Well, for an alien to even *reach* this world as-is would suggest a comparatively high level of technology. After all, either they're REALLY REALLY good at hiding themselves, or they're outside of the solar system -- and the nearest planets are quite far, IIRC. Far enough that it would take a *rather* long time for, say, our current technology to send a manned vessel, due to propulsion and life-support issues (ISTR that we can't send manned craft on as rapid trajectories, since people are fragile...) and so forth. And if the civillization at the origin of a vessel is similar to ours in that technological developments seem to accelerate with a greater overall level of technology, then they may be significantly more advanced than such a traveller and his craft would indicate. So by his presence he (especially if an engineer or other with technical skill -- which would be likely given the possible maintenance issues regarding interstellar flight...), or at least his vessel, would be of extreme interest in at least that respect.
I'd say that he would merit careful treatment by the host, and quite probably more so than a "normal earthling" -- or even an exceptional one, at least until his capabilities can be fully assessed.
MSFT's server licensing fees normally take into account the number of clients, IIRC. They probably offer different options, such as --
* paying based on the number of machines that COULD access it
* paying on the maximum number of users that could access it
both of which are mentioned in the article. I'd be surprised if they didn't offer one more:
* paying based on the number of users that could access it simultaneously (or perhaps AA didn't want to place limits?)
After all, it's a server, and it's customary for them and other server companies to price based on licenses (Novell Netware and Oracle come to mind as other major examples, IIRC). If AA wasn't going to limit the number of simultaneous users, or MSFT didn't care if they were, then AA -- being a large organization -- would be expected to pay a very large fee.
* With various hardware configurations, autoprobing for hardware you don't have could have rather nasty consequences.
* Some foo actually does need to be tweaked before compilation, such as the SoundBlaster-connected CD drives, which IIRC require #include file editing.
* Not all drivers can be modularized, so you may end up with a VERY big kernel.
The bogus Hotmail mail may not actually be originating from their mail servers. It's not unusual for spammers to specify AOL or Hotmail addresses in messages that have absolutely nothing to do with either, on the originating side at least.
You may be able to check this. ISTR, for instance, that if it IS from them, they always embed the originating IP address in the headers, and perhaps other information.
Are you talking about H.R. 718, "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001", sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)?
According to CNN, it's passed Committee vote and will be sent to the House floor for consideration. A version needs to be introduced and passed in the Senate, the two reconciled, then sent to POTUS.
Here's the text, if anybody's interested. Actually, that's probably a temporary link which will break VERY soon, so you can instead use this link, which should hopefully re-exec the query, and then click 'Full Display'.
It's actually fairly interesting. There's explicit protection for service providers to take 'good faith' efforts to block UCE, which would appear to protect users of things like the real-time black-hole list for mail servers, and what not. And you can't go after them for innocent retransmission, either.
It's probably based on existing telemarketing law, with its references to pre-existing business relationships, opt-out (they need to provide a means for opting out of lists in their UCE, but they don't need you to opt in BEFORE they send the first UCE) and all.
Interestingly, it only refers to individuals. I'm not sure how it applies to UCE from corporations -- for instance, whether the entire company is liable as a whole or just the employee(s) who decided to spam, or whether this could in any way be applied to spam-friendly ISPs.
Erk. Not rubber bullets, if you mean rubber-[i]coated[/i], like the ones the Israelis sometimes use on rioters; those still have metal cores and enough velocity to kill.
Don't forget techniques like aikido and jujitsu, 'tho. The discipline, physical training and level of focus involved may be good for 'em, and skill can offset some amount of size/mass advantage.
Most important, 'tho, would probably be strong authority figures that aren't afraid to intervene and lay down the law when needed. It's probably better for teachers and so forth to apprehend and discipline bullies and their ilk, and for victims to know that there's somebody they can trust when help is needed.
True. The "Happy Land Social Club" incident, which involved gasoline and matches, was probably the second worst single mass-murder in the US this century, after the Murrah Federal Bldg. bombing in OK City.
But while some of these school attackers *tried* to use propane bombs (notably Columbine, but other incidents as well) and their ilk, I don't recall any that managed to explode when desired. Maybe they lacked the materials and experience to design working timers or triggers, and didn't want to simply settle for gasoline-based Molotovs.
