It's not really an either/or. Most classical liberals were in favor both of freedoms in general and modest social safety nets
It seems to be an either/or in this day and age. Vote Democrat and you don't get "modest social safety nets" -- you get grand designs with substantially higher taxes and spending. You also see the expansion of the nanny state and the erosion of civil liberties. I'm not a big fan of the GOP but I never heard a GOP Senator suggest withholding highway funds to blackmail the states into outlawing texting while driving.
They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
Actually Jefferson likely would have been appalled by the fact that the Federal Government is so heavily involved in education. The Federal Government imposing a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington has rarely been the answer to our problems.
Cruise missiles have made carriers very expensive floating targets. The Navy refuses to accept it, just like they refused to accept the power of the airplane.
How can you say they refuse to accept it when they've spent the last 40 years thinking of ways to defend against this threat? The F-14 was specifically designed to engage and destroy cruise missiles and the aircraft that launch them. AEGIS was specifically designed to engage and destroy cruise missiles. The E-2 was fielded so the Navy could locate and destroy cruise missile platforms before they get close enough to fire. The Navy takes the cruise missile threat very seriously.
Their ships were ridiculously overgunned (well, overmissiled) and were considered to not have as good of sea-keeping characteristics as British and American ships. But their whole point was to act as ship-killers.
And they would have failed miserably if we had ever come to blows. What good does a 600 kilometer ranged missile do you against an aircraft carrier that can launch aircraft from outside that radius? The submarines and aircraft they built were worthwhile investments. The anti-ship missile platforms in their surface fleet were a waste of money.
Between airborne and spaceborne detection systems, surface ships cannot hide.
Airborne platforms need to get close enough to the carrier to locate it on radar. The carrier's fighters will be doing everything within their power to make this a difficult undertaking. Spaceborne detection systems are limited by orbital mechanics and would undoubtedly be high-priority targets in a shooting war. Both are cause for concern but neither renders the surface fleet obsolete.
A destroyer is far more vulnerable than a missile platform on shore, a carrier more vulnerable than an airbase.
Says who? Both can move. The airbase can't move and the missile platform can't move as easily as a ship can. Before you destroy that destroyer or carrier you have to locate them first. Locating the enemy is the most important aspect of Naval warfare and matters far more than the weapons you have or even how many ships you have. We were outnumbered at Midway and facing aircraft with a longer range than our own. That didn't matter in the end because we located them first and struck our blows before they could respond. The rest is history.
Also the US has never been truly tested on the seas against anyone but militarily 3rd-rate, impoverished countries.
Japan was a militarily 3rd-rate impoverished country?
I seem to recall a saying the submariners are rather fond of, to the effect that in case of a serious modern naval conflict there would be only two classes of ships at seas: submarines and... "targets"!
Submarines are historically the biggest threat to aircraft carriers (the Wasp and Yorktown come to mind) but they aren't invulnerable. Submarines have several drawbacks:
1) They can't keep up with a fast moving surface task force without giving away their location and losing sonar effectiveness. The best way for them to engage such a task force is to lie in wait for it but this isn't always possible if your enemy doesn't cooperate and go where you think he's going to go.
2) They can't communicate in real time with their base and thus have a harder time taking advantage of other sensor platforms (aircraft, satellites, etc) that would help them locate their targets.
3) They can't take advantage of long range stand-off weapons (missiles) without giving away their location.
4) Their primary sensor platform (passive sonar) requires a fair amount of time to develop a targeting solution (see target motion analysis). This process is rendered much harder when tracking a target that is taking evasive action (random changes in course or speed) to complicate the process. Active sonar removes this limitation but gives away their location and subjects them to counter-attack.
In summary, it's a mistake to dismiss the submarine threat but it's also a mistake to assume that they will rule the waves in a future conflict. Submarines can only dominate the oceans in the absence of an effective ASW strategy (see the Pacific in WW2). When such a strategy is implemented they are certainly manageable (see the Atlantic in WW2). We have a competent ASW strategy and the best technology in the world for the task. We also have the most effective ASW weapon available -- our own submarines.
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think?
The Soviets had a completely different strategy than NATO did. It's the difference between sea control and sea denial. The Soviets didn't have to control the shipping lanes to win WW3. They just had to close them to NATO shipping and choke off supplies and reinforcements from North America. It's much cheaper to build a sea denial force than it is to build a sea control force and doesn't require the same level of institutional experience.
It should be noted that every power that's ever tried a sea denial strategy ultimately failed and lost whatever war they were fighting. Germany in the World Wars is the best known example but there are others from history. Unless you can win command of the sea you are going to have an awfully hard time defeating a Western military power. Command of the sea has been the secret to our success since the beginning. If it wasn't for Salamis there probably wouldn't even be such a thing as Western civilization.
Is Lockheed going to be selling their stuff to Pakistan?
Pakistan was designated a major non-nato ally by the Bush administration sometime after the 9/11 attacks. This means that they get first dibs on any US arms sales after our NATO allies. It means that we technically regard them in the same manner as we regard Japan, South Korea, Australia or Israel. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that we'd sell them the F-35, although one would hope that we'd be smarter than that given the state of Pakistan and their refusal to combat the extremists in their country.
How many people -really- search their HD? A few extra MBs won't be noticeable to most people, especially if they keep it in obscure directories.
