I'm sure there will be a way to remove or deactivate the tags. And i don't mean something that the manufacter will provide. YOu could probably just cut it out, or expose it to too much EM.
Well, I've got a team of 2 people. One writes 52 lines of code per day, the other 48. I fired the second guy....
I know it was just a summary description on your part, but the first one possibly uses more copy-n-paste instead of subroutines to increase the line count. Counting lines of code has been compared to comparing art work by the number of brush strokes in it or judging an essay by the number of words alone.
No they are meant to prevent murders,and punishing people who commit murders is also meant to prevent murders.
Well without the actual text of the law, i think this point is debatable. Personally i think we punish people that commit murders because they have done something wrong, not as an example to others that may be comptemplating one. Even if you could prevent murders (ala Minority Report), you'd still have the random 'crimes of passion.' Clearly a law won't prevent those.
The question is, how does the fact that some people still commit murders demonstrate that laws prohibiting murders don't prevent murders. Where's the control groups?
I assume you mean a society without murder laws, to see if the murder rates increase. Well for that to work, you'd need a society with the same moral upbringing as ours. Already thats highly unlikely. Which leaves studying small tribes in remote areas. And they will probably have murder laws, or won't because no one murders anyway, due to moral upbringing.
Which is really the only way to prevent murder in the first place; make sure to raise a society where murder is morally wrong.
Oh please. You obviously don't program or you wouldn't be worried about this.
Most software shops right custom software for clients. Software that isn't very helpful to anyone else. Microsoft and others that build apps to sell to a general public might be in trouble, but most of us will be fine.
As for the release, i can understand that a company may have broken thier trust. That sucks. But thats all the damage here; everyone that cares probably knows what Alpha means. From what i've seen, its really fucking sweet.
Well what do you want them to do? Unless they're going to include thier own library to make things look nice (which would be a horrible solution), they have to tie it to something.
I'm not really sure you can have it both ways, unless someone is will to take the core code and rewrite the parts that call gnome to call something else. I guess they could make it easier to do that, but they might not see any benefit in doing so.
They aren't meant to prevent anything. They're meant to punish someone after they've commited the crime.
Restricting guns is done before any crime is committed. I personally believe you shouldn't be punished for something you didn't (and probably would never) do.
They are padded to allow people to hit with full force while greatly reeducing the chances of splitting the skin, resulting in an open wound.
So its only supposed to stop a punch from resulting in an open wound? Said that way, it doesn't seem like the gloves are there to lessen the damage, just stop the formation of an open wound.
Now, seeing the results of boxing on some of the most famous, i don't think it'd matter much to mean if someone punching me had gloves or not. There are enough former boxers that can't tie thier shoes anymore...
A dog will protect your property when you are not at home. A gun will sit there and do nothing.
A criminal that has an illegal gun will shot the dog.
A dog know friend from foe, and will not attack a friend. A gun will kill whoever it is shot at.
A friend of mine had a rather mean dog. He would have attacked me, and most other visitors to the house, even though they were most certainly invited. Perhaps the person with the gun shouldn't be shooting thier friends. I know i wouldn't shoot mine.
Criminals will commit crimes just to steal a gun. Very few criminals will break into a home to steal a dog.
Very few criminals will break in to steal your gun. Most likely they'll want money, jewelery, electronics, etc. What you don't seem to know is that criminals usually commit more then one crime. Guess thats why they are called criminals.
A dog provides friendship, exercise, and hours of amusement. A gun is used to kill. Period.
Dogs are also like needy girlfriends; they need constant attention. They also have to be let out every few hours or will shit on your carpet, will eat out of the trash (after knocking it over) and can bring fleas and other bugs into the house. Guns are alot less maintence.
You are afraid of criminals, then go to the nearest pound and adopt a suitable breed of dog.
I suggest you move. Most places i've lived are pretty safe and i know the areas to stay out of.
If instead you insist on owning a gun out of fear, you are a menace to your neighbors and everyone else within firing range.
Bull. You act like the only people that own guns are crazy hicks that randomly fire them. You have offered no proof, and its absurd for you to suggest that someone that owns a gun is automatically a menace.
You might read your history and learn that america did gain alot of freedoms without armed revolt too. However, sometimes it is the only way.
Do you think Saddam would be in power if his people were all armed?
