All corporate entities have one common philosophy "maximize profit".
To me that sounds redundant.. but I guess on slashdot where all corporations are corrupt and evil it comes as a shock when one corpropate entity who *claims* their philosophy is not to be "evil" turns around and does something.. errr.. business-savy, logical, sensible, take your choice.
Good points, and I agree with them. I'm not particularly shocked, myself--when morals and money conflict, money wins out more often than not. However, just because it's a good business decision doesn't mean it isn't hypocracy. And despite the fact that this is Slashdot, and Google is nominally our friend, that doesn't mean they get a pass when it comes to hypocracy.
Would it be better to have the people of China banned from Google entirely? I think Google is doing the right thing by not just walking away and leaving them in the dark so to speak.
This isn't some enlightened action on Google's part to keep their service available to the oppressed Chinese masses. This is a business decision to keep themselves from being kicked out of a growing market--and its a good decision, from a business standpoint. That doesn't change the fact that they're aiding the Chinese government by masking some of their undeniably evil acts.
No. It's "neutral." There is a friggin' third choice.
I do understand that the world is not simply black and white, and that "good" and "evil" is not a binary choice. That said, I still stand behind my statement that this is evil. Google is assisting the Chinese government by actively hiding evidence of their censorship.
Denial of human rights is a repugnant, indefensible action. Aiding those who do so is not a "neutral" act.
Leaving the caching service available would simply get Google banned too. No point.
There most certainly is a point if your stated corporate philosophy is "don't be evil." I submit that assisting the Chinese government in masking their censorship just so you can remain in the market most certainly qualifies as "evil."
The ONLY person I can marry is a woman. The same is true of a gay man. I cannot marry a man, and neither can he.
Once upon a time a white man could only marry a white women. A black man could only marry a black woman. If you don't see the parallels there, then there's little point in continuing this discussion.
Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals. I am straight, and can only marry a woman. A gay man can only marry a woman. Exactly equal.
This is absurd. See below for why I think so.
Now before you rant on about "love" understand that the Government has no business involving itself in matters of "love" and stating that you "love" someone is not a compelling reason to change a laws.
Heh. If there's one thing I've learned it's that love and marriage seem to be seldom related. On a more serious note, though, in our society we have two interrelated concepts called marriage:
One is a spirtual idea--a joining of two lives in the eyes of God (or Allah, or pick your pagan deity of choice) blessed by faith. I'd not propose that any religious group be forced to include same sex pairing--to do so would be an abomination of both their faith and our Constitution.
The second is a set of social contracts that bind two people into a household. Power of attorney in case of incapacitation, the ability to make medical decisions for the spouse, automatic inheritance, communal property, tax benefits, etc. What our society makes so simple to two people who say "I do" simply because they're members of the opposite sex is rendered extremely difficult for those who do not live their lives in the same way. It is THIS idea of marriage that must change, because our ideal of "equal protection under the law" demands it must change. You don't have to like it--hell, I don't like it--but we do have to put up with it.
Fifty years ago (and even more recently) people were trying to deny these rights to mixed race couples using similar arguments to what is being said now. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now, and (dare I say it) to think otherwise is unAmerican.
The fact is, gays want NEW rights.
Often times, people agitating for "equal rights" do indeed want to be treated better than everyone else. I believe that this one particular issue, however, does not fall into that classification.
As a matter of fact, the debate here is whether we should call it marriage or civil unions
I disagree completely--the above is simply a semantic game. If a "civil union" doesn't come with all of the legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations of a marriage, then it's unacceptable. If it does come with all of those things, then you can call it a ham sandwhich if you want--that doesn't change what it is and you're left with an extremely foolish law that creates two classifications of the same damn thing. To what end, I ask, if not to leave the door open to future redefinition?
I think its absurd to think that a homosexual couple could do as good a job of raising an adopted kid as a heterosexual couple.
Have you seen some of the kids some heterosexual "parents" are raising today? Children raised by wolves, much less homosexuals, might be something of an improvement.
You see the social repercussions of this? The kid says to the sex-ed teacher: "Which of my two daddies has a vagina? So boys don't have vaginas? So boys can't make babies? I was adopted? What?"
Yes, I do see your point here and I can't say I'm any more comfortable with it than you are. I sure don't know the answer to the problem, either, but I am certain that it doesn't involve treating a group of our citizens differently than another group.