It doesn't even matter if you search your HD, unless you are using a live CD to do it. Anyone sophisticated enough to write a trojan to record your VoIP conversations is sophisticated enough to include rootkit concepts that hook into the OS and hide the evidence of the trojan.
I don't know if that's the case with this particular trojan but it's how I would go about doing it if I was writing it.
The only ones I could see supporting software patents are some patent lawyers.
Well, then we are screwed, because tort reform of any kind certainly isn't in the interests of the current political party that happens in be in power in Washington. One of their own said it best.....
Or a mechanism for poor people who value their freedom more than they covet the rich person's fancy house or SUV.
I'll take my civil liberties over governmental attempts to correct injustice (which usually accomplish nothing more than to shift the injustice around), thank you very much.
do you really expect rational arguments in favor of the public good to be of any help against entrenched interests in this matter?
Your right. Why should we even try? We should just give up and stop voting, protesting, writing letters or being engaged in the process at all. The "entrenched interests" have won and there is no point to further resistance. Resistance is indeed futile.
How the heck does this bit of pessimism that offers nothing insightful beyond being the first post merit a +5?
I'll take your lack of response to the majority of my post as your acknowledgment that the people engaged in "voting with their wallets" have indeed overreacted and are too busy shooting themselves in the foot to realize this.
We've been that stupid repeatedly. Many of our cities are built on the sites that were previously the most productive farm land.
I don't think that's deliberate stupidity. Cities tend to get carved out of areas where lots of people live. Before the oil age farms required a fairly large amount of human capital to operate. Humans need to live somewhere, ergo you get cities. It still happens to a lesser degree. Farms don't require as much manpower to operate in this day and age but they still need goods and services. Those have to be provided by someone.
On balance cities are a good thing because the amount of land they occupy is generally less than it would take to feed their population. There's no way that Manhattan could feed it's population even if every square inch was devoted to agriculture. There are counter-examples to this of course (see urban sprawl) and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a major city.
They don't have that many guns, and they all have stringent gun control.
Compared to what? Compared to the rest of Europe they have lots of guns. Compared to the US they don't have as many.
Switzerland isn't an anomaly really, more of an example of working gun control.
What evidence do you offer besides your own personal bias to suggest that gun control is the main reason that Switzerland or the other countries have a lower rate of crime?
Spoiler: all of those things exist in Europe too.
Did I say they didn't? You don't get to dismiss my point that quickly unless you've got some evidence to suggest that those factors occur in Europe at nearly the same rate as they occur in the US. You asked what else could be driving the difference in crime rates and I offered several suggestions. Are you going to give them serious consideration or are you going to dismiss them out of hand so you can continue to advance your argument that guns are the driving factor?
Are you required to get a license and register them with the feds, like in all of the European countries you listed?
As a matter of fact in some American states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois among others) you have to do exactly that. There's still no evidence that it makes any meaningful difference on way or another on the crime rate though.
Here's a list of US States with crime statistics. The highest murder rate occurs in the "state" with the strictest gun control laws. Washington DC has 29.1 murders per 100,000 people. In DC it was illegal to own a handgun or even to keep a long run assembled in working condition until just a few months ago. Yet it has the highest murder rate in the US.
Want to look at whole US states rather than one poor urban area? Coming in at #1 for most murders per capita is Louisiana. Louisiana is generally regarded as having permissive gun laws so I guess that's a "win" for your side. Coming in at #2 is Maryland. Maryland has fairly tough gun laws. All purchasers need to pass a safety program, all handguns and so-called assault weapons must be registered and concealed carry permits are rarely issued. I guess that's a "win" for my side.
The most permissive US States are generally regarded as being Alaska and Vermont. In either state you can purchase a gun without any waiting period, training or registration. The only requirement is that you pass a criminal and mental health background check. In both states you can carry a loaded gun openly or concealed without need of a permit. So where do they rank? Alaska is #22 for murders per capita and Vermont is #42. FYI, Vermont actually has a per capita murder rate comparable (1.9 per 100k) to the UK (2.0) and Canada (1.8).
The US States with the strictest gun laws would probably be New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. Where do they rank? CA comes in at #11, IL at #17, NJ at #26, NY at #27 and MA at #36.
If there's a linkage between gun control and crime I can't find it. As with Europe the data is all over the map. There are permissive regions with low crime rates (Vermont, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota) and restrictive regions with high crime rates (California, Illinois, Maryland). There are also restrictive regions with low crime rates (Hawaii, Massachusetts) and permissive regions with high crime rates (Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina).
The only thing this data suggests is that you can't prove causation between gun availability/gun control and the crime rate. It should be obvious that the other factors that drive crime have much more influence than guns do. Is still a fact that you are interested in disputing and if so what evidence do you offer to support your argument?
So if I was up ~41%, I would take cover for a while and count the winnings.
I'll be counting my winnings soon enough. Can't do it yet unless I want to pay the short term capital gain rate. I'll be evaluating my positions once I've held them for a year and see where I stand at that point. Until then I'm not real worried about the day to day ups and downs of the market.
None of those countries (apart from Switzerland) have a "comparatively high rate". All of them have around a third of US gun ownership.
