but in the case of a welfare mom with 4 kids, the main difference is that by giving her more money she'll give better food, a better health but more importantly a better education to her 4 children, the difference being ultimately that these children will grow up to be more qualified and thus produce more value/wealth, but also move up in social classes.
What the heck are you basing this on? It's been my experience that welfare moms beget welfare children. And no, I'm not just parroting Rush Limbuagh. I've spent the last five years working for an agency in the human services field and my SO is a social worker with 13 years of experience. I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children. The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
So in other words, how long before laws are drafted keeping the good stuff out of our hands under the guise of it only aids criminals?
They tried that back in the 90s and it didn't go so well. There's nothing stopping you from using encryption on your cellular phone as it stands now. Back when I was in GSM land I was kind of hoping to get my hands on an OpenMoko and design an encryption system for SMS. It wouldn't be that hard to implement for secure text messaging. Voice may be harder but should still be doable by someone with the right skill set.
I've been successfully resisting efforts by my boss to give me a Blackberry for the last two years. I've seen what it does to co-workers and friends who have them and have no desire to spend half of my next vacation (or weekend or day off) responding to e-mails that could wait. If it's really important they'll call me. If it's not then I guess they can figure it out on their own. I know that some people find them useful but I don't count myself as being one of them.
As an aside, TFA says that the NSA is reviewing the security software. I wonder if they got access to the rest of the source-code and reviewed all of the other software? What does full time encryption do to the battery life and response time of the blackberry? I also wonder if the same restrictions that apply to other Federal workers regarding electronic devices will apply to his Blackberry? Will it be clipped to his waist when he's in the situation room dealing with the next international crisis? Or will he have to keep it out of secured areas?
Why would you risk it to get back a few measly bills and credit cards?
Who said I wanted to risk it to get back my credit cards? I really don't care about my property. I do care about my life though. If he pulls a knife and keeps his distance I'm not going to argue with him. He can have the wallet -- my property isn't worth taking a human life. But if he pulls a gun or tries to get close enough with the aforementioned knife to use it then it's a different animal altogether. Someone pointing a gun at you represents a mortal threat to your life. Assuming that they are only interested in your wallet seems pretty foolish to me. It's not a video game -- you don't get a do-over if he pulls that trigger.
If you would really kill someone for taking a few of your things
I wouldn't kill someone for my things. I would kill them for threatening to take my life, which they are clearly doing if they point a firearm at me. It's the same with the house. If I came home and discovered that my house was being robbed I'd leave and call the police. But if they come into my house when I'm home I'm not going to assume that they are only there to steal my property. I'm going to resist them with every means at my disposal.
And contrary to gun owner (as opposed to gun user) hype they aren't a trump card you can pull out for an automatic win.
What makes you think that viewpoint has anything to do with gun owners? Most gun owners are aware of the powers and limitations of firearms and do not regard them as a trump card that equals an automatic win. The people who think firearm == automatic win are those who have been exposed to too much Hollywood and whom have probably never even handled so much as a.22 in real life.
and a 9mm my entire Army enlistment because of it.
Is the 9mm really as pathetic with Hague compliant FMJ ammo as the rumors say it is? Friends of mine that deployed to Iraq came back cursing it. One of them tells a story about shooting an insurgent six times center of mass and not stopping him. I know that a lot of the older guys thought the.45 was better but that isn't an option for most units (outside of special forces) these days. I've also read that a lot of police agencies abandoned the 9mm, in spite of the fact that they are allowed to use expanding ammo.
Were your experiences with it similar or did you find it to be sufficient?
In order to risk dying protecting the cargo of his employer?
Maybe he wants to risk dying in order to save his freedom and/or life? Would you want to be a hostage and totally at the mercy of armed criminals who may kill you to make a point if your employer doesn't pony up the money they want?
Guantanamo stays open... Hey, you got a Bush Third Term after all!
Umm, I haven't been known as Obama's biggest fan of late but this remark is simply unfair. Gitmo is going to be closed. What's your problem? The fact that it isn't being closed overnight? What do you do with everybody who is there? Release them all? Bring them all to the US? Or do you take the time to make a careful review of those being held there, rather than imposing one blanket solution on everybody just so you can close the facility faster?