Most African Americans are against gay marriage (more than whites) and they don't appreciate this comparison being made, for the record. They are not the same thing at all. You have the right to get married, but unless its a man-woman relationship, it is not a marriage. Get a clue.
The above post is so hypocritical it isn't even funny. Once upon a time it wasn't legal for blacks and whites to marry. I'm sure Bubba the Klanmember down in Mississippi once said in a manner quite as sanctimonious as your own that "you have the right to get married, but unless it's a same race relationship, it is not a marriage." I'm sick and tired of people saying "it's not the same thing" when quite clearly it is--and the people whose rights were won by their parents and grandparents are too fucking content with the status quo to see it.
As much as I personally find the practice repulsive, homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are--because rights need to be defined as broadly as possible, lest the legislature and the courts slowly (but surely!) remove them from us.
First, a firewall will prevent most exploits. Second, some kind of antivirus filtering on the mail server. Third, an updated version of some form of antivirus software on workstations to prevent risk by mailer worms that don't get caught by the firewall. Fourth, keep systems updated.
All good suggestions--I'd like to add "block things like.exe,.pif, and.vbs attachments at the mail gateway" as well--but still not 100% foolproof.
Your users could visit websites that do driveby installs of malicious code. You could be infected by some new virus during that window where its released and your AV vendors release new definitions. Microsoft's latest patch mike break some of your applications requiring you leave a vulnerability untouched.
I'm not disagreeing with your post in general--indeed, your suggestions are probably enough to handle 90% of problems seen in your average Windows shop--but that other 10% needs to be acknowledged.
I disagree with his "wasted vote" comments. Any libertarian vote right now IS a wasted vote, there's no question.
I disagree--if nothing else, third party voting represents a stick to use against the two major parties. If the previous decade taught us anything, it's that third parties can have tremendous impact on the presidential election.
Sometimes the two major parties actually listen to that message--in 1994, Republicans turned more conservative in response to Ross Perot siphoning off those who would probably have voted for Bush Sr. and gave us Newt Gingrich, the "Contract with America," etc. and while it is quite debatable if this was good for the nation, it most certainly was good for the Republican party. Nader in 2000 played a similar foil (far less successfully, but enough) for the Democrats, to which they reponded with the far-more-liberal-than-Gore John Kerry. Whether or not this will be beneficial remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: you will never achieve change if you keep voting for $PARTY no matter what $PARTY does just because you think $OTHER_PARTY is worse.
If you build any house less than 2000 SQ. FT. these days you wouldn't find a buyer.
Nice blanket statement you've got there. Like everything else in real estate, it comes down to location--maybe the above is true where you live, but most homes around here (Greene County, Tennessee) including new construction are significantly smaller than 2000sqft. My house is 2650sqft (oddly enough, given that it was built 85 years ago) and dwarfs just about everything else in the neighborhood, including the new homes.
Now, OTOH, if you go 30 miles east of here to Johnson City, where they're building lots of half million dollar homes for doctors, then your statement is somewhat more true--though they're still building and selling 1500sqft cape cods, too.
I read in the latest issue of Variety that Microsoft had a $1.1 billion loss last year. It was in an article on the 50 largest companies in the entertainment industry. I don't know if that was a misprint or not. I thought Microsoft was a perpetual motion money machine.
The article was probably talking about the X-Box division, which loses money like they have some kind of mission to. Microsoft itself continues to make money hand over fist. Their net income last year was 8.1 billion dollars on revenue of 36.8 billion.
W2K is generally considered quite stable, and relatively secure (again, with all of its patches in place)
That must explain that when I'm reviewig the patches on my SUS server that so damn many of them have descriptions that state things like "A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise a computer running Windows and gain complete control over it." The number of root level exploits that those patches fix is positively stunning, as is the fact that they have to keep re-releasing the same patches and then issue even more patches to fix the same security issue and the bugs introduced by the previous patch.
You're also ignoring the security nightmare that is IE.
Agree with you about sendmail, though. Try Postfix instead--unlike sendmail, it was designed with security in mind.
AFAIK, there's no way to tell Yahoo to show all locations, not just ones that are geographically near you.
Yeah, thanks for posting that link. I spent too much time on Yahoo and Fandango trying to find things reasonably close, and trying larger cities further and further away and still getting nothing. The IMDB map was quite helpful in that it told me I was not going to ever see this movie in a theater.