Again, I'm not comparing them to the US. I'm comparing them to your example. You claim that Switzerland is an anomaly but conveniently ignore the fact there are other countries with a similar level of gun ownership and crime rate. Are they anomalies too?
Sane people will want to kill if the risk makes it worth it for them
"Sane" people want to kill? You have an interesting definition of "sane".
The point is that developed countries with gun control have less murder than the US
Correlation does not equal causation. Either prove that gun control is the reason that they have a lower murder rate or admit that you are making an argument that you can't support with hard facts and data. There are a host of other factors (poverty, lack of educational opportunities, lack of economic opportunity, the war on drugs, abusive parents/authority figures, etc, etc) that come into play where crime is concerned and you are pretending that none of them exist.
and if you can come up with an alternative explanation, then, again, I'd like to hear it
Why do I have to come up with the alternative explanation? You are the one making the argument that gun control is responsible for a lower crime rate. Prove it or STFU.
countries that have a high crime rate because they're economically and socially still in the shitter from the communist era.
So you admit that there are causes for crime besides the availability of guns?
Whether guns would make them worse is not known.
That's right. It's not known. So why are you assuming that guns are the cause of the difference between the US and Western Europe crime rates? I'll ask you one more time to provide some data to back up this claim.
Besides, all of those countries (including Switzerland) have pretty restrictive gun laws, so I don't think you'd consider them positive examples.
What does that have to do with anything? The US has laws that are restrictive enough. Criminals can't legally possess firearms here. Dealers in firearms can't legally sell them to criminals. The major differences that I've seen between US and European gun laws is the lack of a provision for concealed carry and more stringent storage requirements. Neither of those can explain the difference in crime rates.
Most people don't kill because they want to kill, they kill because they want to take your possessions and get away with it.
Who cares why they want to kill? I only care that they are willing to do so and am going to do everything in my power to avoid becoming one of their victims. The choice between some criminal scumbag leaving the scene on a gurney or myself doing the same is not a hard one to make.
the likelihood of someone doing something criminal increases the lower the risk is.
I agree, that's why every law-abiding citizen ought to carry a firearm with them everywhere they go. Kind of changes the risk-reward calculation for the criminals, doesn't it?
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. At the range of the typical criminal encounter a knife is equally as dangerous as a handgun. A combat knife will do more damage per stab than most handgun calibers and is harder to take away from someone. A gun can be rendered non-dangerous by pointing it away from yourself and/or knocking it out of battery (automatic)/seizing up the cylinder (revolver). A gun is easier to grab onto and struggle for than a blade. Try grabbing onto the business end of a knife and let me know how it works out for you. Guns aren't the all powerful magical talisman that you think they are. 80% of people shot by handguns survive. Why do you think stopping power is such a concern for people who rely on guns to save their lives?
That doesn't mean that the majority of countries with gun control and the same level of development as the US don't have far less murder.
I've never disputed that there are countries with a lower murder rate than my own. What I dispute is that gun ownership has anything to do with the difference in that murder rate. You can't cite a single piece of evidence to support the claim that it does and in fact the evidence that you have cited undermines your own argument. How many times do I have to repeat this point before it registers with you?
None of the countries you listed come anywhere near the US in gun ownership. The closest ones (apart from Switzerland, which as I said, is an anomaly)
So what? I wasn't comparing Switzerland to the US. I was pointing out the fact that Switzerland isn't the anomaly you seem to think it is. There are several other countries with a comparatively high rate of firearms ownership that have a comparatively low rate of crime. Combine that with the fact that there are several countries with a comparatively low rate of firearms ownership and a high rate of crime and I should think the fact that guns aren't the cause of crime should be plainly obvious.
It also comes with fortune and trek. You haven't lived until you've gone through the offensive quotes (fortune -o) of the fortune file or had to battle hordes of Klingons by manually entering the compass bearing that you want to fire your phasers or photon torpedoes in.
I used to have a version of Trek where I had hacked the source to give it a "borg" mode. In borg mode the incoming Klingon fire would recharge my energy reserves while filling the screen with "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" in random ANSI colors;) Those were the days......
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
Slackware was the first Linux distro I ever tried and I've remained partial to it ever since. My introduction to Linux came in the form of a $1.99 CD (hard to download the distro in the dialup era) that had Slackware, Debian and Red Hat on it. I picked Slackware because it had the coolest sounding name. I think it was to my long term benefit because I got a lot of experience with the nuts and bolts of Linux through sheer necessity. I don't know as if that would have happened if I had picked one of the other two.
I run Slackware for my servers at work and my firewall/nat/misc server at home. I spend more time setting it up but the knowledge of what's going on and the level of customization that I can achieve makes it worthwhile, at least IMHO.
You are comparing the US to the Eastern Bloc as far as murder is concerned and you are arguing for the status quo!
No, I'm not arguing for the status quo. Nor did I claim that it's some great achievement to have a lower murder rate than Belarus. All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity of your position by demonstrating that the evidence you cited undermines your own argument.
