Wrong car dealers are licensed and regulated ever try to buy a car on a sunday?. So are a slew of other products like alcohol, tobbacco.
My appoligies, I did forget liquor licenses. However, there is no required license to sell tobacco products (of course, you could live in a state with such a law, but I don't know any offhand) and I've never seen a license to sell cars--again, it might exist in your state, but I've never seen it.
This is just your typical gun nut paranioa. Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right own a gun.
This is where you are dead wrong. See US v. Emerson, which is currently playing out in one of the 5th district appeals court. The issue is Emerson, a doctor, was a gun owner. As part of a divorce procedure, a "standard" restraining order was slapped on him, which immediately made him a felon in possession of a firearm, without any kind of due process. His case (brought before a Texas judge) was thrown out after the judge declared the law violated Emerson's 2nd ammendmant rights. The US appealed.
Here is part of the testimony. (Disclaimer: This is taken from the Neal Knox Report, 6/20/00. It is not an official transcript.)
Judge William L. Garwood, the senior judge (appointed by Reagan), seemed startled by the government's position.
He said (according to radio talk show host Tom Gresham's report): "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"
Judge Garwood demanded: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Meteja added that National Guard members could only possess guns issued or used in the Guard.
I don't think I need to be any more clear on this. However, let me know if you're interested in learning more.
Yes guns should be registered and licensed just like cars, yes the sale of the should be monitored just like tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs. Be reasonable here will you, are you concerned that the government knows what kind of a car you drive?
Why does the government need to know this? I'm not a criminal, I'm a law abiding citizen. Perversely, criminals cannot be forced to register their weapons, as it violates their 5th ammendmant rights against self incrimination (if you want a citation, let me know, and I'll look up the appropriate case numbers for you) and therefore, ONLY law abiding citizens are covered by these laws. And I have a very real fear that registration leads to confiscation. Look at Australia and England over the last decade. Their gunowners were assured that registration was a safety measure, nothing more, and that their guns would NEVER be taken away. Now the English government is even thinking about going after de-activated antiques! (again, if you want a citation, let me know).
All these non sequiter arguments about police officers children only makes you guys look like idiots to the average American.
I appologize for the humor, but you didn't answer my question--Why are their guns immune from these laws? There has to be a reason, doesn't there? And that reason is it would make their guns less reliable, which would endanger their lives. Why should MY life be any less valuable?
Are these the same policemen you are so afraid will knock your door down and confiscate your guns? If so you should be happy their guns will misfire while you are shooting them.
I won't dignify this with a response, as it's a rather disgusting comment, but I will correct it: By law, their guns would be more reliable, not less.
As G. Gordon Liddy said aim for the head they are probably wearing bulletproof vests.
Bad advice. Aiming for anything other than center of mass in a high stress situation is the worst possible thing you can do (see footage of police shootous at traffic stops, etc. They're trained to fire at center of mass, and yet at ranges as short as two yards can empty entire magazines and miss. It's a sobering thought, seeing two people blaze away at each other at six feet and not hit jack, like something out of an A-Team episode.) I wish we had the money to spend to give our LEOs more training... maybe we'd lose fewer to criminals?
This is an out and out lie. Your average automobile, bicyle, or even a god damned cigarette lighter is more heavily regulated then guns. How come we have child proof lighters and not child proof guns? Don't come crying to me when you have to fill out some paperwork to get a gun what did you do to get a drivers licence? A god-damned real estate licence is harder to get then a gun.
I never had to purchase a car, bike, or lighter from someone who had to have a special license to sell them. (don't get me wrong--I'm actually in favor of the FFL system, with some modification. I think the requreiment to have a store front is bunk, for example.) That in itself is more regulation than any other consumer product in the US other than prescription drugs. Also, the government organizations that regulate cars have never seriously suggested that american citizens do not have the right to own them. Think about that.
Making a gun "childproof" (just like pill bottles, right?) will reduce its reliability. If my life were on the line, the last thing in the WORLD I would want to deal with is a "safety" feature designed by a congressman or soccer mom, who have no idea what gun safety means. Proof of this can be found in the VERY LAWS being passed in states like Massachusets and Maryland. Both of these states now have firearm safety laws, and in both cases the weapons purchased by law enforcement are IMMUNE. Ask yourself why this is so--I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Police officers do not have children, and thus, have no need to worry about their young ones picking up their duty weapons while in the home. Knowing several cops, who have kids, I discard this one out of hand.
2) The children of police officers are more expendable than the children of soccer moms. While with certain people (Rosie O'Donnel springs immediately to mind) this may be a possibility (though not certainty) I also discard this theory out of hand.
3) Police will have their lives endangered. This is dead on, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, or at least provide another plausible theory.
As to purchasing, I do admit purchasing a firearm at the present time is not a MAJOR hastle, unless the FBIs computer system is mysteriously down. However, it is EXTREMELY intrusive (why can we on slashdot argue endlessly about online privacy issues, but feel that government records of firearms transactions are not similarly wrong?) and the FBI admits to keeping these sales records for up to six months (in direct violation of the Brady laws, which stipulate these records are to be destroyed immediately upon an approval).