I still say the story submitter was on crack for suggesting there was "reasonably wide distribution."
The link posted by Astrorunner above suggests that the submitter is on crack--"reasonably wide distribution" even for anime does not mean "If you live in a city with a population of less than 750,000 you will have to drive at least five hours to see it."
the untold hundreds of millions in tax breaks are the real reasons that they paid some accounting firm to setup their foundation.
You must've gone to the Dr. Evil School of Accounting--"Why make billions when we can make... millions!"
Even hundreds of millions in tax breaks don't justify billions in charitible giving for anything other than altruistic reasons--the idea of giving to charity to reduce your tax burden is so that your total cost is LESS not more.
Contrast that with Cisco: Last time I had a Cisco with a dead port they sent me the replacement overnight delivery and then told me I had three weeks to return the old one or be sent a bill.
HP is similar as far as their network gear goes--lifetime warranty where the replacement part shows up on your doorstep the next morning with a prepaid label in the box to ship the defective unit back.
I don't think it should be an absolute right. We should be able to outlaw certain categories of weapons.
I think debating this point would be a waste of time for both of us--I doubt either of us will budge much if at all. I think we should agree to disagree here.
I think we should require training, licensing, and registration, like we do for automobiles. Is that so terribly unreasonabe? I don't think so.
You'd be amazed how many pro-gun people would be happy to go along with the "treat guns like cars" idea. Here's the thing:
You don't need any sort of training or a license to purchase an automobile, and you're not required to register it.
When you buy a car there's no background check, regardless of whether you buy it from a dealer or a private seller.
You can buy any sort of car you want, and make any kind of modifications to it that you want, without violating any laws (with the caveat that you may run afoul of emissions laws in your state.)
The ONLY time you need to register the car and obtain a license is when you want to drive the car on the public roads.
That last one is analagous to concealed carry licenses--in most states, obtaining one requires a thorough background check and a not-insignificant amount of training. Ironically, it's the states with the least citizen-friendly concealed carry laws (i.e. the "may issue" states like California, where in some counties it's impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain a concealed carry permit unless they know the right people) that have the most lax standards when it comes to who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon--being the sheriff's brother is qualification enough.
What I object to is people using fake data to support their arguments. Such folks should be run out of town on a rail. They don't do anyone any good.
I agree completely. The poster in question was actually on my friends list for some reason--he isn't any longer.
I will give you credit for posting a link to an actual Web site. But I've never heard of the National Institute of Justice, and there is nothing in their report that supports any of the allegedly fraudulent stats cited previous.
NIJ is part of the Department of Justice. Their director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. In general, their data can be trusted as much as you trust any other government data. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm.
I'm not quoting the "other surveys" though, because I don't have any idea whether they're credible. Suffice it to say, they weren't conducted by the FBI, or by anyone commissioned by the FBI. Which is what the poster I was responding to claimed.
I'd swear on a stack of bibles that I've seen the data that the poster was referring to. Since I can't produce it though, I won't bring it into this discussion.
The real truth is that nobody tracks DGUs--and the majority go unreported anyway, making tracking them problematic at best. The only data out there is in the form of various surveys, and I find them problematic at best--I never took prob & stat, but personally I think the sample sizes are too damn small, and you're likely to get misleading data anyway in the form of false positives and false negatives, and probably not an insignificant number of either.
For information of this sort, I usually turn to GunCite. They are, of course, a pro-gun site with something of an agenda to push, but they do at least try to remain objective. Their page on DGUs is at http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html, and is built largely around the Kleck survey. They also link to several papers that have problems with Kleck's survey, responses to those papers, etc.
GunCite is one of those sites everyone should read, no matter what side of the debate they're on.
Where's the study? You give specific statistics but you can't link to the source you got them from? Liar.
Superdude,
Once upon a time, I saw the FBI data mentioned, though that was some time ago. Since I couldn't find it, I didn't reference it in my own post, but instead linked to the National Institute of Justice study on civilian firearms ownership, which contains a section on defensive gun uses. You can read my post (and the included link) at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121564&cid=102 30861 or read the study directly at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
I might disagree with your politics (not that I'm familiar with them, but given that we're on opposite sides of a gun control debate I think it's a fair assumption) but unlike some others, I think at least we can have a civil discourse in which we cite our references instead of assuming the other side is familiar with them, and insulting them if they aren't. Shouting people down is no way to hold a debate, and certainly no way to win potential converts to your side of an issue.