If you have a knife and they don't, they can still fight back. If you have a gun and they don't, they're fucked
Do you have any self-defense training at all or are you just repeating Hollywood stereotypes? It's not that easy to face someone with a knife when you are unarmed. It's harder to disarm someone carrying a knife than it is to disarm someone carrying a gun. Guns aren't a magical talisman that makes the possessor invincible nor are knives any less deadly than a firearm. The main advantage a gun gives you is range but that's a moot point in criminal encounters since they virtually always happen up close and personal.
which means you'd be much more inclined to kill them given your success is guarantee
Someone who has no moral compass is going to be inclined to kill no matter what. The mere possession of a gun does not turn an otherwise peaceful person into a murderer and the lack thereof does not prevent someone with a predisposition for violence from engaging in it.
If you're a mugger, would you be more likely to attack people if you had a gun or a knife?
If I was a mugger I'd be less likely to attack people if I knew a sizable number of them were armed and able to fight back. Of course that's the flip side to the equation that the anti-gun crowd never wants to consider.
And concerning developed nations, the biggest difference between the USA and the rest of them is gun ownership. Of course this isn't clear cut, like in Switzerland
I love it! You admit that your own argument has no merit. Why have I been wasting so much time trying to convince you of that which you already know? BTW, it's not just Switzerland -- Finland, France, Germany, Canada and Sweden have nearly as much gun ownership and similarly low crime rates.
but if you have a better theory as to why Americans kill each other more often than Western Europeans, I'm all ears.
I don't have to come up with a better theory when the very evidence that you cite in support of yours proves that it's false. I'm not the one making the assertion here -- you are. You need to either prove it with verifiable evidence or give up and admit that you've lost.
So you're comparing the USA to the Eastern Bloc and saying everything is a-ok?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply that everything is "a-ok". All I said was that there are countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership that still manage to have a higher rate of murders. Thus you can't make a link between the availability of firearms and the murder rate.
Firearms matter because it's much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, and people will be much more inclined to try.
Someone whose moral compass is so fucked up that they are willing to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the fact that they have to use a knife instead. Ukraine has 9 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 9.27 per 100,000 citizens. Switzerland has 46 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 citizens. The mere availability of guns has nothing to do with crime.
And who cares how "easy" firearms make it to commit murder? It's also easier to run someone over than it is to stab them. Stop attacking the tool and start attacking the people who are using it to commit dastardly deeds.
you still haven't explained the difference in homicide rate between the USA and similarly developed countries.
I'm don't have the qualifications to explain it, seeing as how I've never studied criminology or sociology. What I am qualified to say is that you can't prove a linkage between the availability of firearms and the homicide rate using any of the data that you've cited. Correlation != causation.
It's sad that someone who made such a great point a few posts ago is now beating a dead horse. Who cares what percentage of murders are committed with firearms? Do you really regard being murdered with a club or knife as preferable to being murdered with a firearm?
The overall US murder rate is lower than several European (Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Belarus) countries. Interestingly enough every one of those countries has a lower rate of firearm homicides than the US. I doubt it's much comfort to the people who were murdered that they weren't killed with a firearm. Trying to make a link between firearms and homicides doesn't just hold water. Crime is driven by other factors than the availability of guns.
And I still say that gun control is a fallacy. Mexico has extremely tough gun laws but guns are still commonly used by civilians and the criminal element alike. The UK has even tougher laws and criminals still manage to get their hands on firearms. What the heck do you accomplish by banning guns other than to disarm the segment of the population that doesn't commit crime?
One of my best performing stocks is a commodity stock. I bought FCX at $23 and change. It's now at $64. There was no reason other than unfounded panic for it to be priced as low as it was. Worked out well for me though.
I don't see anything wrong with investing in gold either. I just don't think you'll be able to match the ROI that you can see with good stock picks.
That proves nothing regarding the ease with which criminals can obtain firearms. All it proves is that some countries have a lower rate of homicides than others.
The DCMA sucks but the last time I checked the US Government wasn't looking at lists of citizens and sending out people to make sure that they aren't using a "non-approved" TV receiver.
I wouldn't mind seeing a return to something similar to the gold standard but it's not because I think banks are "evil" It's because I don't like the fact that the Fed can effectively confiscate the savings that I've worked so hard to acclimate through inflation.
I've worked with the USSS three times in my professional career. Twice were for financial crimes. Once when somebody hacked our e-commerce server when I was in the ISP business and the other time for this. The other occasion I had to work with them was when an employee of the company I was working for at the time decided to a not-so-nice e-mail to George W. Bush. I've learned a few things about them from these experiences:
1) USSS agents are generally more outgoing and humble than their FBI counterparts
2) They are extremely competent and professional
3) The financial guys have a sense of humor. The Presidential protection guys do not;)
I've heard that expression but not in relation to the.44 magnum. Interesting to hear it from someone who has been out there. What of the.500 S&W Magnum? Was that around when you were guiding trips?
I would much prefer a high powered rifle over any handgun but they aren't nearly as easy to carry. I would imagine that would apply even more for a fishing expedition -- are you going to wade into the middle of a stream with a rifle or shotgun slung over your back? Doesn't do you much good if you leave it on shore.
I'd feel secure enough with mace for the most part. My fear is running across the one bear in a thousand that thinks humans are lunch or accidentally surprising mama bear with the cubs. I'd really hate myself if I had to kill her but the choice between her or me is not a hard one to make.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really an either/or. Most classical liberals were in favor both of freedoms in general and modest social safety nets
It seems to be an either/or in this day and age. Vote Democrat and you don't get "modest social safety nets" -- you get grand designs with substantially higher taxes and spending. You also see the expansion of the nanny state and the erosion of civil liberties. I'm not a big fan of the GOP but I never heard a GOP Senator suggest withholding highway funds to blackmail the states into outlawing texting while driving.
