It's a terrible example because one hospital fucked up and is getting overhauled because of it, and because of a Daily Mail article. Wonderful stuff. How about simply looking at the actual statistics of the NHS - the number of people treated, the quality of their care, and so on - and then draw conclusions. Focussing on a single case is only serving to make you look foolish.
I have no idea why you think some guns are going to stop the US army rolling over you. Of course, if the army is on your side when the balloon finally goes up, then your guns are pointless. I guess if you counter with "but it'll give the police a reason to not mess with me!" then the answer is "no, it gives them more reason to get better guns and to really screw you over". Then, if you counter that the army was not on your side when the balloon went up, and you are going to use your guns afterwards to harass them, then I can point out that you won't last long, and that IEDs have been demonstrated to cause far more psychological and physical damage than firearms in Iraq and Afghanistan. But whatever. I guess you're beyond logic if you think the second amendment has any use in modern society beyond wildlife management.
1. The lead doesn't stay where it was shot. Due to the acidity of rain, it will end up elsewhere, poisoning wildlife and if it enters the water supply - people too. 2. Just because other problems exist doesn't mean other problems should be ignored
Compare the number of deaths. Whatever the UK did, it's working. "Crime rates" are meaningless when the types and severity of the crimes are not comparable.
The US has porous borders between areas of different gun control - of course that doesn't work. Gun control only works when the porous borders are within areas of similar gun control. As for the UK, the amount of crime is relatively pointless - the interesting thing is the downturn in the number of murders. Most people would be far happier having a knife pulled on them and live to tell the tale, than simply being shot.
That's simply untrue. The "bad guys" only have guns if they are required for their nefarious occupation, and if the risks of them having one are outweighed by the benefit of having one. As we've seen in the UK, that means it's incredibly rare for the "bad guys" to have guns - so much that the vast majority police don't even have them when patrolling.
The word "republic" has nothing to do with how people vote or what they vote for. It simply means a country which does not have a hereditary head of state. The term you are looking for is "representative democracy". There are representative democracies which are not republics (the UK, for example). Heck - any country without a monarch which has no voting at all is a republic too. I have no idea where you got that bizarre idea of what "republic" means.
Compare the cost of a pressed disc versus the equivalent storage in a thumb drive, and you'll see DRM isn't the only reason. Also, people already have systems for managing discs (shelves for home storage, delivery methods in the supply chain, machinery at the plants, etc.), so it's not as straight forward as you seem to imagine it to be.
It's not an emergency brake. It's a parking brake. It's only good as a last resort if you can't steer your way to a safer stop, as it will most likely cause you to go into a skid and completely lose control.
This "but... but... the siiize!" argument is rubbish. The size of countries doesn't matter - the size of cities does. There are plenty of cities in the US with similar population sizes and densities as those in Europe, but the US cities internet services suck. Clearly there is more to play than simple size.
Ivory tower? Most of the western world lives in that ivory tower. It seems you're living in a sewer rather than everyone else living in an ivory tower.
For the communists you mentioned, the religion in question was the party. Belief in its benevolence was due to faith and not evidence. Ignoring that not all religions talk about supernatural deities will lead one to wrong conclusions in this topic.
You are comparing an election in a stable first-world country to the first election after a de facto dictator was ousted. You might want to re-think the comparison, as it's making you look rather short-sighted.
The power station does not deposit its pollutants directly into the air on the roads. It deposits them in one place - above the power station. It is also far easier to install new scrubbing technology in a power station than in every single car on the road.
Petty and silly to you, which is the problem. You are assuming everyone is like you, which they are not. It doesn't take much to simply be courteous to your fellow humans.
No, by nature, DRM allows you access to content you wouldn't have had access to before. The choice is not between, say, Netflix with DRM and Netflix without DRM, it's between Netflix with DRM, or no Netflix. Unobtrusive DRM is not noticeable. Steam is a great example of that - I've never noticed it being nasty or getting in the way. Without its DRM, there would be no Steam.
Yes, because the music didn't work on everyone's device. If the DRM does work on everyone's device who matters (which, unfortunately, doesn't mean you), then there is no reason for it to be even be thought about, let alone detested, and definitely not removed.
A few comments? People were exploding with rage across the internet that Windows now looked "Fisher Price"-y and that Windows XP would bomb and Microsoft would be out of business in 5 years because of it.
People complain when Microsoft changes things, and they complain even louder when the changes are either visually drastic, or if they simply change the way people do things.
Slashdot Mirror
You can read. You have a computer. You have power. So no, not better. It still misses the point entirely.
It's a terrible example because one hospital fucked up and is getting overhauled because of it, and because of a Daily Mail article. Wonderful stuff. How about simply looking at the actual statistics of the NHS - the number of people treated, the quality of their care, and so on - and then draw conclusions. Focussing on a single case is only serving to make you look foolish.