What use is a gun if you don't know that he's there?
I agree--note, that would fall under the category of "letting him get close enough to take it away from you."
Re:Now that the Assault Weapons Ban Has Expired...
on
Home Defense, Geek Style?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants
Fully automatic weapons are stiff covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Unless you have serious money and can afford one of the relatively few legal machine guns out there, they're basically illegal. So what Sarah Brady calls an "AK-47" and what our arab friends like to use are not in the least bit comparable.
Secondly--and I think you already know this, based on your bayonet remark--the ban was largely cosmetic. Rifles functionally identical, but cosmetically different than those banned in 1994 have been manufactured since the ban went into effect--which, to me, proves the law was entirely useless. What's even more absurd is that because of the ban, demand for these guns has gone through the roof--more "assault weapons" were bought from 1994-2004 then were bought from 1974-1994. I don't know what the Bradys were trying to achieve, but I doubt that was it.
Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster
Bushmaster doesn't manufacture AK-47s, not even the semi-automatic version.
In 1997, the National Institude of Justice released a study entitled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms." You can read this study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf. There is a section in it about defensive gun uses. According to a study done in 1994 by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, there are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Personally, I find that number a bit hard to believe--their sample size is quite small. OTOH, the National Crime Victimization Survey data extrapolates to 108,000 defensive gun uses. I suspect the truth is somewhere between these numbers. In any case, the study is worth reading no matter what side of the fence you're on.
A dog is a good idea because it's a great deterrent, and a good alarm. Then call 911.
Calling 911 doesn't work when you live out in the sticks and the mean police response time to your residence is more than half an hour. Remember, for the most part the police don't stop crimes in progress--they pick up the pieces afterward. Self defense is YOUR responsibility.
Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially... your more likely to get shot with your own weapon (or get sued by someone you shoot) than you are to successfully defend your home.
Sorry, buddy, but the Kellerman study has been debunked and these days is only promoted by gun control organizations--not even Kellerman himself still stands behind it.
Killing someone is a tough thing
I do agree, however, that if you ever point a firearm at somebody you'd best be prepared to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, it's called the popular vote.
We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a senate: to keep the more populous states from walking all over the less populous states.
It's a good system overall, though I think changing the way electors are apportioned would be a good modification.
All corporate entities have one common philosophy "maximize profit".
.. but I guess on slashdot where all corporations are corrupt and evil it comes as a shock when one corpropate entity who *claims* their philosophy is not to be "evil" turns around and does something .. errr .. business-savy, logical, sensible, take your choice.
To me that sounds redundant
Good points, and I agree with them. I'm not particularly shocked, myself--when morals and money conflict, money wins out more often than not. However, just because it's a good business decision doesn't mean it isn't hypocracy. And despite the fact that this is Slashdot, and Google is nominally our friend, that doesn't mean they get a pass when it comes to hypocracy.
Would it be better to have the people of China banned from Google entirely? I think Google is doing the right thing by not just walking away and leaving them in the dark so to speak.
This isn't some enlightened action on Google's part to keep their service available to the oppressed Chinese masses. This is a business decision to keep themselves from being kicked out of a growing market--and its a good decision, from a business standpoint. That doesn't change the fact that they're aiding the Chinese government by masking some of their undeniably evil acts.
No. It's "neutral." There is a friggin' third choice.
I do understand that the world is not simply black and white, and that "good" and "evil" is not a binary choice. That said, I still stand behind my statement that this is evil. Google is assisting the Chinese government by actively hiding evidence of their censorship.
Denial of human rights is a repugnant, indefensible action. Aiding those who do so is not a "neutral" act.
Leaving the caching service available would simply get Google banned too. No point.
There most certainly is a point if your stated corporate philosophy is "don't be evil." I submit that assisting the Chinese government in masking their censorship just so you can remain in the market most certainly qualifies as "evil."
The ONLY person I can marry is a woman. The same is true of a gay man. I cannot marry a man, and neither can he.
Once upon a time a white man could only marry a white women. A black man could only marry a black woman. If you don't see the parallels there, then there's little point in continuing this discussion.
Gays already have the same rights as heterosexuals. I am straight, and can only marry a woman. A gay man can only marry a woman. Exactly equal.