Have you ever purchased a firearm? Do you knwo what is involved? If not, I would think twice before harping about how easy it all is.
Sigh, the FBI does rquire a warrant to use Carnivore, and to top it off, it's _really_ hard to get. As for tossing extraneous data, it's the software that analyzes all the traffic, not humans. IANAFBIA, but from my experience, c-vore only _collects_ data on the target, agents don't even see the rest of the cruft.
Your comment made me think about something. Wiretap investigations will usually expand into the people you communicate with, and that communicate with you, based on the illegal activities you are engaged in (your associates, customers, suppliers, etc).
Here's my question: You, who are not the subject of Carnivore's attention,and have nothing at all to do with the subject, are into something illegal (for example, you run Joe's Online Pot emporium, or some such). By some chance, both you and the subject receive the same "Make Money Fast!" piece of spam. Is it likely that Carnivore will see the list of addresses in the cc header as associates to be investigated further, and produce your own incoming and outgoing email to the FBI as part of the unrelated investigation?
Besides the shareholders can go screw themselves. If they were stupid enough to invest in a company that dealt in death, misery and disease they deserve to go broke. Especially if they were too stupid to sell their stocks when they smelled trouble coming. What kind of a amoral stupid idiot would still own tobacco or gun stock anyways. Better put your money in safer companies.
You know, I should know better than to respond to trolls like this, but this really pushes one of my buttons. No one was ever forced by a tobacco company to start smoking. It has been widely known since the 1960s that cigarettes can kill you; In fact, there's been a statement to that effect on every box of cigarettes sold (and every carton, and every advertisement...) since that time. It's gotten to the point where they cannot even advertise in Sports Illustrated because of its "Large Teen Readership" (i.e. more than 15%). It's a load f bullshit, yes, you heard me, BULLSHIT.
I'm sick of listening to politicians (who were ever so willing to take campaign contributions from big tobacco) talk about how "expensive" the diseases associated with smoking are to the american taxpayer. It really makes me wonder where those 100%+ taxes per pack of cigarettes have been going for so long (yes, the US and state governments EACH make more money on a box of cigarettes than the people who make them).
We ignore things worse than cigarettes (like, oh, say, alcohol, which is much more destructive) and complain about the tobacco lobby, and that makes the american people hypocrites.
Your second example was gun companies.
Let me tell you something, guns are the most regulated consumer product in the United States. Buying one, even in Tennessee (the home of fucking Davey Crockett, for crying out loud), is a hastle involving the filling out of forms and background checks, and let's not even talk about places like New York, or New Jersey, where the only people who can really get guns are criminals.
It is illegal for a manufacturer to transfer a firearm to anyone other than an FFL holder. It is illegal for an FFL holder to transfer a firearm without a background check. The ATF conducts SERIOUS audits of both manufacturers and dealers, giving them an incentive to make sure illegal transfers do not occur. Of course, it still does happen, and that same ATF is incredibly LAX in dealing with it when it does. If they would follow their mandate instead of burning churches to the ground, maybe there would be less proliferation.
To blame the companies that produce the materials instead of the people who use them is rediculous, and your classification of stockholders (and, I assume, the employees of these companies--after all, the Neuremberg trials proved that "I was only doing my job" is not a valid defense) as amoral stupid idiots is ignorant and unthinking.
Discolsure: I am not a smoker and never have been. I am, however, a member of the NRA and TFA.
Sorry to disagree, but the hackers would be charged with 1st-degree murder, Party to a Crime. I was the head juror on a murder case where a guy arranged to rob his drug dealer, and in the process, killed him.
You can be charged with anything up to and including "improper use of a food processor" but that does not mean that the judge's instructions will bear that out when you head into the jury room.
Just curious, if you don't mind answering--How did that case come out? Was the verdict in fact guilty of 1st degree murder?
Re:One Point - Anyone else suspicious??
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
I think it's pretty clear this is not Jon Katz.
Bzzz. About as clear as mud. If you'd have bothered to fully investigate after clicking on "User Info" to discover how many posts this person has made, you would have discovered that "jonkatz" resolves to user number 7654, which is the same as "JonKatz." Thus disproving your case sensitive argument, and proving that this is indeed the real Katz.
Religions like Christianity have always been popular for a bunch of reasons
Funny that, I always thought that popular religions usually don't end up having their spritual leaders nailed to trees. Saying "Christianity has always been popular" kind of ignores the hundreds of years of persecution, doesn't it?
Guns: I'm not going into a whole gun argument. The reason for gun ownership have been presented before and if you don't believe in gun ownership then I'm not going to preach to you. However, remember that those who want to keep guns, have them. Those who want to ban guns don't. Who do you think is going to get their way?