There was an incident shortly afterwards, and actually rather close to Santee (the incident you're referring to). In the one *after* Santee, yes, the kid had a shotgun with buckshot (! -- and given the utter non-lethality of the injuries, I suspect that he was a fair distance from his victims) and was apparently gunning for the assistant principal (who had been working with the shooter on anger management...).
Incorrect. The bigger-is-better approach only applies to hand-to-hand. Had you chosen to think rather than merely react, you would have realized that firearms combat is rather unlike melee combat. In the latter, size, skill and choice of weapon give an advantage to an attacker who may be able to not only hit harder, faster, and further away, but also to thwart attacks. With firearms, having a bigger gun does not help you survive a 0.45-calibre slug from five feet away -- you're still going to be badly hurt, if you survive, even if you're toting a PSG-1 or a stolen OICW prototype.
And, FWIW, Kleck's research is supported by Lott's, which has in turn been published in peer-reviewed journals, which is more than can be said for most of their opponents... and Lott's academic background as a criminologist and statistician lends more weight. They're not empathic talking heads such as, say, Streisand and her ilk.
Under US law, most of the male citizens are, in fact, militia members. Unorganized militia, but militia nonetheless... the militia ARE the people.
And if you bother searching the militia acts, you'll notice that from the very beginning, people were expected to provide and keep their *own* personal firearms...
Automatic weapons were issued for free to many a young lad sent to Korea and 'Nam. Very, very few used them on civillians. On the other hand, now, it's difficult for a kid to get an *automatic* weapon -- because of the Federal permits required under the FFA (IIRC) rules, and the fees this entails. For that matter, it's unusual for an ADULT to get these.
So these shootings AREN'T happening with automatics; in fact, in the most recent case, the bozo was using a simple shotgun, loaded with buckshot.
Because it's cultural, not just guns. For instance...
* Firearms ownership among police is common. Massacres by police aren't.
* Firearms ownership is somewhat more common and far more tolerated in rural areas. This, generally, isn't where most shootings take place.
* Firearms ownership is UBIQUITOUS in certain other countries, like Switzerland. It's rather calm there.
* Firearms ownership actually once upon a time was far easier in this country, due to such things as Army surplus and far fewer regulations. Crime has gone UP.
And if you look at CCW laws and their effects on crime, peer-reviewed research has strongly suggested that -- in the United States -- increasing firearms ownership significantly decreases violent crime, and slightly increases property crime, since the latter has become far safer. So yes, they're connected, but not in the way you're implying.
Outside the country, all you need to look at is the UK and Australia; "hot" burglaries, for instance, have increased over the past few years subsequent to bans. In the UK, they're even considering banning realistic *toy* guns; and the only way this POSSIBLY makes sense is if the criminals still have real guns... and the law-abiding citizens, except for rapid-response police teams, don't. And in this scenario, the law-abiding citizens are therefore: screwed, because now they CANNOT defend themselves [*].
[*] The physically weak (for instance, many women and elderly folks) would need to travel in large groups. A few decently strong folks of average size, even WITHOUT firearms, pose a severe threat to the average individual given a modicum of HTH experience, and since they're the ones choosing the targets, they can cheerfully pick on the weak. So it's far safer for criminals to operate.
Or, more simply, some probably enjoy it. It need not have anything to do with self-esteem, but [i]power[/i] -- knowing that one can lord it over other using force, or threat thereof.
Banning firearms wouldn't help unless backed up by mass search and seizure, plus tight border control... and THAT's not going to happen.
And even if it did -- congratulations. Now the gangs and stronger kids (and adults) can bully, rob and rape to their heart's content, with minimal fear of individuals being able to defend themselves (or intervene to help others).
In addition to the cell reproduction (you'd need to find a way to either preserve or repair telomeres, which IIRC wear away during cell division), you'd also need to find a way to repair DNA strands damaged by UV and other agents (or, more drastically, kill and replace damaged cells).
Neither you nor anybody else has the absolute right to dictate another's thoughts, or lack thereof. You're generally not obligated to agree or even listen to them, however, since that'd be infringing on your thoughts and privacy.