This is absurd. See below for why I think so.
Now before you rant on about "love" understand that the Government has no business involving itself in matters of "love" and stating that you "love" someone is not a compelling reason to change a laws.
Heh. If there's one thing I've learned it's that love and marriage seem to be seldom related. On a more serious note, though, in our society we have two interrelated concepts called marriage:
One is a spirtual idea--a joining of two lives in the eyes of God (or Allah, or pick your pagan deity of choice) blessed by faith. I'd not propose that any religious group be forced to include same sex pairing--to do so would be an abomination of both their faith and our Constitution.
The second is a set of social contracts that bind two people into a household. Power of attorney in case of incapacitation, the ability to make medical decisions for the spouse, automatic inheritance, communal property, tax benefits, etc. What our society makes so simple to two people who say "I do" simply because they're members of the opposite sex is rendered extremely difficult for those who do not live their lives in the same way. It is THIS idea of marriage that must change, because our ideal of "equal protection under the law" demands it must change. You don't have to like it--hell, I don't like it--but we do have to put up with it.
Fifty years ago (and even more recently) people were trying to deny these rights to mixed race couples using similar arguments to what is being said now. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now, and (dare I say it) to think otherwise is unAmerican.
The fact is, gays want NEW rights.
Often times, people agitating for "equal rights" do indeed want to be treated better than everyone else. I believe that this one particular issue, however, does not fall into that classification.
As a matter of fact, the debate here is whether we should call it marriage or civil unions
I disagree completely--the above is simply a semantic game. If a "civil union" doesn't come with all of the legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations of a marriage, then it's unacceptable. If it does come with all of those things, then you can call it a ham sandwhich if you want--that doesn't change what it is and you're left with an extremely foolish law that creates two classifications of the same damn thing. To what end, I ask, if not to leave the door open to future redefinition?
I think its absurd to think that a homosexual couple could do as good a job of raising an adopted kid as a heterosexual couple.
Have you seen some of the kids some heterosexual "parents" are raising today? Children raised by wolves, much less homosexuals, might be something of an improvement.
You see the social repercussions of this? The kid says to the sex-ed teacher: "Which of my two daddies has a vagina? So boys don't have vaginas? So boys can't make babies? I was adopted? What?"
Yes, I do see your point here and I can't say I'm any more comfortable with it than you are. I sure don't know the answer to the problem, either, but I am certain that it doesn't involve treating a group of our citizens differently than another group.
Most African Americans are against gay marriage (more than whites) and they don't appreciate this comparison being made, for the record. They are not the same thing at all. You have the right to get married, but unless its a man-woman relationship, it is not a marriage. Get a clue.
The above post is so hypocritical it isn't even funny. Once upon a time it wasn't legal for blacks and whites to marry. I'm sure Bubba the Klanmember down in Mississippi once said in a manner quite as sanctimonious as your own that "you have the right to get married, but unless it's a same race relationship, it is not a marriage." I'm sick and tired of people saying "it's not the same thing" when quite clearly it is--and the people whose rights were won by their parents and grandparents are too fucking content with the status quo to see it.
As much as I personally find the practice repulsive, homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are--because rights need to be defined as broadly as possible, lest the legislature and the courts slowly (but surely!) remove them from us.
First, a firewall will prevent most exploits. Second, some kind of antivirus filtering on the mail server. Third, an updated version of some form of antivirus software on workstations to prevent risk by mailer worms that don't get caught by the firewall. Fourth, keep systems updated.
.exe, .pif, and .vbs attachments at the mail gateway" as well--but still not 100% foolproof.
All good suggestions--I'd like to add "block things like
Your users could visit websites that do driveby installs of malicious code. You could be infected by some new virus during that window where its released and your AV vendors release new definitions. Microsoft's latest patch mike break some of your applications requiring you leave a vulnerability untouched.
I'm not disagreeing with your post in general--indeed, your suggestions are probably enough to handle 90% of problems seen in your average Windows shop--but that other 10% needs to be acknowledged.
I disagree with his "wasted vote" comments. Any libertarian vote right now IS a wasted vote, there's no question.
I disagree--if nothing else, third party voting represents a stick to use against the two major parties. If the previous decade taught us anything, it's that third parties can have tremendous impact on the presidential election.