I'm sorry to interject this into this thread, and I am sure I will be moderated down as offtopic (hey, because I am) but I couldn't let this statement pass without comment. Those who want to keep guns do not always have them (Have you been to New York City lately? You're more likely to make the US Olympic Team than qualify for a handgun permit) and those who want to ban them sometimes do. At one point in time, Dianne Feinstein had the ONLY legal concealed carry permit in the city of San Francisco, because she "felt a need to protect" herself, while consistantly promoting an anti-rights agenda.
Rosie O'Donnel, who spoke at the hundred thousand woman march, a woman who really has NO cause to fear crime (last time she did, she sold her house and moved to a nicer house in a better neighborhood) has a bodyguard who has applied for a carry permit in Greenwhich, CT. Rosie, who once declared "Only police and the military should be allowed to have guns. If you own a gun, you should go to jail" is now in the position of being protected by an armed guard, and her stance is now, "If you're licensed, and registered, I have no problem with it."
The problem with these people is they are so full of bullshit that it's amazing you cant smell them from a thousand yards away. There are countless "gun control - we need to save the children" types like those I posted above, and what it comes down to in the end is that they want to control PEOPLE, and the easiest way to do that is to take away their means of self-defense.
You can call it an extremist stance if you want. I'm an NRA member, and a TFA member, after believing for years that groups like this were over the top, but look at the legal climate of the last few years. It's always called a "compromise" when someone proposes "sensible gun laws" and yet we never seem to get anything out of these compromises. Thats why alot of gun owners take an uncompromising stance, and end up getting labelled as nuts because of it.
It's enough to make you sick. And you know what? From time to time, it really does.
This looks like an interesting way to test Napster's convictions. The Offspring - supporters of Napster/MP3 in principle, are looking at making a profit off of Napster by selling Napster merchandise on their own site. Now we'll see if it (Napster) is about the customers or about the profits - won't we?
According to The Register Napster has gone and sued The Offspring. Maybe The Offspring can make the argument that their concerts were just the venue, and it was those evil concession stand operators who are at fault?:)
You seem to be confusing binary logic with reality -- "either MS owns the code...or MS does NOT own the code".
On that note, I'll cede the argument to you. I should have known better than to try to inject logic into a conversation about law, and I truly and humbly apologize.
I know our legal system has a few problems here and there, but this is just plain illogical. Correct me if I have this sequence of events wrong:
1) Microserf, in it's own spare time, goes out and writes, say, a device driver for the Linux kernel, GPLs it, and releases it into the wild.
2) Microsoft decides since it's employee created it, THEY own the rights to the software, and file suit against RedHat, Caldera, Linus, etc.
-or-
1) Microserf, in it's own spare time writes, say, a device driver for the Linux kernel.
2) Microserf assigns the copyright for said code to the FSF
3) Microsoft decides THEY own this code, but the FSF says "Sorry, it's ours, here's our piece of paper!" ?!?!
Your basic premise seems to be along the lines of, "Well, I don't have the right to let you use it, but I DO have the right to give it to you free and clear."
This is non-sense. Either MS owns the code, in which case both the GPL AND the copyright assignment are invalid, OR MS does NOT own the code, in which case both the GPL AND the copyright assignment ARE valid.
This does not seem to be a situation where you can mix and match. If I'm misunderstanding your point, please tell me. This is bugging he hell out of me now, and I'd like to understand your reasoning.
For example, say there is code in the Linux kernel written by someone under the employ of Microsoft. They didn't aquire a release from Microsoft to license their code under the GPL. Microsoft wants to shut down Linux, and files a lawsuit against Redhat, Caldera, S.U.S.E., the owners of various FTP sites with Linux, etc. Why can they do this? Because they own some code within the kernel that is being illegal distributed.
The Linux way leaves us open to blackmail or destruction by ANY malicious company whose employee didn't double check his contract and wrote kernel code. The FSF way guarantees that the code will always be free
I really have to take issue with the above statement. In the first paragraph, you claim that Linux (GPL, with no copyright assigned to FSF) is vulnerable to manipulation if some large company whose employees have written code for the kernel decide to take issue with that fact and claim ownership. Your second paragraph goes on to claim that assigning the code to the FSF keeps this from happening.
Pardon me while I say "huh?" If someone is claiming something is being illegally distributed, it does not MATTER that the copyright is assigned to FSF. By the same logic you apply in paragraph one, the programmer who had no right to distribute it into the linux kernel HAS NO RIGHT TO ASSIGN COPYRIGHT TO FSF.
Clueless moderator: I fail to see how the above post is insightful.
In answer to the question, however, remarking an Athlon is far easier than modifying the equivilent coppermine. The Athlon multiplier settings (and how to change them) are actually well documented (see Tom's Hardware), and AMD even designed an overclocking system into the packaging (Gold Fingers).
The intel p3, on the other hand, has no available documentation for changing the clock multiplier. In your dollar bill analogy, the effort required to make the correct changed would be stated as, "Why make counterfeit one dollar bills, if you could make four dollar bills?"