At the very least, he'd be too busy dealing with revolutionaries to try plotting an invasion of another country. Do you think he's going to be removed from power any other way?
Guns and violence don't protect anyone's freedom and security. All they do is make people insecure and afraid to go about their lives. In my book, that's means less freedom.
Probably because they don't know any way to defend themselves. If everyone was carrying a gun, do you think anyone would be stupid enough to try and shoot someone?
At any rate, if you want to let fear rule your life, go ahead, thats your choice. I choose not to. So far its worked out well, because i have yet to be shot.
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
Depends on who's increasing the security. If the government is in charge of it, then your freedoms are reduced, becuase for them to increase security, they have to trample on your freedom of privacy, fair trail etc. How you believe that they WON'T be watching you is beyond me. The only way for the gov't to increase your security is by watching everyone. If they don't, they'll miss someone that could harm you.
Or you could take responsibilty and take care of your personal security yourself. Learn self defense, own (and be properly trained in using) a gun. Lock your doors. It seems to me like you're lazy however, and want someone else to watch your back at the expense of other people's rights.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility
People are NOT responsible for other peoples actions. Thats completely absurd. You also seem to believe in guilt by association. This is a very dangerous belief to hold.
What makes you think you HAVE to learn Martial Arts to be able to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation?
You don't have to learn it, but if you do, it will greatly increase the chance of winning should it come down to a fight...much like a gun would.
Now, if you're well trained in the use of guns (which a responsible gun owner should be), you also can stop someone bent on causing harm if you shot them in the leg or something. Now it is probably harder to do so then shooting them, but on the other hand someone shouldn't be trying to cause you harm to begin with.
Explain to me how you can draw a parallel between a piece of sports equipment and a machine that is built with only one purpose, to kill
Boxing gloves are made to add weight and force behind a punch; ie, to cause alot more damage then you can do without them. Considering the amount of brain damage you can cause with boxing gloves (who's sole purpose is to make punches more devistating), i think he has a valid point.
Guns are weapons, designed to kill. You have no right to own one.
Yes they are. But people do have a right to own them. The basic premise of this right is for your own self defense. You have the right to protect yourself; a gun is a tool for doing so, just like karate is.
More to the point, i think the right to bear arms is in there in case the government does start to drift too far from its purpose (which is secure peoples freedoms). The frames probably thought that a revolution might be the last resort should that happen. But its hard to have one without guns isn't it?
For the record, i don't think we're at the point where we need a revolution. People still have a say in the government, even if they ignore us sometime.
Most people shot in the U.S. are shot by non-criminals who are known to the victim. If people weren't allowed to buy guns, most of these people wouldn't be shot. Are you willing to trade your so-called right to own a gun for those murders?
a) Please point us to some stats, from more then one source.
b) If someone has crossed the line and decides to kill someone, don't you think they'll try somethign else if they can't get a gun?
If the person is mentally capable of mass murder, making him physically capable is the ultimate insanity.
Problem is that just about anything can make him physically capable. He could use a car, a butchers knife, an axe, or maybe he knows karate. Or he could just drown you with a glass of water.
If you had a gun when you encounted another with a gun intent on harm, at least you'd have a chance. Without one, you probably will end up dead.
Nothing will stop people from getting guns, just like nothing will stop people from getting alcohol, drugs, or whatever else is outlawed. It seems pointless to try and stop it.
You could also say the problem is that people that should not be allowed to have guns can get access to them much to easily.
See thats the problem with this whole gun restriction stuff. All it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns; criminals have (and will continue) to get thier guns very easily through illegal means.
Just because a journalist can't hide his sources from a judge in a criminal case doesn't mean we don't have freedom of the press.
I think that'd be a big componet though. Why an informate step up to the plate if he knew the journalist would tell the feds as soon as they asked? Probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there will be a way to remove or deactivate the tags. And i don't mean something that the manufacter will provide. YOu could probably just cut it out, or expose it to too much EM.
Well, I've got a team of 2 people. One writes 52 lines of code per day, the other 48. I fired the second guy....
I know it was just a summary description on your part, but the first one possibly uses more copy-n-paste instead of subroutines to increase the line count. Counting lines of code has been compared to comparing art work by the number of brush strokes in it or judging an essay by the number of words alone.
doesn't anyone understand a joke around here?
I think its unconstitional for the feds to implement a sales tax as well.
Except that a zip code may span 2 areas with different tax rates.
