Nato/7.62mm rounds
I'm just being pedantic, and this is offered in good humor, but I think you mean.308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO.:)
Infact i'm not even sure the specific ammo is NATO certified.
If you're talking about the 5.56mm ammo Israel uses in their M16s and M249s, then yes, it's NATO spec. IMI manufactures it as Q3131A which meets the specs of NATO M193 ball. I know this bit of trivia because Winchester repackages this stuff for sale in the US.
They use their own bodies and attack whatever targets they can get to. They're in a war for survival and they can't reach hardened military targets.
Israel is willing to coexist while the Palestinians are not. The PLO charter still--even after the 1993 Oslo accords--calls for the destruction of the state of Isreal. That's not a war for survival, it's a war of extermination.
It's a horrible situation made worse by the U.S. turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by one side and not the other.
You must have missed Colin Powell over the last few years condemning various Israeli acts. Also, the rest of the world considers it an atrocity when Israel assassinates the leaders of terrorist organizations, but doesn't seem to have much to say when Hamas blows up a grocery store. Go figure.
Wow this is the most uninformed rehash babble I've seen a while on Israel
You call me uninformed, then you state the following:
The actual people, the Palestinians, didn't want anything to do with the Soviets or the US however so they formed the PLO which was an organization of I believe 14 Arab states in 1968. They wanted to work diplomatically but basically could not keep control of all the terror organizations working to attack and keep Israel off of what they considered holy land
The PLO was actually founded in 1964. You suggest that "14 arab states" (by which I'm going to assume you mean the majority of countries in the middle east, since I don't know any arab states outside of there) intended to work diplomatically to create a state of Palestine. This, of course, explains the various wars of extermination Israel's neighbors have waged upon it, inclusive of the 1967 Six Day War which was between the creation of the peaceful, diplomatic PLO and when Arafat and his pack of terrorists (and I'm not using the word "terrorist" in the rhetorical sense that's become so popular since 9/11--I'm using it in the "hey, let's go blow up a school bus" sense) took the reins of the PLO in 1968.
The PLO's charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel--not coexistence, not independant statehood, but to drive the jews into the sea. The charter was supposed to be changed after the 1993 Oslo accords, but despite a few drafts being circulated, 11 years later this still hasn't been done.
Anyway, when the jews say they have been in Israel for thousands of years that would be incorrect, they are primarily speaking about a place in a book and this is where they think they once came from.
They THINK they came from? I think they're probably right unless you consider the city of Jerusalem to be an ambiguous or false marker...
Your attitude or seemingly ignorance, no insult intended is what is used to keep the flames of this situation hot.
I'm not ignorant of the situation (read my original post again--I used to be nominally anti-Israel, and your description of 1948 was one of the major reasons for my attitude) and I daresay my opinion one way or the other has exactly NO impact on "keeping the flames of this situation hot."
There is absolutely no one gaining from this fight and it will continue unabedded if the US keeps funding and loaning money to Israel and Terror organization and communist countries keep funding Palestinians.
I'm sure our friends across the pond will be happy to know they're communist. The primary source of funding for Arafat, is, as I said, the EU. And Arafat's Palestinian Authority is, as I said, funding the terrorists--not vice versa.
Know what will fix the situation? The arab states stepping up, condemning Arafat and his ilk and cutting off funding and driving them out, and to pledge--believably--that they're not going to send tank armies anymore. Then someone else has to step in and maintain the peace for the next fifty years, and then maybe, just maybe, the problem will have been solved. Palestinian statehood is also a good idea, but not with the current leadership they have--it's pretty hard to take someone who has chanted "death to Israel" seriously at the negotiations.
Don't forget the fact the Yanks give God knows how many billions of Dollars to a regime that's in violation of over 100 UN Resultions and has killed over 3000 innocent civilans since 2000... oh the fucking irony.
Nobody ever gives the other size of that particular equation--over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians will killed by palestinian terrorists in the same time frame. Also, the EU has given over a billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority over the last decade, some of which has been diverted to terrorist organizations. But blaming America is an international sport, so what the hell.
I used to be... let's not say anti-Israel, but rather of the opinion that there was no "right" side in that particular conflict. And then it was presented to me that Israel isn't trying to kill civilians--the terrorist leadership make their homes in highly populated areas so that if Israel ever comes knocking they either have to take ALOT of trouble to do so surgically, otherwise they risk killing large numbers of civillians. Sometimes Israel does the former, but usually the latter.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, intentionally kill civillians--it isn't collateral damage, they're the primary fucking target.