Answer: It's not nearly as cost effective, and MUCH easier to spot.:)
First off, let me say that I almost universally avoid reading the "Katz, you suck!" comments, and indeed, go out of my way to moderate them down when I have points. But this is just rediculous. The basic message this article is conveying is:
Stealing is good.
Bringing attention to the person commiting the act of theft is a HORRIBLE PRIVACY VIOLATION! (Oh, and let's toss in 'Think of the CHILDREN!' on top of that.)
I will admit at this point that both I and my girlfriend download and listen to commercial MP3s. I am fully aware that what I am doing is illegal (although I don't feel it is immoral.) If the music police came to my door, they'd have me cold.
My response to a situation like the above could take many forms. Certainly, I'd point out that it was for all intents and purposes a victimless crime. That the MPAA and RIAA have embedded taxes in media in order to make up for the so called loss of revenue, and therefore were justly compensated for my act.
I would most certainly NOT exclaim at the top of my lungs "HOW DARE YOU GO THROUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PROVE I AM A THIEF. THIS IS A BREACH OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS."
Basically, in closing:
Katz, the trolls are right. You are goddamned brainless, and everything you say is just meaningless rhetoric. You have absolutely NO journalistic credibility, NO original ideas, and, frankly, NOTHING to contribute. This article itself should be moderated down as Overrated, flamebait, troll, redundant, and offtopic.
Oh, and I am in the process of compiling a book, "The articles of JonKatz", which I believe I will market through amazon. After all, this IS a public forum, and there's nothing wrong with stealing IP, right?
Is "Mostly Harmless" the end of the series? If so, it's a rather ambiguous ending (which, I suppose, does make pefect sense). Will there be another book to tie up all the loose ends left over?
Re:What they don't tell you about GPS... (Score:2) by CMonk on 12:45 AM April 20th, 2000 EST (#60) (User Info) I would say that the resolution that consumer grade GPS provides is more than enough to allow an ICBM with a nuclear bomb to be more than effective. The GPS drift that the consumer devices are subject to is much more likely there to help prevent accurate conventional weapon attacks.
Actually, the main reason for the existance of the better grade GPS is for Ohio class missile submarines. Believe it or not, those few dozen extra meters of resolution come into play for a tactic known as "counterforce".
While that 100 meter circle your civilian GPS puts you in would be accurate enough to, say, launch a one megaton warhead at New York City, with a reasonable (i.e. 100%) chance of wiping it off the map, it's NOT enough to destroy a buried, hardened silo containing a land-based ICBM.
On the other hand, if you know EXACTLY where you are on the earth, you can drop your 500kt warhead into a pickle barrel from half a world away, and destroy the land-based missile, thus keeping yet one more warhead from raining down on your country.
Although, it is also as you point out above. Cruise missile + GPS = Conventional explosive litterally going through the front door.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neight liberty nor safety" -- Ben Franklin, 1759.
Contrast this quote, from one of our founding fathers, with "We can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary citizens." --Bill Clinton, 03/01/93.
It's kind of obvious that the US is not what was intended two hundred years ago, and equally obvious that the current administration intends for things to keep progressing down that slippery slope.
Frankly, both mainstream parties are just two sides of the same coin. Either way you vote this year, you're going to lose.
You are completely wrong. Patents and copyrights are established to insure that creators have rights over their work. Without those rights, they would not release their works at all, ever. Your view is twisted and completely against the purpose of the original laws. Read it again, and don't look at it through your rose-colored glasses
I beg to differ. To quote:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Now as someone who apparently supports long patent and copyright terms, you probably construe this to mean, "If you create something, you can control it for as long as you can get away with. Here's your incentive to do so."
This is patently (ha ha) false. "To promote the progress of Science and useful arts." Say that with me again. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." One more time. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
In what way do long patent and copyright terms promote science and art? Yes, a single artist has a monetary incentive to produce useful work. The key word being a SINGLE artist. By your definition of the intentions behind this article, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW IN THAT WORK for as long as the patent was enforcable.
In what way do you promote science if Newton patents the laws of motion? Or better yet, "Well, yes, you can use calculus, but we require a licensing fee of $50,000, plus a $20,000 a year support agreement."
This is stagnation NOT progression. Whoever gets to the starting line first wins the race.
I recently read a news story on here where someone explained the philosophy behind patents and copyrights as a guarantee that ideas would eventually be released to the public and not held as secrets. That idea is so extremely and completely wrong that it goes to show how disconnected from reality a lot of patent and copyright fighters are.
When I first started to read your post, I thought it was sarcasm, but it seems not to be. Patents and copyrights are ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION in order to "ensure a rich public domain."
You then go on to explain, with:
Copyrights and patents and such things protect the creators BY keeping them secret
WTF? What planet are you on, or what universe are you in? How the hell does a patent keep something secret? In order to gain the patent, you must publish what exactly it is you are patenting. Copyrights protect published works. How do you keep a published work secret? The two are mutually exclusive.