They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
Actually Jefferson likely would have been appalled by the fact that the Federal Government is so heavily involved in education. The Federal Government imposing a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington has rarely been the answer to our problems.
Cruise missiles have made carriers very expensive floating targets. The Navy refuses to accept it, just like they refused to accept the power of the airplane.
How can you say they refuse to accept it when they've spent the last 40 years thinking of ways to defend against this threat? The F-14 was specifically designed to engage and destroy cruise missiles and the aircraft that launch them. AEGIS was specifically designed to engage and destroy cruise missiles. The E-2 was fielded so the Navy could locate and destroy cruise missile platforms before they get close enough to fire. The Navy takes the cruise missile threat very seriously.
Their ships were ridiculously overgunned (well, overmissiled) and were considered to not have as good of sea-keeping characteristics as British and American ships. But their whole point was to act as ship-killers.
And they would have failed miserably if we had ever come to blows. What good does a 600 kilometer ranged missile do you against an aircraft carrier that can launch aircraft from outside that radius? The submarines and aircraft they built were worthwhile investments. The anti-ship missile platforms in their surface fleet were a waste of money.
Between airborne and spaceborne detection systems, surface ships cannot hide.
Airborne platforms need to get close enough to the carrier to locate it on radar. The carrier's fighters will be doing everything within their power to make this a difficult undertaking. Spaceborne detection systems are limited by orbital mechanics and would undoubtedly be high-priority targets in a shooting war. Both are cause for concern but neither renders the surface fleet obsolete.
A destroyer is far more vulnerable than a missile platform on shore, a carrier more vulnerable than an airbase.
Says who? Both can move. The airbase can't move and the missile platform can't move as easily as a ship can. Before you destroy that destroyer or carrier you have to locate them first. Locating the enemy is the most important aspect of Naval warfare and matters far more than the weapons you have or even how many ships you have. We were outnumbered at Midway and facing aircraft with a longer range than our own. That didn't matter in the end because we located them first and struck our blows before they could respond. The rest is history.
Also the US has never been truly tested on the seas against anyone but militarily 3rd-rate, impoverished countries.
Japan was a militarily 3rd-rate impoverished country?
I seem to recall a saying the submariners are rather fond of, to the effect that in case of a serious modern naval conflict there would be only two classes of ships at seas: submarines and ... "targets"!
Submarines are historically the biggest threat to aircraft carriers (the Wasp and Yorktown come to mind) but they aren't invulnerable. Submarines have several drawbacks:
1) They can't keep up with a fast moving surface task force without giving away their location and losing sonar effectiveness. The best way for them to engage such a task force is to lie in wait for it but this isn't always possible if your enemy doesn't cooperate and go where you think he's going to go.
2) They can't communicate in real time with their base and thus have a harder time taking advantage of other sensor platforms (aircraft, satellites, etc) that would help them locate their targets.
3) They can't take advantage of long range stand-off weapons (missiles) without giving away their location.
4) Their primary sensor platform (passive sonar) requires a fair amount of time to develop a targeting solution (see target motion analysis). This process is rendered much harder when tracking a target that is taking evasive action (random changes in course or speed) to complicate the process. Active sonar removes this limitation but gives away their location and subjects them to counter-attack.
In summary, it's a mistake to dismiss the submarine threat but it's also a mistake to assume that they will rule the waves in a future conflict. Submarines can only dominate the oceans in the absence of an effective ASW strategy (see the Pacific in WW2). When such a strategy is implemented they are certainly manageable (see the Atlantic in WW2). We have a competent ASW strategy and the best technology in the world for the task. We also have the most effective ASW weapon available -- our own submarines.
Something else to ponder: the Soviet Union never invested in the massive carriers, focusing rather heavily on fast, long-range submarines instead. Presumably they also had "people thinking about fleet deployment for a living", don't you think?
The Soviets had a completely different strategy than NATO did. It's the difference between sea control and sea denial. The Soviets didn't have to control the shipping lanes to win WW3. They just had to close them to NATO shipping and choke off supplies and reinforcements from North America. It's much cheaper to build a sea denial force than it is to build a sea control force and doesn't require the same level of institutional experience.
It should be noted that every power that's ever tried a sea denial strategy ultimately failed and lost whatever war they were fighting. Germany in the World Wars is the best known example but there are others from history. Unless you can win command of the sea you are going to have an awfully hard time defeating a Western military power. Command of the sea has been the secret to our success since the beginning. If it wasn't for Salamis there probably wouldn't even be such a thing as Western civilization.
Is Lockheed going to be selling their stuff to Pakistan?
Pakistan was designated a major non-nato ally by the Bush administration sometime after the 9/11 attacks. This means that they get first dibs on any US arms sales after our NATO allies. It means that we technically regard them in the same manner as we regard Japan, South Korea, Australia or Israel. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that we'd sell them the F-35, although one would hope that we'd be smarter than that given the state of Pakistan and their refusal to combat the extremists in their country.