Sometimes the two major parties actually listen to that message--in 1994, Republicans turned more conservative in response to Ross Perot siphoning off those who would probably have voted for Bush Sr. and gave us Newt Gingrich, the "Contract with America," etc. and while it is quite debatable if this was good for the nation, it most certainly was good for the Republican party. Nader in 2000 played a similar foil (far less successfully, but enough) for the Democrats, to which they reponded with the far-more-liberal-than-Gore John Kerry. Whether or not this will be beneficial remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: you will never achieve change if you keep voting for $PARTY no matter what $PARTY does just because you think $OTHER_PARTY is worse.
If you build any house less than 2000 SQ. FT. these days you wouldn't find a buyer.
Nice blanket statement you've got there. Like everything else in real estate, it comes down to location--maybe the above is true where you live, but most homes around here (Greene County, Tennessee) including new construction are significantly smaller than 2000sqft. My house is 2650sqft (oddly enough, given that it was built 85 years ago) and dwarfs just about everything else in the neighborhood, including the new homes.
Now, OTOH, if you go 30 miles east of here to Johnson City, where they're building lots of half million dollar homes for doctors, then your statement is somewhat more true--though they're still building and selling 1500sqft cape cods, too.
I read in the latest issue of Variety that Microsoft had a $1.1 billion loss last year. It was in an article on the 50 largest companies in the entertainment industry. I don't know if that was a misprint or not. I thought Microsoft was a perpetual motion money machine.
The article was probably talking about the X-Box division, which loses money like they have some kind of mission to. Microsoft itself continues to make money hand over fist. Their net income last year was 8.1 billion dollars on revenue of 36.8 billion.
W2K is generally considered quite stable, and relatively secure (again, with all of its patches in place)
That must explain that when I'm reviewig the patches on my SUS server that so damn many of them have descriptions that state things like "A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to compromise a computer running Windows and gain complete control over it." The number of root level exploits that those patches fix is positively stunning, as is the fact that they have to keep re-releasing the same patches and then issue even more patches to fix the same security issue and the bugs introduced by the previous patch.
You're also ignoring the security nightmare that is IE.
Agree with you about sendmail, though. Try Postfix instead--unlike sendmail, it was designed with security in mind.
AFAIK, there's no way to tell Yahoo to show all locations, not just ones that are geographically near you.
Yeah, thanks for posting that link. I spent too much time on Yahoo and Fandango trying to find things reasonably close, and trying larger cities further and further away and still getting nothing. The IMDB map was quite helpful in that it told me I was not going to ever see this movie in a theater.
I still say the story submitter was on crack for suggesting there was "reasonably wide distribution."
The link posted by Astrorunner above suggests that the submitter is on crack--"reasonably wide distribution" even for anime does not mean "If you live in a city with a population of less than 750,000 you will have to drive at least five hours to see it."
the untold hundreds of millions in tax breaks are the real reasons that they paid some accounting firm to setup their foundation.
You must've gone to the Dr. Evil School of Accounting--"Why make billions when we can make... millions!"
Even hundreds of millions in tax breaks don't justify billions in charitible giving for anything other than altruistic reasons--the idea of giving to charity to reduce your tax burden is so that your total cost is LESS not more.
Contrast that with Cisco: Last time I had a Cisco with a dead port they sent me the replacement overnight delivery and then told me I had three weeks to return the old one or be sent a bill.
HP is similar as far as their network gear goes--lifetime warranty where the replacement part shows up on your doorstep the next morning with a prepaid label in the box to ship the defective unit back.
I think debating this point would be a waste of time for both of us--I doubt either of us will budge much if at all. I think we should agree to disagree here.
I think we should require training, licensing, and registration, like we do for automobiles. Is that so terribly unreasonabe? I don't think so.
You'd be amazed how many pro-gun people would be happy to go along with the "treat guns like cars" idea. Here's the thing:
That last one is analagous to concealed carry licenses--in most states, obtaining one requires a thorough background check and a not-insignificant amount of training. Ironically, it's the states with the least citizen-friendly concealed carry laws (i.e. the "may issue" states like California, where in some counties it's impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain a concealed carry permit unless they know the right people) that have the most lax standards when it comes to who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon--being the sheriff's brother is qualification enough.
What I object to is people using fake data to support their arguments. Such folks should be run out of town on a rail. They don't do anyone any good.
I agree completely. The poster in question was actually on my friends list for some reason--he isn't any longer.