If, however, you use the term 'secret' to mean 'protected', you are correct to a certain point. Copyrights and patents do exist to create a rich public domain. They do so by giving a creator an incentive to create, by bestowing exclusive rights to their creation for a certain period. After this period expires, the culture as a whole is enhanced by inclusion of this creation into the public domain, free for all to use.
It's a principle that was important enough to be used in the basis for american government, the document that enshrines all essential american freedoms. I think the "framer's intentions" are more than abundantly clear.
Okay, I cant resist this one.... moderators, note, this is HUMOR, not flamebait!:)
"Blame Hemos"
Times have changed, Slashdot is getting worse! It's full of trolls, not articles, where's the 'News for Nerds?' Should we all blame Taco? or blame that guy Jamie? Or should we blame a chick named Natalie? No! Blame Hemos! Blame Hemos! With those creepy book reviews, and the bitch named JonKatz too! Blame Hemos! Blame Hemos! We need form a full assault, it's Hemos' fault!
Slashdot Mirror
My appoligies, I did forget liquor licenses. However, there is no required license to sell tobacco products (of course, you could live in a state with such a law, but I don't know any offhand) and I've never seen a license to sell cars--again, it might exist in your state, but I've never seen it.
This is just your typical gun nut paranioa. Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right own a gun.
This is where you are dead wrong. See US v. Emerson, which is currently playing out in one of the 5th district appeals court. The issue is Emerson, a doctor, was a gun owner. As part of a divorce procedure, a "standard" restraining order was slapped on him, which immediately made him a felon in possession of a firearm, without any kind of due process. His case (brought before a Texas judge) was thrown out after the judge declared the law violated Emerson's 2nd ammendmant rights. The US appealed.
Here is part of the testimony. (Disclaimer: This is taken from the Neal Knox Report, 6/20/00. It is not an official transcript.)
Judge William L. Garwood, the senior judge (appointed by Reagan), seemed startled by the government's position.
He said (according to radio talk show host Tom Gresham's report): "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"
Judge Garwood demanded: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Meteja added that National Guard members could only possess guns issued or used in the Guard.
I don't think I need to be any more clear on this. However, let me know if you're interested in learning more.
Yes guns should be registered and licensed just like cars, yes the sale of the should be monitored just like tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs. Be reasonable here will you, are you concerned that the government knows what kind of a car you drive?
Why does the government need to know this? I'm not a criminal, I'm a law abiding citizen. Perversely, criminals cannot be forced to register their weapons, as it violates their 5th ammendmant rights against self incrimination (if you want a citation, let me know, and I'll look up the appropriate case numbers for you) and therefore, ONLY law abiding citizens are covered by these laws. And I have a very real fear that registration leads to confiscation. Look at Australia and England over the last decade. Their gunowners were assured that registration was a safety measure, nothing more, and that their guns would NEVER be taken away. Now the English government is even thinking about going after de-activated antiques! (again, if you want a citation, let me know).
All these non sequiter arguments about police officers children only makes you guys look like idiots to the average American.
I appologize for the humor, but you didn't answer my question--Why are their guns immune from these laws? There has to be a reason, doesn't there? And that reason is it would make their guns less reliable, which would endanger their lives. Why should MY life be any less valuable?
Are these the same policemen you are so afraid will knock your door down and confiscate your guns? If so you should be happy their guns will misfire while you are shooting them.
I won't dignify this with a response, as it's a rather disgusting comment, but I will correct it: By law, their guns would be more reliable, not less.
As G. Gordon Liddy said aim for the head they are probably wearing bulletproof vests.
Bad advice. Aiming for anything other than center of mass in a high stress situation is the worst possible thing you can do (see footage of police shootous at traffic stops, etc. They're trained to fire at center of mass, and yet at ranges as short as two yards can empty entire magazines and miss. It's a sobering thought, seeing two people blaze away at each other at six feet and not hit jack, like something out of an A-Team episode.) I wish we had the money to spend to give our LEOs more training... maybe we'd lose fewer to criminals?
Sorry for the digression there at the end.
I never had to purchase a car, bike, or lighter from someone who had to have a special license to sell them. (don't get me wrong--I'm actually in favor of the FFL system, with some modification. I think the requreiment to have a store front is bunk, for example.) That in itself is more regulation than any other consumer product in the US other than prescription drugs. Also, the government organizations that regulate cars have never seriously suggested that american citizens do not have the right to own them. Think about that.
Making a gun "childproof" (just like pill bottles, right?) will reduce its reliability. If my life were on the line, the last thing in the WORLD I would want to deal with is a "safety" feature designed by a congressman or soccer mom, who have no idea what gun safety means. Proof of this can be found in the VERY LAWS being passed in states like Massachusets and Maryland. Both of these states now have firearm safety laws, and in both cases the weapons purchased by law enforcement are IMMUNE. Ask yourself why this is so--I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Police officers do not have children, and thus, have no need to worry about their young ones picking up their duty weapons while in the home. Knowing several cops, who have kids, I discard this one out of hand.