All of the above said, I still think there are some things Israel does that are horrible--personally, I find things like destroying the homes of families of terrorists to be barbaric. I also don't like the amount of money my country sends to them each year. But all-in-all, Israel certainly has the moral high ground.
They not only report on the scam, but tell exactly how it was carried off. They've even provided the names of the merchant transaction companies which can be suckered.
PS: About your disagreement. I half agree with you that there would be dire consequences. I'm just not certain that there's any way at all to avoid them, and I AM certain that the way we're going now cannot possibly avoid them without killing everyone in Iraq.
I don't think your last point is correct. I think the majority of the Iraqi people are still with us--but I also think that support is fading fast. Too many scandals and the insurgents proving that they can hold the cities against the US Army has to have alot of people over there thinking that we abandoned them in '91, and we're going to again today.
I think the United States has a moral responsibility to fix the mess we've made in Iraq--and that unless decisive action is taken (soon!) we will lose the situation... but I don't think your suggestion fits the bill because it just creates another Saddam to be dealt with in the future--if not by us, then by someone else. Like it or not, I think we have to see it to it's (almost certainly) extremely bloody end.
We can't just run away--what does that say to our allies (or, more importantly, to our enemies?) Inflict a thousand dead and we cut and run. I'm a firm believer that America is not the world's policeman--but it is a fact that our power does keep certain nations from taking various actions. These days, there's no threat to europe, but if the world expects us to fold in the face of adversity, what happens to Taiwan? To South Korea? Now that we've gone and destabilized Iraq, what stops the Iranians (Shiites, likely to be welcomed by the majority) from moving in if we leave?
The Bush administration has made a huge mess out of our foreign policy. This war is going to cost us at least twice as many lives as it has already (likely more) and hundreds of billions of dollars more, not to mention the damage to relationships with our traditional allies that's already been inflicted and will likely get worse--but for all that, we have to stay... because the alternatives are actually even worse.
Slashdot Mirror
If it weren't doing 3000-4000+ fps, sure. The .223 is a tiny bullet, but when it's going that fast, it's a drywall/stucco/person killer
.223 HK33 (not sure if thats right, but basically the MP5-like sub gun), but stopped because of overpenetration during SWAT raids.
.223 ARs for a mix of weapons, some that won't overpenetrate, and others that can shoot through walls if the need arises. Oddly, the .223 is the "safe" gun, while the 9mm is used to go through walls as the need arises.
;)
Sure, but when it's going that fast it also fragments on impact, tumbles, and otherwise does energy bleeding things.
Many cop agencies were using the
Here's an article from a gun rag that actually asserts SWAT teams are mixing 9mm and
Like I said, it's a gun rag, so take that with a big assed grain of salt.
This is something I've looked at quite a bit. That and I've had experience shooting through buildings with an M-16
I haven't paid too much attention to this issue--a 12ga loaded with #4 shot seems to be a great idea that doesn't need improving on, to my mind--so normally I would cede the question to your greater experience in the matter... but the anecdotal evidence I've seen (google and groups search for ".223 drywall overpenetration" brought quite a few resultes) offsets your anecdotal evidence, so I still think the jury is out on this one.
True, training can overcome any inherant problems an operator would have with any particular safety system. OTOH, a simpler safety system makes training easier and therefore can make better operators ( all things being equal ). Note, for instance, what USMC SPECOPS types like in a .45
I'll note that in this case "simpler safety system" doesn't relate to the point I made. The difference between the Kimber Series I and Series II is a hammer block safety--i.e. internal. The external thumb safety and the grip safety are still there, which is what I was talking about.
Apparently, the hammer block safety on the Series II can sometimes cause the weapon not to return to battery after being fired... I can see why the spec ops guys would be more concerned about that than the possibility that their weapon will discharge after being dropped.
And despite being a Democrat, I am not a strict gun control person - I don't think we all should have registered smart guns. I think the real issue here is that the hard core NRA member types don't want to see this tech ever hit manufacturing because they are afraid it will be forced on them. I don't really want to see it forced on them, I don't think forcing "secure" access on your own personal property, for guns, or computers, is appropriate (see Slashtrolls, I'm being consistent in my views!)
I think you summed the situation up perfectly. Welcome to my friends list.