Besides...
Do you have an opinion about, say, WWII? Have you read _Mein Kampf_, _The Will to Power_ , _Also Sprach Zarathrusta_, and other primary sources? Can you trace the development of the Wilson Doctrine, it's failure at Versailles, the weakness of the League of Nations, the structural weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, and so forth? Have you studied how the Germans Wehrmacht learned from the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, which in turn can be traced at least in part to Clausewitzian theory? Do you recall details about the rivalry between the SA brownshirts, the Schutzstaffel, and the various internal power struggles even within the National Socialist party? Have you ever seen an SS army organizational chart?
True enough. It seems to be traditional now on some campuses for leftists to steal and trash/burn school newspaper runs in order to implement content-based censorship...
Well, they could present JUST the relevant facts -- for instance, on a Constitutionality issue, references to what clauses are purported to apply and why. On many issues, studies and raw data can, and probably should, be cited. And so forth.
And remember that there are usually many different points of view rather than only strict opposites. The bimodal view, such as that often presented by pro/con editorials, often ignores intriguing ideas.
I doubt that CNN often provides as detailed coverage as, say, _The Economist_ or other *good* magazines, many of which have online sites (be they pay or otherwise).
But it's not the government's prerogative to force carriers to link to opposition (Should, say, B'nai Brith be forced to link to Stormfront? Should FDR's fireside chats have been followed up by the latest from Tokyo Rose?), nor to require that people read them.
And who decides admittance to the club? Should every fringe philosophy automatically be entitled to the same consideration? If someone were to post the meanderings of toddlers from a classroom, should they carry the same weight? I doubt it...
People have a heavy dose of confirmation bias. That's normal. But the proper place to fight that is probably in the schools, where critical thinking skills can be critically assessed.
Re:why suprised? They HAVE TO RELEASE CODE
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 2
*shrug*
Only if they wanted to distribute the distribution outside their organization. They could have kept everything internal, instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for an alien to even *reach* this world as-is would suggest a comparatively high level of technology. After all, either they're REALLY REALLY good at hiding themselves, or they're outside of the solar system -- and the nearest planets are quite far, IIRC. Far enough that it would take a *rather* long time for, say, our current technology to send a manned vessel, due to propulsion and life-support issues (ISTR that we can't send manned craft on as rapid trajectories, since people are fragile...) and so forth. And if the civillization at the origin of a vessel is similar to ours in that technological developments seem to accelerate with a greater overall level of technology, then they may be significantly more advanced than such a traveller and his craft would indicate. So by his presence he (especially if an engineer or other with technical skill -- which would be likely given the possible maintenance issues regarding interstellar flight...), or at least his vessel, would be of extreme interest in at least that respect.
I'd say that he would merit careful treatment by the host, and quite probably more so than a "normal earthling" -- or even an exceptional one, at least until his capabilities can be fully assessed.
Don't those rights only apply to people? AFAIK they do not apply to, say, whales, let alone anything unearthly.
It's probably no less rational than the elevation of glittering pieces of carbon to gifts that have become almost-mandatory for many relationships...
Here's one story on the matter.
MSFT's server licensing fees normally take into account the number of clients, IIRC. They probably offer different options, such as --
* paying based on the number of machines that COULD access it
* paying on the maximum number of users that could access it
both of which are mentioned in the article. I'd be surprised if they didn't offer one more:
* paying based on the number of users that could access it simultaneously (or perhaps AA didn't want to place limits?)
After all, it's a server, and it's customary for them and other server companies to price based on licenses (Novell Netware and Oracle come to mind as other major examples, IIRC). If AA wasn't going to limit the number of simultaneous users, or MSFT didn't care if they were, then AA -- being a large organization -- would be expected to pay a very large fee.
A few notes --
* With various hardware configurations, autoprobing for hardware you don't have could have rather nasty consequences.
* Some foo actually does need to be tweaked before compilation, such as the SoundBlaster-connected CD drives, which IIRC require #include file editing.
* Not all drivers can be modularized, so you may end up with a VERY big kernel.
The bogus Hotmail mail may not actually be originating from their mail servers. It's not unusual for spammers to specify AOL or Hotmail addresses in messages that have absolutely nothing to do with either, on the originating side at least.