How many people -really- search their HD? A few extra MBs won't be noticeable to most people, especially if they keep it in obscure directories.
It doesn't even matter if you search your HD, unless you are using a live CD to do it. Anyone sophisticated enough to write a trojan to record your VoIP conversations is sophisticated enough to include rootkit concepts that hook into the OS and hide the evidence of the trojan.
I don't know if that's the case with this particular trojan but it's how I would go about doing it if I was writing it.
The only ones I could see supporting software patents are some patent lawyers.
Well, then we are screwed, because tort reform of any kind certainly isn't in the interests of the current political party that happens in be in power in Washington. One of their own said it best.....
Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people.
Or a mechanism for poor people who value their freedom more than they covet the rich person's fancy house or SUV.
I'll take my civil liberties over governmental attempts to correct injustice (which usually accomplish nothing more than to shift the injustice around), thank you very much.
do you really expect rational arguments in favor of the public good to be of any help against entrenched interests in this matter?
Your right. Why should we even try? We should just give up and stop voting, protesting, writing letters or being engaged in the process at all. The "entrenched interests" have won and there is no point to further resistance. Resistance is indeed futile.
How the heck does this bit of pessimism that offers nothing insightful beyond being the first post merit a +5?
I'll take your lack of response to the majority of my post as your acknowledgment that the people engaged in "voting with their wallets" have indeed overreacted and are too busy shooting themselves in the foot to realize this.
WTF is your point besides "woe is me"?
We've been that stupid repeatedly. Many of our cities are built on the sites that were previously the most productive farm land.
I don't think that's deliberate stupidity. Cities tend to get carved out of areas where lots of people live. Before the oil age farms required a fairly large amount of human capital to operate. Humans need to live somewhere, ergo you get cities. It still happens to a lesser degree. Farms don't require as much manpower to operate in this day and age but they still need goods and services. Those have to be provided by someone.
On balance cities are a good thing because the amount of land they occupy is generally less than it would take to feed their population. There's no way that Manhattan could feed it's population even if every square inch was devoted to agriculture. There are counter-examples to this of course (see urban sprawl) and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a major city.
They don't have that many guns, and they all have stringent gun control.
Compared to what? Compared to the rest of Europe they have lots of guns. Compared to the US they don't have as many.
Switzerland isn't an anomaly really, more of an example of working gun control.
What evidence do you offer besides your own personal bias to suggest that gun control is the main reason that Switzerland or the other countries have a lower rate of crime?
Spoiler: all of those things exist in Europe too.
Did I say they didn't? You don't get to dismiss my point that quickly unless you've got some evidence to suggest that those factors occur in Europe at nearly the same rate as they occur in the US. You asked what else could be driving the difference in crime rates and I offered several suggestions. Are you going to give them serious consideration or are you going to dismiss them out of hand so you can continue to advance your argument that guns are the driving factor?
Are you required to get a license and register them with the feds, like in all of the European countries you listed?
As a matter of fact in some American states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois among others) you have to do exactly that. There's still no evidence that it makes any meaningful difference on way or another on the crime rate though.
Here's a list of US States with crime statistics. The highest murder rate occurs in the "state" with the strictest gun control laws. Washington DC has 29.1 murders per 100,000 people. In DC it was illegal to own a handgun or even to keep a long run assembled in working condition until just a few months ago. Yet it has the highest murder rate in the US.
Want to look at whole US states rather than one poor urban area? Coming in at #1 for most murders per capita is Louisiana. Louisiana is generally regarded as having permissive gun laws so I guess that's a "win" for your side. Coming in at #2 is Maryland. Maryland has fairly tough gun laws. All purchasers need to pass a safety program, all handguns and so-called assault weapons must be registered and concealed carry permits are rarely issued. I guess that's a "win" for my side.
The most permissive US States are generally regarded as being Alaska and Vermont. In either state you can purchase a gun without any waiting period, training or registration. The only requirement is that you pass a criminal and mental health background check. In both states you can carry a loaded gun openly or concealed without need of a permit. So where do they rank? Alaska is #22 for murders per capita and Vermont is #42. FYI, Vermont actually has a per capita murder rate comparable (1.9 per 100k) to the UK (2.0) and Canada (1.8).
The US States with the strictest gun laws would probably be New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. Where do they rank? CA comes in at #11, IL at #17, NJ at #26, NY at #27 and MA at #36.
If there's a linkage between gun control and crime I can't find it. As with Europe the data is all over the map. There are permissive regions with low crime rates (Vermont, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota) and restrictive regions with high crime rates (California, Illinois, Maryland). There are also restrictive regions with low crime rates (Hawaii, Massachusetts) and permissive regions with high crime rates (Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina).
The only thing this data suggests is that you can't prove causation between gun availability/gun control and the crime rate. It should be obvious that the other factors that drive crime have much more influence than guns do. Is still a fact that you are interested in disputing and if so what evidence do you offer to support your argument?
So if I was up ~41%, I would take cover for a while and count the winnings.
I'll be counting my winnings soon enough. Can't do it yet unless I want to pay the short term capital gain rate. I'll be evaluating my positions once I've held them for a year and see where I stand at that point. Until then I'm not real worried about the day to day ups and downs of the market.
None of those countries (apart from Switzerland) have a "comparatively high rate". All of them have around a third of US gun ownership.