You know, if there were more Democrats like you, I think Tuesday would have resulted in a significantly different outcome.
Gun owners who think they're such an expert that they can forgo the safety features of a weapon scare me
.223 rifle is a good home defense weapon.
.223 might actually overpenetrate less--at least in the case of drywall--than a heavy handgun bullet. It seems counter intuitive, and I'm not ready to replace the .40 cal Glock in the nightstand with an AR-15, but it's worth waiting for more data and not simply dismissing out of hand.
I agree with you in principle, but as in all things there are exceptions. For example, if I owned a Browning Hipower, you can bet that the weapon's magazine safety would be disabled. That said, carrying something like a 1911 in "condition zero" is something only an idiot would do.
about as much as people who think a
I think the jury's still out on that one. I've read a few things that suggest
What about all the other time. Do you want to have a gun that at any time can go off?
Go to a gunstore. Buy any firearm you see, it doesn't matter which. Load the weapon, place it on a table, and take two steps back. I guarantee that the weapon will NEVER just "go off" without some sort of external act.
Besides if I snuck up behind you and put one in your head, will you have any more time to react if you hadn't had the safety on?
Ah, yes, "excellent" point. Just because there's a situation where someone is dead before they even know they're in danger that invalidates other points raised about how fractions of a second matter when your life is on the line. Quite a clever debater, you are.
No serious gun owner would want this. No police officer would ever use this. When you need your gun to fire, it has to work. There's no room for error.
I agree completely. The story submitter obviously doesn't understand any of the issues involved, particularly due to his flip dismissals. "Few have qualms," and "figurative emergency situations," my ass. The only people that don't have qualms are those who are trying to push legislation requiring this, and frankly the WORST time for a firearm to have a problem is when you desperately need it! The idea that "it only won't work if you're covered in blood" is absurd on it's face--if I'm covered in blood, I probably have more need of a working gun that at any time in my life, which is quite possibly about to end.
In short, this entire story should be modded, -1, Clueless.
A lot of serious gun owners won't even use handguns with a safety. Because if the safety is on in the fraction of a second you it to work, you're dead.
Now this, I disagree with. While I like my Glocks, particularly for the reason you describe (the KISS principle is in play here--the only thing you need remember to do is aim and pull the trigger) pistols like the 1911 are excellent defensive guns even though there are multiple external safety devices that need to be disengaged before firing.
The key is, of course, training--anybody who knows how to use a 1911 will tell you that disengaging the safeties adds no time and minimal complexity. The grip safety is deactivated simply by grasping the weapon, and the thumb safety should come off as the weapon is being presented. By the time the gun is on target, it's in the same condition as a Glock would be.
One need look no further than IPSC and IDPA competition shooting--sports that are all about speed, speed, speed--to reinforce this. 1911 based guns are the preferred choice of all the top competitors.
the share price of SCOX is still higher than it was pre-litigation. So Darl has actually increased shareholder value since the days before litigation.
Are you sure about that? There's more to the value of a company than its share price--like the number of shares outstanding, for example. What happens when you factor in the dilution from Baystar and RBC? I'm guessing that SCO is likely worth less now than it was.
It seems to be, watching from the outside, there were so many different ways to vote, depending on where you were, whether it was electronic voting machines (and each of those were from different vendors)or paper ballots. In addition, the whole confusion and legal challenges to "provisional" and "absentee" ballots just muddied the waters even further
Given that you're watching from the outside, it's completely forgivable that you don't realize that when the United States votes, it's not having one monolithic electition, but rather 51 distinct separate elections.
In that sense, monoculture isn't neccessarily wanted--the reason that people in South Dakota don't want people in New York telling them how to handle their elections is the same reason they vote for such different types of candidates in the first place.
in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!
What do you mean "given?" Voting equipment is left up to the individual counties. Anybody using old and broken down equipment, or not enough equipment, or Diebold equipment, need place the blame for that right at the foot of their county election commissioner.
In Ohio's Cuyahoga county, that would be Jimmy Dimora, a democrat. Just like the woman that designed the infamous butterfly ballot of 2000 was a democrat. And how the place with all the hanging chads in 2000 was run by democrat controlled election committees with democrat commissioners of election.
If you want to piss and moan, piss and moan at your own party before you start implying conspiracies.
A classic misquote. The verse actually runs, "The love of money is the root of all evil," but this joke wouldn't be as funny that way.