2) The children of police officers are more expendable than the children of soccer moms. While with certain people (Rosie O'Donnel springs immediately to mind) this may be a possibility (though not certainty) I also discard this theory out of hand.
3) Police will have their lives endangered. This is dead on, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, or at least provide another plausible theory.
As to purchasing, I do admit purchasing a firearm at the present time is not a MAJOR hastle, unless the FBIs computer system is mysteriously down. However, it is EXTREMELY intrusive (why can we on slashdot argue endlessly about online privacy issues, but feel that government records of firearms transactions are not similarly wrong?) and the FBI admits to keeping these sales records for up to six months (in direct violation of the Brady laws, which stipulate these records are to be destroyed immediately upon an approval).
Have you ever purchased a firearm? Do you knwo what is involved? If not, I would think twice before harping about how easy it all is.
Your comment made me think about something. Wiretap investigations will usually expand into the people you communicate with, and that communicate with you, based on the illegal activities you are engaged in (your associates, customers, suppliers, etc).
Here's my question: You, who are not the subject of Carnivore's attention,and have nothing at all to do with the subject, are into something illegal (for example, you run Joe's Online Pot emporium, or some such). By some chance, both you and the subject receive the same "Make Money Fast!" piece of spam. Is it likely that Carnivore will see the list of addresses in the cc header as associates to be investigated further, and produce your own incoming and outgoing email to the FBI as part of the unrelated investigation?
Anyone else see that possibility here?
You know, I should know better than to respond to trolls like this, but this really pushes one of my buttons. No one was ever forced by a tobacco company to start smoking. It has been widely known since the 1960s that cigarettes can kill you; In fact, there's been a statement to that effect on every box of cigarettes sold (and every carton, and every advertisement...) since that time. It's gotten to the point where they cannot even advertise in Sports Illustrated because of its "Large Teen Readership" (i.e. more than 15%). It's a load f bullshit, yes, you heard me, BULLSHIT.
I'm sick of listening to politicians (who were ever so willing to take campaign contributions from big tobacco) talk about how "expensive" the diseases associated with smoking are to the american taxpayer. It really makes me wonder where those 100%+ taxes per pack of cigarettes have been going for so long (yes, the US and state governments EACH make more money on a box of cigarettes than the people who make them).
We ignore things worse than cigarettes (like, oh, say, alcohol, which is much more destructive) and complain about the tobacco lobby, and that makes the american people hypocrites.
Your second example was gun companies.
Let me tell you something, guns are the most regulated consumer product in the United States. Buying one, even in Tennessee (the home of fucking Davey Crockett, for crying out loud), is a hastle involving the filling out of forms and background checks, and let's not even talk about places like New York, or New Jersey, where the only people who can really get guns are criminals.
It is illegal for a manufacturer to transfer a firearm to anyone other than an FFL holder. It is illegal for an FFL holder to transfer a firearm without a background check. The ATF conducts SERIOUS audits of both manufacturers and dealers, giving them an incentive to make sure illegal transfers do not occur. Of course, it still does happen, and that same ATF is incredibly LAX in dealing with it when it does. If they would follow their mandate instead of burning churches to the ground, maybe there would be less proliferation.
To blame the companies that produce the materials instead of the people who use them is rediculous, and your classification of stockholders (and, I assume, the employees of these companies--after all, the Neuremberg trials proved that "I was only doing my job" is not a valid defense) as amoral stupid idiots is ignorant and unthinking.
Discolsure: I am not a smoker and never have been. I am, however, a member of the NRA and TFA.
You can be charged with anything up to and including "improper use of a food processor" but that does not mean that the judge's instructions will bear that out when you head into the jury room.
Just curious, if you don't mind answering--How did that case come out? Was the verdict in fact guilty of 1st degree murder?
I think it's pretty clear this is not Jon Katz.
Bzzz. About as clear as mud. If you'd have bothered to fully investigate after clicking on "User Info" to discover how many posts this person has made, you would have discovered that "jonkatz" resolves to user number 7654, which is the same as "JonKatz." Thus disproving your case sensitive argument, and proving that this is indeed the real Katz.
Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.
Sounds like "Lost in Space" meets "Sanford and Son" - now there's a remake I'd pay $9.50 to see at the multiplex!
:)
*snicker*
I can just see it now... "One small step for a man... one giant leap for--It's the big one! I'm comin to join you, lizbeth!"
Religions like Christianity have always been popular for a bunch of reasons
Funny that, I always thought that popular religions usually don't end up having their spritual leaders nailed to trees. Saying "Christianity has always been popular" kind of ignores the hundreds of years of persecution, doesn't it?
I'm sorry to interject this into this thread, and I am sure I will be moderated down as offtopic (hey, because I am) but I couldn't let this statement pass without comment. Those who want to keep guns do not always have them (Have you been to New York City lately? You're more likely to make the US Olympic Team than qualify for a handgun permit) and those who want to ban them sometimes do. At one point in time, Dianne Feinstein had the ONLY legal concealed carry permit in the city of San Francisco, because she "felt a need to protect" herself, while consistantly promoting an anti-rights agenda.