You may be able to check this. ISTR, for instance, that if it IS from them, they always embed the originating IP address in the headers, and perhaps other information.
Are you talking about H.R. 718, "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001", sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)?
According to CNN, it's passed Committee vote and will be sent to the House floor for consideration. A version needs to be introduced and passed in the Senate, the two reconciled, then sent to POTUS.
Here's the text, if anybody's interested. Actually, that's probably a temporary link which will break VERY soon, so you can instead use this link, which should hopefully re-exec the query, and then click 'Full Display'.
It's actually fairly interesting. There's explicit protection for service providers to take 'good faith' efforts to block UCE, which would appear to protect users of things like the real-time black-hole list for mail servers, and what not. And you can't go after them for innocent retransmission, either.
It's probably based on existing telemarketing law, with its references to pre-existing business relationships, opt-out (they need to provide a means for opting out of lists in their UCE, but they don't need you to opt in BEFORE they send the first UCE) and all.
Interestingly, it only refers to individuals. I'm not sure how it applies to UCE from corporations -- for instance, whether the entire company is liable as a whole or just the employee(s) who decided to spam, or whether this could in any way be applied to spam-friendly ISPs.
Erk. Not rubber bullets, if you mean rubber-[i]coated[/i], like the ones the Israelis sometimes use on rioters; those still have metal cores and enough velocity to kill.
Don't forget techniques like aikido and jujitsu, 'tho. The discipline, physical training and level of focus involved may be good for 'em, and skill can offset some amount of size/mass advantage.
Most important, 'tho, would probably be strong authority figures that aren't afraid to intervene and lay down the law when needed. It's probably better for teachers and so forth to apprehend and discipline bullies and their ilk, and for victims to know that there's somebody they can trust when help is needed.
*shrug*
True. The "Happy Land Social Club" incident, which involved gasoline and matches, was probably the second worst single mass-murder in the US this century, after the Murrah Federal Bldg. bombing in OK City.
But while some of these school attackers *tried* to use propane bombs (notably Columbine, but other incidents as well) and their ilk, I don't recall any that managed to explode when desired. Maybe they lacked the materials and experience to design working timers or triggers, and didn't want to simply settle for gasoline-based Molotovs.
There was an incident shortly afterwards, and actually rather close to Santee (the incident you're referring to). In the one *after* Santee, yes, the kid had a shotgun with buckshot (! -- and given the utter non-lethality of the injuries, I suspect that he was a fair distance from his victims) and was apparently gunning for the assistant principal (who had been working with the shooter on anger management...).
Incorrect. The bigger-is-better approach only applies to hand-to-hand. Had you chosen to think rather than merely react, you would have realized that firearms combat is rather unlike melee combat. In the latter, size, skill and choice of weapon give an advantage to an attacker who may be able to not only hit harder, faster, and further away, but also to thwart attacks. With firearms, having a bigger gun does not help you survive a 0.45-calibre slug from five feet away -- you're still going to be badly hurt, if you survive, even if you're toting a PSG-1 or a stolen OICW prototype.
And, FWIW, Kleck's research is supported by Lott's, which has in turn been published in peer-reviewed journals, which is more than can be said for most of their opponents... and Lott's academic background as a criminologist and statistician lends more weight. They're not empathic talking heads such as, say, Streisand and her ilk.
Under US law, most of the male citizens are, in fact, militia members. Unorganized militia, but militia nonetheless... the militia ARE the people.
And if you bother searching the militia acts, you'll notice that from the very beginning, people were expected to provide and keep their *own* personal firearms...
Infecting yourself with a nasty plague? ;-)
Automatic weapons were issued for free to many a young lad sent to Korea and 'Nam. Very, very few used them on civillians. On the other hand, now, it's difficult for a kid to get an *automatic* weapon -- because of the Federal permits required under the FFA (IIRC) rules, and the fees this entails. For that matter, it's unusual for an ADULT to get these.
So these shootings AREN'T happening with automatics; in fact, in the most recent case, the bozo was using a simple shotgun, loaded with buckshot.
Because it's cultural, not just guns. For instance...