Actually no, i believe the telcos own the land and poles, which is why cable has to pay to hang wires on those poles.
Because i don't want to pay taxes to a state i don't live in.
Plus they probably already caught some defective products themselves. Including a few more is no big deal, since they are already sending some back.
You've been listening to tax-and-spend Democrats
Funny that we had a budget surplus with a Democrat in office, and now that we have a republication we once again have a defeciet.
1) Tax sales *OR* 2) Tax income. Taxing both *IS* dishonorable and reprehensible,
Why? Because you say so? If we only had income tax, i bet you'd be complaining its too high.
No they are meant to prevent murders,and punishing people who commit murders is also meant to prevent murders.
Well without the actual text of the law, i think this point is debatable. Personally i think we punish people that commit murders because they have done something wrong, not as an example to others that may be comptemplating one. Even if you could prevent murders (ala Minority Report), you'd still have the random 'crimes of passion.' Clearly a law won't prevent those.
The question is, how does the fact that some people still commit murders demonstrate that laws prohibiting murders don't prevent murders. Where's the control groups?
I assume you mean a society without murder laws, to see if the murder rates increase. Well for that to work, you'd need a society with the same moral upbringing as ours. Already thats highly unlikely. Which leaves studying small tribes in remote areas. And they will probably have murder laws, or won't because no one murders anyway, due to moral upbringing.
Which is really the only way to prevent murder in the first place; make sure to raise a society where murder is morally wrong.
Oh please. You obviously don't program or you wouldn't be worried about this.
Most software shops right custom software for clients. Software that isn't very helpful to anyone else. Microsoft and others that build apps to sell to a general public might be in trouble, but most of us will be fine.
Please, go read this. Definition of theft
Then tell me copying bits is stealing.
As for the release, i can understand that a company may have broken thier trust. That sucks. But thats all the damage here; everyone that cares probably knows what Alpha means. From what i've seen, its really fucking sweet.
Well what do you want them to do? Unless they're going to include thier own library to make things look nice (which would be a horrible solution), they have to tie it to something.
I'm not really sure you can have it both ways, unless someone is will to take the core code and rewrite the parts that call gnome to call something else. I guess they could make it easier to do that, but they might not see any benefit in doing so.
So what exactly do the murder laws prevent?
They aren't meant to prevent anything. They're meant to punish someone after they've commited the crime.
Restricting guns is done before any crime is committed. I personally believe you shouldn't be punished for something you didn't (and probably would never) do.
They are padded to allow people to hit with full force while greatly reeducing the chances of splitting the skin, resulting in an open wound.
So its only supposed to stop a punch from resulting in an open wound? Said that way, it doesn't seem like the gloves are there to lessen the damage, just stop the formation of an open wound.
Now, seeing the results of boxing on some of the most famous, i don't think it'd matter much to mean if someone punching me had gloves or not. There are enough former boxers that can't tie thier shoes anymore...
A dog will protect your property when you are not at home. A gun will sit there and do nothing.
e wItem.asp?ID=486
A criminal that has an illegal gun will shot the dog.
A dog know friend from foe, and will not attack a friend. A gun will kill whoever it is shot at.
A friend of mine had a rather mean dog. He would have attacked me, and most other visitors to the house, even though they were most certainly invited. Perhaps the person with the gun shouldn't be shooting thier friends. I know i wouldn't shoot mine.
Criminals will commit crimes just to steal a gun. Very few criminals will break into a home to steal a dog.
Very few criminals will break in to steal your gun. Most likely they'll want money, jewelery, electronics, etc. What you don't seem to know is that criminals usually commit more then one crime. Guess thats why they are called criminals.
A dog provides friendship, exercise, and hours of amusement. A gun is used to kill. Period.
Dogs are also like needy girlfriends; they need constant attention. They also have to be let out every few hours or will shit on your carpet, will eat out of the trash (after knocking it over) and can bring fleas and other bugs into the house. Guns are alot less maintence.
You are afraid of criminals, then go to the nearest pound and adopt a suitable breed of dog.
I suggest you move. Most places i've lived are pretty safe and i know the areas to stay out of.
If instead you insist on owning a gun out of fear, you are a menace to your neighbors and everyone else within firing range.
Bull. You act like the only people that own guns are crazy hicks that randomly fire them. You have offered no proof, and its absurd for you to suggest that someone that owns a gun is automatically a menace.