Again, I'm not comparing them to the US. I'm comparing them to your example. You claim that Switzerland is an anomaly but conveniently ignore the fact there are other countries with a similar level of gun ownership and crime rate. Are they anomalies too?
Sane people will want to kill if the risk makes it worth it for them
"Sane" people want to kill? You have an interesting definition of "sane".
The point is that developed countries with gun control have less murder than the US
Correlation does not equal causation. Either prove that gun control is the reason that they have a lower murder rate or admit that you are making an argument that you can't support with hard facts and data. There are a host of other factors (poverty, lack of educational opportunities, lack of economic opportunity, the war on drugs, abusive parents/authority figures, etc, etc) that come into play where crime is concerned and you are pretending that none of them exist.
and if you can come up with an alternative explanation, then, again, I'd like to hear it
Why do I have to come up with the alternative explanation? You are the one making the argument that gun control is responsible for a lower crime rate. Prove it or STFU.
countries that have a high crime rate because they're economically and socially still in the shitter from the communist era.
So you admit that there are causes for crime besides the availability of guns?
Whether guns would make them worse is not known.
That's right. It's not known. So why are you assuming that guns are the cause of the difference between the US and Western Europe crime rates? I'll ask you one more time to provide some data to back up this claim.
Besides, all of those countries (including Switzerland) have pretty restrictive gun laws, so I don't think you'd consider them positive examples.
What does that have to do with anything? The US has laws that are restrictive enough. Criminals can't legally possess firearms here. Dealers in firearms can't legally sell them to criminals. The major differences that I've seen between US and European gun laws is the lack of a provision for concealed carry and more stringent storage requirements. Neither of those can explain the difference in crime rates.
This is naive
You are calling me naive? That's pretty rich.
Most people don't kill because they want to kill, they kill because they want to take your possessions and get away with it.
Who cares why they want to kill? I only care that they are willing to do so and am going to do everything in my power to avoid becoming one of their victims. The choice between some criminal scumbag leaving the scene on a gurney or myself doing the same is not a hard one to make.
the likelihood of someone doing something criminal increases the lower the risk is.
I agree, that's why every law-abiding citizen ought to carry a firearm with them everywhere they go. Kind of changes the risk-reward calculation for the criminals, doesn't it?
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. At the range of the typical criminal encounter a knife is equally as dangerous as a handgun. A combat knife will do more damage per stab than most handgun calibers and is harder to take away from someone. A gun can be rendered non-dangerous by pointing it away from yourself and/or knocking it out of battery (automatic)/seizing up the cylinder (revolver). A gun is easier to grab onto and struggle for than a blade. Try grabbing onto the business end of a knife and let me know how it works out for you. Guns aren't the all powerful magical talisman that you think they are. 80% of people shot by handguns survive. Why do you think stopping power is such a concern for people who rely on guns to save their lives?
That doesn't mean that the majority of countries with gun control and the same level of development as the US don't have far less murder.
I've never disputed that there are countries with a lower murder rate than my own. What I dispute is that gun ownership has anything to do with the difference in that murder rate. You can't cite a single piece of evidence to support the claim that it does and in fact the evidence that you have cited undermines your own argument. How many times do I have to repeat this point before it registers with you?
None of the countries you listed come anywhere near the US in gun ownership. The closest ones (apart from Switzerland, which as I said, is an anomaly)
So what? I wasn't comparing Switzerland to the US. I was pointing out the fact that Switzerland isn't the anomaly you seem to think it is. There are several other countries with a comparatively high rate of firearms ownership that have a comparatively low rate of crime. Combine that with the fact that there are several countries with a comparatively low rate of firearms ownership and a high rate of crime and I should think the fact that guns aren't the cause of crime should be plainly obvious.
It also comes with fortune and trek. You haven't lived until you've gone through the offensive quotes (fortune -o) of the fortune file or had to battle hordes of Klingons by manually entering the compass bearing that you want to fire your phasers or photon torpedoes in.
I used to have a version of Trek where I had hacked the source to give it a "borg" mode. In borg mode the incoming Klingon fire would recharge my energy reserves while filling the screen with "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" in random ANSI colors ;) Those were the days......
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
Slackware was the first Linux distro I ever tried and I've remained partial to it ever since. My introduction to Linux came in the form of a $1.99 CD (hard to download the distro in the dialup era) that had Slackware, Debian and Red Hat on it. I picked Slackware because it had the coolest sounding name. I think it was to my long term benefit because I got a lot of experience with the nuts and bolts of Linux through sheer necessity. I don't know as if that would have happened if I had picked one of the other two.
I run Slackware for my servers at work and my firewall/nat/misc server at home. I spend more time setting it up but the knowledge of what's going on and the level of customization that I can achieve makes it worthwhile, at least IMHO.
You are comparing the US to the Eastern Bloc as far as murder is concerned and you are arguing for the status quo!
No, I'm not arguing for the status quo. Nor did I claim that it's some great achievement to have a lower murder rate than Belarus. All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity of your position by demonstrating that the evidence you cited undermines your own argument.