It's still funny--you just have to change the punchline to "The love of money is the root of all women."
the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly
Six million jews and millions of other "undesirables" would disagree with you... at least they would disagree with you if they hadn't been exterminated by the Nazis. I'm not denying the US has its problems right now, but to compare us to the Nazis is just absurd.
Journalism isn't about information anymore - it's about the survival of one's public voice. If you see indications that your local news, or the national news, might be leaning to support only one group, then you need to call bias to support your own agenda, ideals, and needs. If it works, some other group will be calling bias in a few weeks, and the medium overall hovers around the middle.
Problem: quite a few people actually prefer their news come from a biased source--it's more about the guy on TeeVee validating what you already believe instead of giving you the tools to make your own judgements.
Prediction: If we had an environment where news sources were openly biased in favor of one side or another, and there was a third category that truly was "fair and balanced," the fair and balanced news source would go out of business in short order as 90%+ of the people went to the polarity that was most agreeable to their world view.
I'm sure my karma will suffer for this (someone has already been through here and blown their mod points modding this entire conversation offtopic) but unlike the majority of the people on the other side of this argument, you're stating your opinion clearly and rationally. You're worth responding to.
I fail to see another logical way to interpret it. There's a tenet of Constitutional construction that all the words in there, are in there for a reason and you must interpret them in a way that's meaningful. If the "right... to keep and bear arms" wasn't modified by the need to maintain a militia, then why was the militia clause attached to it?
I understand your position. Indeed, the 2nd amendment is more difficult to interpret than any other part of the bill of rights, because it's the only amendment that has its own preamble. There are those (like yourself) that view that preamble as a limit on that right, and there are those (like me) that see it as a justification for that right.
With this confusion in mind, I think its acceptable to go to other sources--namely the writings of the people who wrote the constitution. Most of our founders (who had just fought a war against what they perceived as tyranny that had, ironically enough, started when the government tried to sieze an arms cache) were quite clear about their opinions on the individual's right to bear arms.
I also come back to the fact that in order for your definition to work, "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment must be a different "the people" then is mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments.
But I do maintain that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with keeping weapons for "personal protection"
I agree with you--it bugs me to no end that whenever a politician tries to tout his gun rights credentials, he'll talk about how he supports "the 2nd amendment rights of hunters and sportsmen."
The 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting, or target shooting, or self defense, or anything like that--its main purpose is to act as the final check in our system of checks and balances. The idea is that government should not have a monopoly on force.
that's the job of the police and it's obviously best performed by them.
There were no police in 1791. Professional police forces came about in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The ridiculous number of handgun deaths in densely populated areas and in association with other crimes demonstrates a strong public policy need to regulate gun ownership
I disagree with this--urban gun control laws take firearms out of the hands of the law abiding, leaving criminals largely unaffected. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. make it extremely difficult to own firearms--indeed, in Chicago and D.C. it's completely illegal to own a handgun (and in D.C. any other guns you might own are required to be kept disassembled.) However, those three cities have very high numbers of crimes involving firearms, and handguns in particular.
The laws are worse than useless--criminals have no trouble acquiring firearms, but the law abiding are disarmed! And the anti-gun response to this is that the laws aren't strict enough, and that we need more of them!
I just believe that this is possible without infringement on the 2nd amendment, logically construed.
This might surprise you, but I agree with you: it IS possible to pass laws that one would nominally call gun control laws without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. However, laws like those I noted above do NOT fall into this category--the state deciding who may or may not own a gun (for downright arbitrary reasons) most certainly constitutes an infringement. OTOH, the gun control act of 1968 that set up the FFL system doesn't infringe (at least not directly) nor does the Brady Bill as written (though as implemented is a different story.) The recently expired Assault Weapons ban was most certainly an infringement.
The part that goes "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" apparently, since that's what everyone omits when they talk about the 2nd amendment.
The whole thing won't fit into a slash sig, otherwise it would be there. I'll note that when correcting my excerpt, you declined to add in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" which is what folks like you seem to omit when they bring up the subject.
That said, I fail to see how the beginning of the amendment, which lays out its purpose, sufficiently modifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to the point where you conclude that it's okay to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Trained with a citizen's militia lately?
I'm guessing that if I had, I'd fall squarely into your definition of "people who shouldn't have guns." By the way, read 10 USC 311. You might be surprised.
The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Welcome to my friends list.