Rosie O'Donnel, who spoke at the hundred thousand woman march, a woman who really has NO cause to fear crime (last time she did, she sold her house and moved to a nicer house in a better neighborhood) has a bodyguard who has applied for a carry permit in Greenwhich, CT. Rosie, who once declared "Only police and the military should be allowed to have guns. If you own a gun, you should go to jail" is now in the position of being protected by an armed guard, and her stance is now, "If you're licensed, and registered, I have no problem with it."
The problem with these people is they are so full of bullshit that it's amazing you cant smell them from a thousand yards away. There are countless "gun control - we need to save the children" types like those I posted above, and what it comes down to in the end is that they want to control PEOPLE, and the easiest way to do that is to take away their means of self-defense.
You can call it an extremist stance if you want. I'm an NRA member, and a TFA member, after believing for years that groups like this were over the top, but look at the legal climate of the last few years. It's always called a "compromise" when someone proposes "sensible gun laws" and yet we never seem to get anything out of these compromises. Thats why alot of gun owners take an uncompromising stance, and end up getting labelled as nuts because of it.
It's enough to make you sick. And you know what? From time to time, it really does.
Penny Arcade has a strip about napster, that I think is just downright hilarious and sums up the situation quite nicely. :)
According to The Register Napster has gone and sued The Offspring. Maybe The Offspring can make the argument that their concerts were just the venue, and it was those evil concession stand operators who are at fault? :)
One word: NAFTA.
I can just see it now....
"Hush little baby don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beast under your bed
In your closet, in your head!
Exxon Gas! You car'll go fast!
Funnnncoland! And Disney're sponsoring our band!"
I honestly shudder at the idea of corporate patronage being the trust behind advancement of the arts... :)
On that note, I'll cede the argument to you. I should have known better than to try to inject logic into a conversation about law, and I truly and humbly apologize.
I know our legal system has a few problems here and there, but this is just plain illogical. Correct me if I have this sequence of events wrong:
1) Microserf, in it's own spare time, goes out and writes, say, a device driver for the Linux kernel, GPLs it, and releases it into the wild.
2) Microsoft decides since it's employee created it, THEY own the rights to the software, and file suit against RedHat, Caldera, Linus, etc.
-or-
1) Microserf, in it's own spare time writes, say, a device driver for the Linux kernel.
2) Microserf assigns the copyright for said code to the FSF
3) Microsoft decides THEY own this code, but the FSF says "Sorry, it's ours, here's our piece of paper!" ?!?!
Your basic premise seems to be along the lines of, "Well, I don't have the right to let you use it, but I DO have the right to give it to you free and clear."
This is non-sense. Either MS owns the code, in which case both the GPL AND the copyright assignment are invalid, OR MS does NOT own the code, in which case both the GPL AND the copyright assignment ARE valid.
This does not seem to be a situation where you can mix and match. If I'm misunderstanding your point, please tell me. This is bugging he hell out of me now, and I'd like to understand your reasoning.
The Linux way leaves us open to blackmail or destruction by ANY malicious company whose employee didn't double check his contract and wrote kernel code. The FSF way guarantees that the code will always be free
I really have to take issue with the above statement. In the first paragraph, you claim that Linux (GPL, with no copyright assigned to FSF) is vulnerable to manipulation if some large company whose employees have written code for the kernel decide to take issue with that fact and claim ownership. Your second paragraph goes on to claim that assigning the code to the FSF keeps this from happening.
Pardon me while I say "huh?" If someone is claiming something is being illegally distributed, it does not MATTER that the copyright is assigned to FSF. By the same logic you apply in paragraph one, the programmer who had no right to distribute it into the linux kernel HAS NO RIGHT TO ASSIGN COPYRIGHT TO FSF.
Clueless moderator: I fail to see how the above post is insightful.
:)
In answer to the question, however, remarking an Athlon is far easier than modifying the equivilent coppermine. The Athlon multiplier settings (and how to change them) are actually well documented (see Tom's Hardware), and AMD even designed an overclocking system into the packaging (Gold Fingers).
The intel p3, on the other hand, has no available documentation for changing the clock multiplier. In your dollar bill analogy, the effort required to make the correct changed would be stated as, "Why make counterfeit one dollar bills, if you could make four dollar bills?"
Answer: It's not nearly as cost effective, and MUCH easier to spot.
First off, let me say that I almost universally avoid reading the "Katz, you suck!" comments, and indeed, go out of my way to moderate them down when I have points. But this is just rediculous. The basic message this article is conveying is:
Stealing is good.
Bringing attention to the person commiting the act of theft is a HORRIBLE PRIVACY VIOLATION! (Oh, and let's toss in 'Think of the CHILDREN!' on top of that.)
I will admit at this point that both I and my girlfriend download and listen to commercial MP3s. I am fully aware that what I am doing is illegal (although I don't feel it is immoral.) If the music police came to my door, they'd have me cold.