What you're seeing here is a bunch of macho morons, who have never seen anyone die violently and can be reasonably sure they never will, indulging in their blood'n'thunder fantasies from a safe distance
What makes you think this has anything to do with trying to indulge in fantasies? This is a bunch of well intentioned people asking why our merchant crews need to be as vulnerable as they are. It makes no sense to me to place our merchant crews in harms way without the ability to even defend themselves against teenagers in speedboats. Your comment suggests to me that you are looking to stereotype everyone on this side of the argument so that you can dismiss us easier, rather than try to explain why it makes sense to disarm our merchant crews and leave them this vulnerable.
and who regard the work of trying to get at the root causes of piracy as... well, kind of boring. Which, let's face it, it is: that's why there are a whole bunch of video games where you kill people, but not too damn many where you try to rebuild a shattered infrastructure.
Why is rebuilding the shattered infrastructure our responsibility? The Somali's don't seem to respond particularly well to foreign intervention on their soil. Do tell how you plan on going about rebuilding that shattered infrastructure.
If they ever had an up close and personal view of what their way of thinking leads to, they'd probably change their minds
What does "this way of thinking" lead to? I'm not advocating rounding up the pirates and killing them. I'm advocating giving our merchant ships the ability to defend themselves. Is self-defense not justifiable in your world view? Should we just keep paying ransoms? Should we stop using the oceans for trade?
I did, years ago, and I still sometimes wake up from nightmares about it
As for the utility of defensive firearms, I am dubious of the efficacy
They seem to be quite effective for taking over ships. What makes you think they can't be used to prevent such action? It worked historically.
Merchant marine ships do not have large crews and do not have sufficient crew members to have them stand watch for pirates and shoot at them while doing nothing else all day.
And yet our guys managed to take back their ship with fists. Who said they have to 'stand watch' anyway? If you see the pirates coming you break out the guns and prepare to resist. As it stands now all they can do is get on the radio and pray the Navy gets there before they get boarded. Not a situation I'd want to be in.....
as the risk posed by handing military weapons to untrained people who may be traveling through troubled waters. Say the guy with the rifle starts shooting at a nearby boat and it's fishermen, rather than pirates - something that could easily happen if visibility isn't the best and/or the guy is spooked. Or say pirates are onboard and you're trying to repel them, and he decides to shoot at you rather than the pirates because he isn't trained to deal with combat situations and just starts shooting.
I'll take that risk over the risk of being captured and/or killed because I was unable to defend myself with anything more effective than strong words. Humanity has been using firearms for hundreds of years to deter this type of behavior. Why the hell is everyone so squeamish about it?
There's many ports of call where a ship would be liable to search and probable prosecution of the crew for having military-type weapons on board, including here in the US.
Then those laws need to be changed. A rifle secured in a weapons locker aboard ship is no threat to anyone.
Their proclamations don't mean shit because, no counting the Yanks and us Brit's, there is no army to back up what they say. So on to more realistic things...
Its how big your gun is and how much damage you are willing to take before backing down. Why do you think they left the Yank's alone for so long?
Wow, a Brit with some balls who understands how the world works. I didn't know Margaret Thacher had a/. account;)
I'm not sure if the american govt is just a big lumbering oaf or destabilizes the region on purpose. Either way they fuck up everything they touch.
Ah, yes, it's all our fault. Sorry, I forgot that as an American I'm responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. The Somali warlords bear no responsbility at all.
Eh, he was either snarking or trolling. I don't regard a "bounty" as a serious solution. I do question why we don't arm our merchant crews though. The pirates are using deadly force to take hostages -- deadly force is clearly justified in response.
Does it matter? I said that "we Americans have a history of..." not "the pirates have a history of..." Ask an American what comes to mind when they think of being a hostage and you'll get answers ranging from Daniel Pearl to Robert Stethem. Being a hostage rarely ends well for American citizens. Our Government (rightfully, IMHO) refuses to pay ransoms and many Americans that are captured are later tortured and/or executed to make a political point.