The fact that the left screams about the right-wing bias of the media, while the right talks about the liberal bias of the media should be enough to clue people into the fact that there's a larger story here... but no one really seems interested in that--it's easier just to pretend they're on the other guy's side and whine about it.
As you so eloquently put it, the media is simply profitable. The only side the media is on is the media's.
I can remember downloading the 1993 Rush album (Counterparts) in 8KHz Sun .au format, just so I could hear it early. I still bought the album when it came out. This was before Napster or mp3s were around.
.au files from Sweeden.
Said file didn't come from ftp.ludd.luth.se, did it? Man, I fondly remember the days of low bitrate
Digs at GWB aside, the responses dont match his normal speech patterns. It does indeed seem unlike something he would write.
I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.
That said, I think you also have to realize that even assuming that Bush and Kerry wrote their own responses (I'm assuming Nader actually did, he seems to be that sort of candidate) those responses have been checked by numerous advisers and changes to the wording suggested to, and likely made by, the candidates.
but what the fuck do you think the israeli snipers do, shooting british peace activists who are trying to get palistinian children out of the line of fire are doing? or the israeli snipers who shoot through hospital windows at doctors trying to save the lives of those who have been injured but the tanks, jet fighters, and helicopter gunships firing at civilians
Cite it. Israel goes after militants and their leadership, not civilians. Show me a news report (and NOT from Al Jezeera--but the BBC will do nicely) that offers any credible evidence of this.
You do not stop such violence by commiting worse acts yourself, you talk and compromise.
"Worse acts?" They drop bombs on terrorists and civilians get killed in the crossfire, and this is somehow worse than someone blowing up a bus full of people?
And hell, the Israelis HAVE been willing to talk--which, I think, is quite civilized of them given that the people they're trying to compromise with want nothing less than to destroy their nation (even after Oslo, that little bit about seeking the destruction of Israel is still in the PLO's charter.)
My error I don't know why I put 7.68 mm. I mean .308 Nato/7.62mm rounds
.308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO. :)
I'm just being pedantic, and this is offered in good humor, but I think you mean
Infact i'm not even sure the specific ammo is NATO certified.
If you're talking about the 5.56mm ammo Israel uses in their M16s and M249s, then yes, it's NATO spec. IMI manufactures it as Q3131A which meets the specs of NATO M193 ball. I know this bit of trivia because Winchester repackages this stuff for sale in the US.
They use their own bodies and attack whatever targets they can get to. They're in a war for survival and they can't reach hardened military targets.
Israel is willing to coexist while the Palestinians are not. The PLO charter still--even after the 1993 Oslo accords--calls for the destruction of the state of Isreal. That's not a war for survival, it's a war of extermination.
It's a horrible situation made worse by the U.S. turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by one side and not the other.
You must have missed Colin Powell over the last few years condemning various Israeli acts. Also, the rest of the world considers it an atrocity when Israel assassinates the leaders of terrorist organizations, but doesn't seem to have much to say when Hamas blows up a grocery store. Go figure.
Wow this is the most uninformed rehash babble I've seen a while on Israel
You call me uninformed, then you state the following:
The actual people, the Palestinians, didn't want anything to do with the Soviets or the US however so they formed the PLO which was an organization of I believe 14 Arab states in 1968. They wanted to work diplomatically but basically could not keep control of all the terror organizations working to attack and keep Israel off of what they considered holy land
The PLO was actually founded in 1964. You suggest that "14 arab states" (by which I'm going to assume you mean the majority of countries in the middle east, since I don't know any arab states outside of there) intended to work diplomatically to create a state of Palestine. This, of course, explains the various wars of extermination Israel's neighbors have waged upon it, inclusive of the 1967 Six Day War which was between the creation of the peaceful, diplomatic PLO and when Arafat and his pack of terrorists (and I'm not using the word "terrorist" in the rhetorical sense that's become so popular since 9/11--I'm using it in the "hey, let's go blow up a school bus" sense) took the reins of the PLO in 1968.
The PLO's charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel--not coexistence, not independant statehood, but to drive the jews into the sea. The charter was supposed to be changed after the 1993 Oslo accords, but despite a few drafts being circulated, 11 years later this still hasn't been done.
Anyway, when the jews say they have been in Israel for thousands of years that would be incorrect, they are primarily speaking about a place in a book and this is where they think they once came from.