I will give you credit for posting a link to an actual Web site. But I've never heard of the National Institute of Justice, and there is nothing in their report that supports any of the allegedly fraudulent stats cited previous.
NIJ is part of the Department of Justice. Their director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. In general, their data can be trusted as much as you trust any other government data. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm.
I'm not quoting the "other surveys" though, because I don't have any idea whether they're credible. Suffice it to say, they weren't conducted by the FBI, or by anyone commissioned by the FBI. Which is what the poster I was responding to claimed.
I'd swear on a stack of bibles that I've seen the data that the poster was referring to. Since I can't produce it though, I won't bring it into this discussion.
The real truth is that nobody tracks DGUs--and the majority go unreported anyway, making tracking them problematic at best. The only data out there is in the form of various surveys, and I find them problematic at best--I never took prob & stat, but personally I think the sample sizes are too damn small, and you're likely to get misleading data anyway in the form of false positives and false negatives, and probably not an insignificant number of either.
For information of this sort, I usually turn to GunCite. They are, of course, a pro-gun site with something of an agenda to push, but they do at least try to remain objective. Their page on DGUs is at http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html, and is built largely around the Kleck survey. They also link to several papers that have problems with Kleck's survey, responses to those papers, etc.
GunCite is one of those sites everyone should read, no matter what side of the debate they're on.
Where's the study? You give specific statistics but you can't link to the source you got them from? Liar.
2 30861 or read the study directly at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Superdude,
Once upon a time, I saw the FBI data mentioned, though that was some time ago. Since I couldn't find it, I didn't reference it in my own post, but instead linked to the National Institute of Justice study on civilian firearms ownership, which contains a section on defensive gun uses. You can read my post (and the included link) at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121564&cid=10
I might disagree with your politics (not that I'm familiar with them, but given that we're on opposite sides of a gun control debate I think it's a fair assumption) but unlike some others, I think at least we can have a civil discourse in which we cite our references instead of assuming the other side is familiar with them, and insulting them if they aren't. Shouting people down is no way to hold a debate, and certainly no way to win potential converts to your side of an issue.
What use is a gun if you don't know that he's there?
I agree--note, that would fall under the category of "letting him get close enough to take it away from you."
Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants
Fully automatic weapons are stiff covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Unless you have serious money and can afford one of the relatively few legal machine guns out there, they're basically illegal. So what Sarah Brady calls an "AK-47" and what our arab friends like to use are not in the least bit comparable.
Secondly--and I think you already know this, based on your bayonet remark--the ban was largely cosmetic. Rifles functionally identical, but cosmetically different than those banned in 1994 have been manufactured since the ban went into effect--which, to me, proves the law was entirely useless. What's even more absurd is that because of the ban, demand for these guns has gone through the roof--more "assault weapons" were bought from 1994-2004 then were bought from 1974-1994. I don't know what the Bradys were trying to achieve, but I doubt that was it.
Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster
Bushmaster doesn't manufacture AK-47s, not even the semi-automatic version.
When you say "presenting" I sure hope you mean "pointing at"
You're damn right that's what I mean. If you're in enough fear for your life that you draw your weapon, that weapon had BETTER be aimed at the threat.
Where the heck did you get those stats?
In 1997, the National Institude of Justice released a study entitled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms." You can read this study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf. There is a section in it about defensive gun uses. According to a study done in 1994 by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, there are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Personally, I find that number a bit hard to believe--their sample size is quite small. OTOH, the National Crime Victimization Survey data extrapolates to 108,000 defensive gun uses. I suspect the truth is somewhere between these numbers. In any case, the study is worth reading no matter what side of the fence you're on.
A dog is a good idea because it's a great deterrent, and a good alarm. Then call 911.
Calling 911 doesn't work when you live out in the sticks and the mean police response time to your residence is more than half an hour. Remember, for the most part the police don't stop crimes in progress--they pick up the pieces afterward. Self defense is YOUR responsibility.
Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially ... your more likely to get shot with your own weapon (or get sued by someone you shoot) than you are to successfully defend your home.
Sorry, buddy, but the Kellerman study has been debunked and these days is only promoted by gun control organizations--not even Kellerman himself still stands behind it.
Killing someone is a tough thing
I do agree, however, that if you ever point a firearm at somebody you'd best be prepared to use it.