Is it any wonder that the crew of the Maersk Alabama seized the opportunity to fight back when it presented itself?
Honestly, I can understand it to a certain extent. If someone walks up to me, points a gun at me, and demands my wallet, I will give it to him. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be armed, I'm still giving my wallet because the risks inherent in a firefight aren't really worth a few dollars and the aggravation of having to replace a few credit cards and ID cards.
What makes you think he isn't going to kill you anyway once he has your wallet? By pointing that gun at you, he has placed your life in mortal danger. I'd shoot the SOB as soon as I had an opening to do so.
As a result, you're spending $5.22 billion at least in fixed costs, at least $35 million per year in operating costs, and what you have to show for it... will be... what? Exactly? Perhaps a half-dozen piracy incidents averted?
I agree. It'd make much more sense to give each crew member an M-16 ($600) and a.45 ($500 or so)
Sailors would have to be trained in their use. And then there is potential accidents. Whether they be accidents between personnel on board. Accidental discharges damaging cargo, ship radio, navigation equipment etc etc. Guns are just not an acceptable solution.
Training someone to safely handle a modern firearm and shoot it accurately isn't a huge undertaking. If you can you operate a modern merchant ship with all it's associated technology you can learn to aim a rifle, pull a trigger and clear it afterwards to make sure it's safely unloaded. Find a friend who has firearms and ask them to take you shooting. If you can operate your computer with enough knowledge to find your way onto/. you can learn how to safely handle a firearm.
Given that most pirates don't have a skull and crossbones tattooed onto their forehead, what standard of evidence would you propose for our brave vigilantes?
Well, it seems probable to me that four men in a speedboat armed with AK-47s probably aren't out there for the fishing for sight seeing.......
Slashdot Mirror
but in the case of a welfare mom with 4 kids, the main difference is that by giving her more money she'll give better food, a better health but more importantly a better education to her 4 children, the difference being ultimately that these children will grow up to be more qualified and thus produce more value/wealth, but also move up in social classes.
What the heck are you basing this on? It's been my experience that welfare moms beget welfare children. And no, I'm not just parroting Rush Limbuagh. I've spent the last five years working for an agency in the human services field and my SO is a social worker with 13 years of experience. I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children. The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
So in other words, how long before laws are drafted keeping the good stuff out of our hands under the guise of it only aids criminals?
They tried that back in the 90s and it didn't go so well. There's nothing stopping you from using encryption on your cellular phone as it stands now. Back when I was in GSM land I was kind of hoping to get my hands on an OpenMoko and design an encryption system for SMS. It wouldn't be that hard to implement for secure text messaging. Voice may be harder but should still be doable by someone with the right skill set.
I've been successfully resisting efforts by my boss to give me a Blackberry for the last two years. I've seen what it does to co-workers and friends who have them and have no desire to spend half of my next vacation (or weekend or day off) responding to e-mails that could wait. If it's really important they'll call me. If it's not then I guess they can figure it out on their own. I know that some people find them useful but I don't count myself as being one of them.
As an aside, TFA says that the NSA is reviewing the security software. I wonder if they got access to the rest of the source-code and reviewed all of the other software? What does full time encryption do to the battery life and response time of the blackberry? I also wonder if the same restrictions that apply to other Federal workers regarding electronic devices will apply to his Blackberry? Will it be clipped to his waist when he's in the situation room dealing with the next international crisis? Or will he have to keep it out of secured areas?
Why would you risk it to get back a few measly bills and credit cards?
Who said I wanted to risk it to get back my credit cards? I really don't care about my property. I do care about my life though. If he pulls a knife and keeps his distance I'm not going to argue with him. He can have the wallet -- my property isn't worth taking a human life. But if he pulls a gun or tries to get close enough with the aforementioned knife to use it then it's a different animal altogether. Someone pointing a gun at you represents a mortal threat to your life. Assuming that they are only interested in your wallet seems pretty foolish to me. It's not a video game -- you don't get a do-over if he pulls that trigger.