I have a few stories to refute your claims.
http://www.jcs-group.com/what/politic/virgin.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBVi
No, i don't have any of these bookmarked. I did a quick google search. You can do the same to find other similar stories.
You might read your history and learn that america did gain alot of freedoms without armed revolt too. However, sometimes it is the only way.
Do you think Saddam would be in power if his people were all armed?
At the very least, he'd be too busy dealing with revolutionaries to try plotting an invasion of another country. Do you think he's going to be removed from power any other way?
Guns and violence don't protect anyone's freedom and security. All they do is make people insecure and afraid to go about their lives. In my book, that's means less freedom.
Probably because they don't know any way to defend themselves. If everyone was carrying a gun, do you think anyone would be stupid enough to try and shoot someone?
At any rate, if you want to let fear rule your life, go ahead, thats your choice. I choose not to. So far its worked out well, because i have yet to be shot.
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
Depends on who's increasing the security. If the government is in charge of it, then your freedoms are reduced, becuase for them to increase security, they have to trample on your freedom of privacy, fair trail etc. How you believe that they WON'T be watching you is beyond me. The only way for the gov't to increase your security is by watching everyone. If they don't, they'll miss someone that could harm you.
Or you could take responsibilty and take care of your personal security yourself. Learn self defense, own (and be properly trained in using) a gun. Lock your doors. It seems to me like you're lazy however, and want someone else to watch your back at the expense of other people's rights.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility
People are NOT responsible for other peoples actions. Thats completely absurd. You also seem to believe in guilt by association. This is a very dangerous belief to hold.
What makes you think you HAVE to learn Martial Arts to be able to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation?
You don't have to learn it, but if you do, it will greatly increase the chance of winning should it come down to a fight...much like a gun would.
Now, if you're well trained in the use of guns (which a responsible gun owner should be), you also can stop someone bent on causing harm if you shot them in the leg or something. Now it is probably harder to do so then shooting them, but on the other hand someone shouldn't be trying to cause you harm to begin with.
Explain to me how you can draw a parallel between a piece of sports equipment and a machine that is built with only one purpose, to kill
Boxing gloves are made to add weight and force behind a punch; ie, to cause alot more damage then you can do without them. Considering the amount of brain damage you can cause with boxing gloves (who's sole purpose is to make punches more devistating), i think he has a valid point.
Guns are weapons, designed to kill. You have no right to own one.
Yes they are. But people do have a right to own them. The basic premise of this right is for your own self defense. You have the right to protect yourself; a gun is a tool for doing so, just like karate is.
More to the point, i think the right to bear arms is in there in case the government does start to drift too far from its purpose (which is secure peoples freedoms). The frames probably thought that a revolution might be the last resort should that happen. But its hard to have one without guns isn't it?
For the record, i don't think we're at the point where we need a revolution. People still have a say in the government, even if they ignore us sometime.
Most people shot in the U.S. are shot by non-criminals who are known to the victim. If people weren't allowed to buy guns, most of these people wouldn't be shot. Are you willing to trade your so-called right to own a gun for those murders?
a) Please point us to some stats, from more then one source.
b) If someone has crossed the line and decides to kill someone, don't you think they'll try somethign else if they can't get a gun?
If the person is mentally capable of mass murder, making him physically capable is the ultimate insanity.
Problem is that just about anything can make him physically capable. He could use a car, a butchers knife, an axe, or maybe he knows karate. Or he could just drown you with a glass of water.
If you had a gun when you encounted another with a gun intent on harm, at least you'd have a chance. Without one, you probably will end up dead.
Nothing will stop people from getting guns, just like nothing will stop people from getting alcohol, drugs, or whatever else is outlawed. It seems pointless to try and stop it.
You could also say the problem is that people that should not be allowed to have guns can get access to them much to easily.
See thats the problem with this whole gun restriction stuff. All it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns; criminals have (and will continue) to get thier guns very easily through illegal means.
So what exactly do the gun laws prevent?
Just because a journalist can't hide his sources from a judge in a criminal case doesn't mean we don't have freedom of the press.
I think that'd be a big componet though. Why an informate step up to the plate if he knew the journalist would tell the feds as soon as they asked? Probably not.
Its in the US Constitution because its considered a human right...meaning all humans have the right, reguardless of what govenrments may say.