If you have a knife and they don't, they can still fight back. If you have a gun and they don't, they're fucked
Do you have any self-defense training at all or are you just repeating Hollywood stereotypes? It's not that easy to face someone with a knife when you are unarmed. It's harder to disarm someone carrying a knife than it is to disarm someone carrying a gun. Guns aren't a magical talisman that makes the possessor invincible nor are knives any less deadly than a firearm. The main advantage a gun gives you is range but that's a moot point in criminal encounters since they virtually always happen up close and personal.
which means you'd be much more inclined to kill them given your success is guarantee
Someone who has no moral compass is going to be inclined to kill no matter what. The mere possession of a gun does not turn an otherwise peaceful person into a murderer and the lack thereof does not prevent someone with a predisposition for violence from engaging in it.
If you're a mugger, would you be more likely to attack people if you had a gun or a knife?
If I was a mugger I'd be less likely to attack people if I knew a sizable number of them were armed and able to fight back. Of course that's the flip side to the equation that the anti-gun crowd never wants to consider.
And concerning developed nations, the biggest difference between the USA and the rest of them is gun ownership. Of course this isn't clear cut, like in Switzerland
I love it! You admit that your own argument has no merit. Why have I been wasting so much time trying to convince you of that which you already know? BTW, it's not just Switzerland -- Finland, France, Germany, Canada and Sweden have nearly as much gun ownership and similarly low crime rates.
but if you have a better theory as to why Americans kill each other more often than Western Europeans, I'm all ears.
I don't have to come up with a better theory when the very evidence that you cite in support of yours proves that it's false. I'm not the one making the assertion here -- you are. You need to either prove it with verifiable evidence or give up and admit that you've lost.
So you're comparing the USA to the Eastern Bloc and saying everything is a-ok?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply that everything is "a-ok". All I said was that there are countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership that still manage to have a higher rate of murders. Thus you can't make a link between the availability of firearms and the murder rate.
Firearms matter because it's much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, and people will be much more inclined to try.
Someone whose moral compass is so fucked up that they are willing to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the fact that they have to use a knife instead. Ukraine has 9 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 9.27 per 100,000 citizens. Switzerland has 46 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 citizens. The mere availability of guns has nothing to do with crime.
And who cares how "easy" firearms make it to commit murder? It's also easier to run someone over than it is to stab them. Stop attacking the tool and start attacking the people who are using it to commit dastardly deeds.
you still haven't explained the difference in homicide rate between the USA and similarly developed countries.
I'm don't have the qualifications to explain it, seeing as how I've never studied criminology or sociology. What I am qualified to say is that you can't prove a linkage between the availability of firearms and the homicide rate using any of the data that you've cited. Correlation != causation.
It's sad that someone who made such a great point a few posts ago is now beating a dead horse. Who cares what percentage of murders are committed with firearms? Do you really regard being murdered with a club or knife as preferable to being murdered with a firearm?
The overall US murder rate is lower than several European (Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Belarus) countries. Interestingly enough every one of those countries has a lower rate of firearm homicides than the US. I doubt it's much comfort to the people who were murdered that they weren't killed with a firearm. Trying to make a link between firearms and homicides doesn't just hold water. Crime is driven by other factors than the availability of guns.
And I still say that gun control is a fallacy. Mexico has extremely tough gun laws but guns are still commonly used by civilians and the criminal element alike. The UK has even tougher laws and criminals still manage to get their hands on firearms. What the heck do you accomplish by banning guns other than to disarm the segment of the population that doesn't commit crime?
One of my best performing stocks is a commodity stock. I bought FCX at $23 and change. It's now at $64. There was no reason other than unfounded panic for it to be priced as low as it was. Worked out well for me though.
I don't see anything wrong with investing in gold either. I just don't think you'll be able to match the ROI that you can see with good stock picks.
That proves nothing regarding the ease with which criminals can obtain firearms. All it proves is that some countries have a lower rate of homicides than others.
Lies, damn lies and statistics....
The DCMA sucks but the last time I checked the US Government wasn't looking at lists of citizens and sending out people to make sure that they aren't using a "non-approved" TV receiver.
I wouldn't mind seeing a return to something similar to the gold standard but it's not because I think banks are "evil" It's because I don't like the fact that the Fed can effectively confiscate the savings that I've worked so hard to acclimate through inflation.
I've worked with the USSS three times in my professional career. Twice were for financial crimes. Once when somebody hacked our e-commerce server when I was in the ISP business and the other time for this. The other occasion I had to work with them was when an employee of the company I was working for at the time decided to a not-so-nice e-mail to George W. Bush. I've learned a few things about them from these experiences:
1) USSS agents are generally more outgoing and humble than their FBI counterparts ;)
2) They are extremely competent and professional
3) The financial guys have a sense of humor. The Presidential protection guys do not
I've heard that expression but not in relation to the .44 magnum. Interesting to hear it from someone who has been out there. What of the .500 S&W Magnum? Was that around when you were guiding trips?
I would much prefer a high powered rifle over any handgun but they aren't nearly as easy to carry. I would imagine that would apply even more for a fishing expedition -- are you going to wade into the middle of a stream with a rifle or shotgun slung over your back? Doesn't do you much good if you leave it on shore.
I'd feel secure enough with mace for the most part. My fear is running across the one bear in a thousand that thinks humans are lunch or accidentally surprising mama bear with the cubs. I'd really hate myself if I had to kill her but the choice between her or me is not a hard one to make.