I have no idea why you think some guns are going to stop the US army rolling over you. Of course, if the army is on your side when the balloon finally goes up, then your guns are pointless. I guess if you counter with "but it'll give the police a reason to not mess with me!" then the answer is "no, it gives them more reason to get better guns and to really screw you over". Then, if you counter that the army was not on your side when the balloon went up, and you are going to use your guns afterwards to harass them, then I can point out that you won't last long, and that IEDs have been demonstrated to cause far more psychological and physical damage than firearms in Iraq and Afghanistan. But whatever. I guess you're beyond logic if you think the second amendment has any use in modern society beyond wildlife management.
1. The lead doesn't stay where it was shot. Due to the acidity of rain, it will end up elsewhere, poisoning wildlife and if it enters the water supply - people too.
2. Just because other problems exist doesn't mean other problems should be ignored
Compare the number of deaths. Whatever the UK did, it's working. "Crime rates" are meaningless when the types and severity of the crimes are not comparable.
The US has porous borders between areas of different gun control - of course that doesn't work. Gun control only works when the porous borders are within areas of similar gun control. As for the UK, the amount of crime is relatively pointless - the interesting thing is the downturn in the number of murders. Most people would be far happier having a knife pulled on them and live to tell the tale, than simply being shot.
That's simply untrue. The "bad guys" only have guns if they are required for their nefarious occupation, and if the risks of them having one are outweighed by the benefit of having one. As we've seen in the UK, that means it's incredibly rare for the "bad guys" to have guns - so much that the vast majority police don't even have them when patrolling.
The word "republic" has nothing to do with how people vote or what they vote for. It simply means a country which does not have a hereditary head of state. The term you are looking for is "representative democracy". There are representative democracies which are not republics (the UK, for example). Heck - any country without a monarch which has no voting at all is a republic too. I have no idea where you got that bizarre idea of what "republic" means.
Compare the cost of a pressed disc versus the equivalent storage in a thumb drive, and you'll see DRM isn't the only reason. Also, people already have systems for managing discs (shelves for home storage, delivery methods in the supply chain, machinery at the plants, etc.), so it's not as straight forward as you seem to imagine it to be.
Yes, you bought it, but at a price subsidised by the trailers on the disc. If they got rid of the trailers, the cost of the disc would increase.
It's not an emergency brake. It's a parking brake. It's only good as a last resort if you can't steer your way to a safer stop, as it will most likely cause you to go into a skid and completely lose control.
This "but... but... the siiize!" argument is rubbish. The size of countries doesn't matter - the size of cities does. There are plenty of cities in the US with similar population sizes and densities as those in Europe, but the US cities internet services suck. Clearly there is more to play than simple size.
Ivory tower? Most of the western world lives in that ivory tower. It seems you're living in a sewer rather than everyone else living in an ivory tower.
If you stopped generalising, you might have a point. But you didn't, so you don't.
He's pointing out your strange use of the word "we" when you had nothing to do with it. Please do grow up.
For the communists you mentioned, the religion in question was the party. Belief in its benevolence was due to faith and not evidence. Ignoring that not all religions talk about supernatural deities will lead one to wrong conclusions in this topic.
Unless you can see into the future, you don't. I'm sure you believe you know it all, but only a fool would trust their beliefs in such circumstances.
You are comparing an election in a stable first-world country to the first election after a de facto dictator was ousted. You might want to re-think the comparison, as it's making you look rather short-sighted.
The power station does not deposit its pollutants directly into the air on the roads. It deposits them in one place - above the power station. It is also far easier to install new scrubbing technology in a power station than in every single car on the road.
Really? You're reading a long list of comments, click "like", and the whole page reloads - that's cool?
So you think running native binaries is somehow more secure than running JS in a browser?? *head assplodes*
Petty and silly to you, which is the problem. You are assuming everyone is like you, which they are not. It doesn't take much to simply be courteous to your fellow humans.
No, by nature, DRM allows you access to content you wouldn't have had access to before. The choice is not between, say, Netflix with DRM and Netflix without DRM, it's between Netflix with DRM, or no Netflix. Unobtrusive DRM is not noticeable. Steam is a great example of that - I've never noticed it being nasty or getting in the way. Without its DRM, there would be no Steam.
Yes, because the music didn't work on everyone's device. If the DRM does work on everyone's device who matters (which, unfortunately, doesn't mean you), then there is no reason for it to be even be thought about, let alone detested, and definitely not removed.
A few comments? People were exploding with rage across the internet that Windows now looked "Fisher Price"-y and that Windows XP would bomb and Microsoft would be out of business in 5 years because of it.
People complain when Microsoft changes things, and they complain even louder when the changes are either visually drastic, or if they simply change the way people do things.
We've heard this all before.