They THINK they came from? I think they're probably right unless you consider the city of Jerusalem to be an ambiguous or false marker...
Your attitude or seemingly ignorance, no insult intended is what is used to keep the flames of this situation hot.
I'm not ignorant of the situation (read my original post again--I used to be nominally anti-Israel, and your description of 1948 was one of the major reasons for my attitude) and I daresay my opinion one way or the other has exactly NO impact on "keeping the flames of this situation hot."
There is absolutely no one gaining from this fight and it will continue unabedded if the US keeps funding and loaning money to Israel and Terror organization and communist countries keep funding Palestinians.
I'm sure our friends across the pond will be happy to know they're communist. The primary source of funding for Arafat, is, as I said, the EU. And Arafat's Palestinian Authority is, as I said, funding the terrorists--not vice versa.
Know what will fix the situation? The arab states stepping up, condemning Arafat and his ilk and cutting off funding and driving them out, and to pledge--believably--that they're not going to send tank armies anymore. Then someone else has to step in and maintain the peace for the next fifty years, and then maybe, just maybe, the problem will have been solved. Palestinian statehood is also a good idea, but not with the current leadership they have--it's pretty hard to take someone who has chanted "death to Israel" seriously at the negotiations.
Don't forget the fact the Yanks give God knows how many billions of Dollars to a regime that's in violation of over 100 UN Resultions and has killed over 3000 innocent civilans since 2000... oh the fucking irony.
Nobody ever gives the other size of that particular equation--over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians will killed by palestinian terrorists in the same time frame. Also, the EU has given over a billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority over the last decade, some of which has been diverted to terrorist organizations. But blaming America is an international sport, so what the hell.
I used to be... let's not say anti-Israel, but rather of the opinion that there was no "right" side in that particular conflict. And then it was presented to me that Israel isn't trying to kill civilians--the terrorist leadership make their homes in highly populated areas so that if Israel ever comes knocking they either have to take ALOT of trouble to do so surgically, otherwise they risk killing large numbers of civillians. Sometimes Israel does the former, but usually the latter.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, intentionally kill civillians--it isn't collateral damage, they're the primary fucking target.
So excuse me if I don't feel the outrage others do when Israel assassinates the leader of the Islamic Jihad, or when they blow up the leader of Hamas and bystanders get caught in the crossfire. It also never ceases to amaze me how anybody can regard things like the above as "crimes."
All of the above said, I still think there are some things Israel does that are horrible--personally, I find things like destroying the homes of families of terrorists to be barbaric. I also don't like the amount of money my country sends to them each year. But all-in-all, Israel certainly has the moral high ground.
They not only report on the scam, but tell exactly how it was carried off. They've even provided the names of the merchant transaction companies which can be suckered.
To me that says one thing: honeypot.
Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types
Black Panthers
Weather Underground
Earth Liberation Front
Nope, no radical militant liberals here.
PS: About your disagreement. I half agree with you that there would be dire consequences. I'm just not certain that there's any way at all to avoid them, and I AM certain that the way we're going now cannot possibly avoid them without killing everyone in Iraq.
I don't think your last point is correct. I think the majority of the Iraqi people are still with us--but I also think that support is fading fast. Too many scandals and the insurgents proving that they can hold the cities against the US Army has to have alot of people over there thinking that we abandoned them in '91, and we're going to again today.
I think the United States has a moral responsibility to fix the mess we've made in Iraq--and that unless decisive action is taken (soon!) we will lose the situation... but I don't think your suggestion fits the bill because it just creates another Saddam to be dealt with in the future--if not by us, then by someone else. Like it or not, I think we have to see it to it's (almost certainly) extremely bloody end.
We can't just run away--what does that say to our allies (or, more importantly, to our enemies?) Inflict a thousand dead and we cut and run. I'm a firm believer that America is not the world's policeman--but it is a fact that our power does keep certain nations from taking various actions. These days, there's no threat to europe, but if the world expects us to fold in the face of adversity, what happens to Taiwan? To South Korea? Now that we've gone and destabilized Iraq, what stops the Iranians (Shiites, likely to be welcomed by the majority) from moving in if we leave?
The Bush administration has made a huge mess out of our foreign policy. This war is going to cost us at least twice as many lives as it has already (likely more) and hundreds of billions of dollars more, not to mention the damage to relationships with our traditional allies that's already been inflicted and will likely get worse--but for all that, we have to stay... because the alternatives are actually even worse.