If you would really kill someone for taking a few of your things
I wouldn't kill someone for my things. I would kill them for threatening to take my life, which they are clearly doing if they point a firearm at me. It's the same with the house. If I came home and discovered that my house was being robbed I'd leave and call the police. But if they come into my house when I'm home I'm not going to assume that they are only there to steal my property. I'm going to resist them with every means at my disposal.
And contrary to gun owner (as opposed to gun user) hype they aren't a trump card you can pull out for an automatic win.
What makes you think that viewpoint has anything to do with gun owners? Most gun owners are aware of the powers and limitations of firearms and do not regard them as a trump card that equals an automatic win. The people who think firearm == automatic win are those who have been exposed to too much Hollywood and whom have probably never even handled so much as a .22 in real life.
and a 9mm my entire Army enlistment because of it.
Is the 9mm really as pathetic with Hague compliant FMJ ammo as the rumors say it is? Friends of mine that deployed to Iraq came back cursing it. One of them tells a story about shooting an insurgent six times center of mass and not stopping him. I know that a lot of the older guys thought the .45 was better but that isn't an option for most units (outside of special forces) these days. I've also read that a lot of police agencies abandoned the 9mm, in spite of the fact that they are allowed to use expanding ammo.
Were your experiences with it similar or did you find it to be sufficient?
In order to risk dying protecting the cargo of his employer?
Maybe he wants to risk dying in order to save his freedom and/or life? Would you want to be a hostage and totally at the mercy of armed criminals who may kill you to make a point if your employer doesn't pony up the money they want?
I stopped taking you seriously at "fairness doctrine"
Guantanamo stays open... Hey, you got a Bush Third Term after all!
Umm, I haven't been known as Obama's biggest fan of late but this remark is simply unfair. Gitmo is going to be closed. What's your problem? The fact that it isn't being closed overnight? What do you do with everybody who is there? Release them all? Bring them all to the US? Or do you take the time to make a careful review of those being held there, rather than imposing one blanket solution on everybody just so you can close the facility faster?
What you're seeing here is a bunch of macho morons, who have never seen anyone die violently and can be reasonably sure they never will, indulging in their blood'n'thunder fantasies from a safe distance
What makes you think this has anything to do with trying to indulge in fantasies? This is a bunch of well intentioned people asking why our merchant crews need to be as vulnerable as they are. It makes no sense to me to place our merchant crews in harms way without the ability to even defend themselves against teenagers in speedboats. Your comment suggests to me that you are looking to stereotype everyone on this side of the argument so that you can dismiss us easier, rather than try to explain why it makes sense to disarm our merchant crews and leave them this vulnerable.
and who regard the work of trying to get at the root causes of piracy as ... well, kind of boring. Which, let's face it, it is: that's why there are a whole bunch of video games where you kill people, but not too damn many where you try to rebuild a shattered infrastructure.
Why is rebuilding the shattered infrastructure our responsibility? The Somali's don't seem to respond particularly well to foreign intervention on their soil. Do tell how you plan on going about rebuilding that shattered infrastructure.
If they ever had an up close and personal view of what their way of thinking leads to, they'd probably change their minds
What does "this way of thinking" lead to? I'm not advocating rounding up the pirates and killing them. I'm advocating giving our merchant ships the ability to defend themselves. Is self-defense not justifiable in your world view? Should we just keep paying ransoms? Should we stop using the oceans for trade?
I did, years ago, and I still sometimes wake up from nightmares about it
What happened?
As for the utility of defensive firearms, I am dubious of the efficacy
They seem to be quite effective for taking over ships. What makes you think they can't be used to prevent such action? It worked historically.
Merchant marine ships do not have large crews and do not have sufficient crew members to have them stand watch for pirates and shoot at them while doing nothing else all day.
And yet our guys managed to take back their ship with fists. Who said they have to 'stand watch' anyway? If you see the pirates coming you break out the guns and prepare to resist. As it stands now all they can do is get on the radio and pray the Navy gets there before they get boarded. Not a situation I'd want to be in.....
as the risk posed by handing military weapons to untrained people who may be traveling through troubled waters. Say the guy with the rifle starts shooting at a nearby boat and it's fishermen, rather than pirates - something that could easily happen if visibility isn't the best and/or the guy is spooked. Or say pirates are onboard and you're trying to repel them, and he decides to shoot at you rather than the pirates because he isn't trained to deal with combat situations and just starts shooting.