* Firearms ownership among police is common. Massacres by police aren't.
* Firearms ownership is somewhat more common and far more tolerated in rural areas. This, generally, isn't where most shootings take place.
* Firearms ownership is UBIQUITOUS in certain other countries, like Switzerland. It's rather calm there.
* Firearms ownership actually once upon a time was far easier in this country, due to such things as Army surplus and far fewer regulations. Crime has gone UP.
And if you look at CCW laws and their effects on crime, peer-reviewed research has strongly suggested that -- in the United States -- increasing firearms ownership significantly decreases violent crime, and slightly increases property crime, since the latter has become far safer. So yes, they're connected, but not in the way you're implying.
Outside the country, all you need to look at is the UK and Australia; "hot" burglaries, for instance, have increased over the past few years subsequent to bans. In the UK, they're even considering banning realistic *toy* guns; and the only way this POSSIBLY makes sense is if the criminals still have real guns... and the law-abiding citizens, except for rapid-response police teams, don't. And in this scenario, the law-abiding citizens are therefore: screwed, because now they CANNOT defend themselves [*].
[*] The physically weak (for instance, many women and elderly folks) would need to travel in large groups. A few decently strong folks of average size, even WITHOUT firearms, pose a severe threat to the average individual given a modicum of HTH experience, and since they're the ones choosing the targets, they can cheerfully pick on the weak. So it's far safer for criminals to operate.
Or, more simply, some probably enjoy it. It need not have anything to do with self-esteem, but [i]power[/i] -- knowing that one can lord it over other using force, or threat thereof.
Banning firearms wouldn't help unless backed up by mass search and seizure, plus tight border control... and THAT's not going to happen.
And even if it did -- congratulations. Now the gangs and stronger kids (and adults) can bully, rob and rape to their heart's content, with minimal fear of individuals being able to defend themselves (or intervene to help others).
In addition to the cell reproduction (you'd need to find a way to either preserve or repair telomeres, which IIRC wear away during cell division), you'd also need to find a way to repair DNA strands damaged by UV and other agents (or, more drastically, kill and replace damaged cells).
Neither you nor anybody else has the absolute right to dictate another's thoughts, or lack thereof. You're generally not obligated to agree or even listen to them, however, since that'd be infringing on your thoughts and privacy.
Besides...
Do you have an opinion about, say, WWII? Have you read _Mein Kampf_, _The Will to Power_ , _Also Sprach Zarathrusta_, and other primary sources? Can you trace the development of the Wilson Doctrine, it's failure at Versailles, the weakness of the League of Nations, the structural weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, and so forth? Have you studied how the Germans Wehrmacht learned from the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, which in turn can be traced at least in part to Clausewitzian theory? Do you recall details about the rivalry between the SA brownshirts, the Schutzstaffel, and the various internal power struggles even within the National Socialist party? Have you ever seen an SS army organizational chart?
How much information do you believe is required?
True enough. It seems to be traditional now on some campuses for leftists to steal and trash/burn school newspaper runs in order to implement content-based censorship...
Well, they could present JUST the relevant facts -- for instance, on a Constitutionality issue, references to what clauses are purported to apply and why. On many issues, studies and raw data can, and probably should, be cited. And so forth.
And remember that there are usually many different points of view rather than only strict opposites. The bimodal view, such as that often presented by pro/con editorials, often ignores intriguing ideas.
I doubt that CNN often provides as detailed coverage as, say, _The Economist_ or other *good* magazines, many of which have online sites (be they pay or otherwise).
But it's not the government's prerogative to force carriers to link to opposition (Should, say, B'nai Brith be forced to link to Stormfront? Should FDR's fireside chats have been followed up by the latest from Tokyo Rose?), nor to require that people read them.
And who decides admittance to the club? Should every fringe philosophy automatically be entitled to the same consideration? If someone were to post the meanderings of toddlers from a classroom, should they carry the same weight? I doubt it...
People have a heavy dose of confirmation bias. That's normal. But the proper place to fight that is probably in the schools, where critical thinking skills can be critically assessed.
*shrug*
Only if they wanted to distribute the distribution outside their organization. They could have kept everything internal, instead.