My response to a situation like the above could take many forms. Certainly, I'd point out that it was for all intents and purposes a victimless crime. That the MPAA and RIAA have embedded taxes in media in order to make up for the so called loss of revenue, and therefore were justly compensated for my act.
I would most certainly NOT exclaim at the top of my lungs "HOW DARE YOU GO THROUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PROVE I AM A THIEF. THIS IS A BREACH OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS."
Basically, in closing:
Katz, the trolls are right. You are goddamned brainless, and everything you say is just meaningless rhetoric. You have absolutely NO journalistic credibility, NO original ideas, and, frankly, NOTHING to contribute. This article itself should be moderated down as Overrated, flamebait, troll, redundant, and offtopic.
Oh, and I am in the process of compiling a book, "The articles of JonKatz", which I believe I will market through amazon. After all, this IS a public forum, and there's nothing wrong with stealing IP, right?
Is "Mostly Harmless" the end of the series? If so, it's a rather ambiguous ending (which, I suppose, does make pefect sense). Will there be another book to tie up all the loose ends left over?
Re:What they don't tell you about GPS... (Score:2)
by CMonk on 12:45 AM April 20th, 2000 EST (#60)
(User Info)
I would say that the resolution that consumer grade GPS provides is more than enough to allow an ICBM with a nuclear bomb to be more than effective. The GPS drift that the consumer devices are subject to is much more likely there to help prevent accurate conventional weapon attacks.
Actually, the main reason for the existance of the better grade GPS is for Ohio class missile submarines. Believe it or not, those few dozen extra meters of resolution come into play for a tactic known as "counterforce".
While that 100 meter circle your civilian GPS puts you in would be accurate enough to, say, launch a one megaton warhead at New York City, with a reasonable (i.e. 100%) chance of wiping it off the map, it's NOT enough to destroy a buried, hardened silo containing a land-based ICBM.
On the other hand, if you know EXACTLY where you are on the earth, you can drop your 500kt warhead into a pickle barrel from half a world away, and destroy the land-based missile, thus keeping yet one more warhead from raining down on your country.
Although, it is also as you point out above. Cruise missile + GPS = Conventional explosive litterally going through the front door.
The quote you're looking for is:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neight liberty nor safety" -- Ben Franklin, 1759.
Contrast this quote, from one of our founding fathers, with "We can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary citizens." --Bill Clinton, 03/01/93.
It's kind of obvious that the US is not what was intended two hundred years ago, and equally obvious that the current administration intends for things to keep progressing down that slippery slope.
Frankly, both mainstream parties are just two sides of the same coin. Either way you vote this year, you're going to lose.
The legislation in quesiton in known as UCITA, not UNITA. UNITA is a central african terrorist organization. (hmmmmmm... conspiracy theories anyone? :)
I beg to differ. To quote:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Now as someone who apparently supports long patent and copyright terms, you probably construe this to mean, "If you create something, you can control it for as long as you can get away with. Here's your incentive to do so."
This is patently (ha ha) false. "To promote the progress of Science and useful arts." Say that with me again. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." One more time. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
In what way do long patent and copyright terms promote science and art? Yes, a single artist has a monetary incentive to produce useful work. The key word being a SINGLE artist. By your definition of the intentions behind this article, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW IN THAT WORK for as long as the patent was enforcable.
In what way do you promote science if Newton patents the laws of motion? Or better yet, "Well, yes, you can use calculus, but we require a licensing fee of $50,000, plus a $20,000 a year support agreement."
This is stagnation NOT progression. Whoever gets to the starting line first wins the race.
When I first started to read your post, I thought it was sarcasm, but it seems not to be. Patents and copyrights are ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION in order to "ensure a rich public domain."
You then go on to explain, with:
Copyrights and patents and such things protect the creators BY keeping them secret
WTF? What planet are you on, or what universe are you in? How the hell does a patent keep something secret? In order to gain the patent, you must publish what exactly it is you are patenting. Copyrights protect published works. How do you keep a published work secret? The two are mutually exclusive.
If, however, you use the term 'secret' to mean 'protected', you are correct to a certain point. Copyrights and patents do exist to create a rich public domain. They do so by giving a creator an incentive to create, by bestowing exclusive rights to their creation for a certain period. After this period expires, the culture as a whole is enhanced by inclusion of this creation into the public domain, free for all to use.
It's a principle that was important enough to be used in the basis for american government, the document that enshrines all essential american freedoms. I think the "framer's intentions" are more than abundantly clear.
"Blame Hemos"
Times have changed, Slashdot is getting worse!
It's full of trolls, not articles, where's the 'News for Nerds?'
Should we all blame Taco? or blame that guy Jamie?
Or should we blame a chick named Natalie?
No! Blame Hemos! Blame Hemos!
With those creepy book reviews, and the bitch named JonKatz too!
Blame Hemos! Blame Hemos!
We need form a full assault, it's Hemos' fault!