I'll take that risk over the risk of being captured and/or killed because I was unable to defend myself with anything more effective than strong words. Humanity has been using firearms for hundreds of years to deter this type of behavior. Why the hell is everyone so squeamish about it?
There's many ports of call where a ship would be liable to search and probable prosecution of the crew for having military-type weapons on board, including here in the US.
Then those laws need to be changed. A rifle secured in a weapons locker aboard ship is no threat to anyone.
Killing is a different matter altogether. That requires a different kind of training that you can't teach in an afternoon, and sometimes not at all.
No amount of training can prepare you to kill someone. The prospect of THEM killing YOU is a fairly effective motivator though......
Yet no do-gooder will whine about it being a weapon, especially if they're told it's fire suppression apparatus.
Maybe we should tell them that M-16s are piracy suppression apparatus? ;)
Their proclamations don't mean shit because, no counting the Yanks and us Brit's, there is no army to back up what they say. So on to more realistic things...
Its how big your gun is and how much damage you are willing to take before backing down. Why do you think they left the Yank's alone for so long?
Wow, a Brit with some balls who understands how the world works. I didn't know Margaret Thacher had a /. account ;)
I'm not sure if the american govt is just a big lumbering oaf or destabilizes the region on purpose. Either way they fuck up everything they touch.
Ah, yes, it's all our fault. Sorry, I forgot that as an American I'm responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. The Somali warlords bear no responsbility at all.
Eh, he was either snarking or trolling. I don't regard a "bounty" as a serious solution. I do question why we don't arm our merchant crews though. The pirates are using deadly force to take hostages -- deadly force is clearly justified in response.
Does it matter? I said that "we Americans have a history of..." not "the pirates have a history of..." Ask an American what comes to mind when they think of being a hostage and you'll get answers ranging from Daniel Pearl to Robert Stethem. Being a hostage rarely ends well for American citizens. Our Government (rightfully, IMHO) refuses to pay ransoms and many Americans that are captured are later tortured and/or executed to make a political point.
Is it any wonder that the crew of the Maersk Alabama seized the opportunity to fight back when it presented itself?
That's pretty ironic given your choice of username ;)
Honestly, I can understand it to a certain extent. If someone walks up to me, points a gun at me, and demands my wallet, I will give it to him. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be armed, I'm still giving my wallet because the risks inherent in a firefight aren't really worth a few dollars and the aggravation of having to replace a few credit cards and ID cards.
What makes you think he isn't going to kill you anyway once he has your wallet? By pointing that gun at you, he has placed your life in mortal danger. I'd shoot the SOB as soon as I had an opening to do so.
and have every crew member need to qualify on a shooting range to police standards.
Meaning they miss 85% of the time? ;)
After a point those explosions are gonna add up to something big.
At that point I'd say you have bigger problems than ammo cooking off, such as your ship being on fire.....
As a result, you're spending $5.22 billion at least in fixed costs, at least $35 million per year in operating costs, and what you have to show for it... will be... what? Exactly? Perhaps a half-dozen piracy incidents averted?
I agree. It'd make much more sense to give each crew member an M-16 ($600) and a .45 ($500 or so)
Sailors would have to be trained in their use. And then there is potential accidents. Whether they be accidents between personnel on board. Accidental discharges damaging cargo, ship radio, navigation equipment etc etc. Guns are just not an acceptable solution.
Training someone to safely handle a modern firearm and shoot it accurately isn't a huge undertaking. If you can you operate a modern merchant ship with all it's associated technology you can learn to aim a rifle, pull a trigger and clear it afterwards to make sure it's safely unloaded. Find a friend who has firearms and ask them to take you shooting. If you can operate your computer with enough knowledge to find your way onto /. you can learn how to safely handle a firearm.
Given that most pirates don't have a skull and crossbones tattooed onto their forehead, what standard of evidence would you propose for our brave vigilantes?
Well, it seems probable to me that four men in a speedboat armed with AK-47s probably aren't out there for the fishing for sight seeing.......