A hundred years ago, no one would have thought a free country would assign each citizen an ID number, then track them from job to job stealing 10-50% of their earnings for the state.
Or, to put it another way, if there's any possible benefit in it for the State, sooner or later they'll do it.
>One of the services the United States performs
>for the rest of the world is providing a
>practical example of the above logic for
>examination. Shame they're willing to sacrifice
>so many of their own in the process.
Too bad logical != true.
The parts of the US with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates. The parts of Canada with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates.
Now, the parts of the UK with the most guns have the highest violent crime rates.
The best thing (from your point of view) that can be said about the availability of guns and their effect on violent crime rates is that there doesn't appear to be any reproducible correlation. At worst, one could construct a valid argument that gun availability actually reduces violent crime, something there is at least evidence for.
Parts of the US have high violent crime rates for many sociological reasons (mostly in areas of high poverty and correspondingly high drug usage). The availability of guns won't fix that any more than the illegal nature of guns in Northern Ireland fixed their problems, or the lack of firearms in Japan affects one of the world's highest suicide rates.
So if the first clones turn out OK, will you stop believing in souls. Or will you decide that God likes clones and stepped in at the appropriate time to provide it with one?
The Common Law of England and the governments that evolved from British colonialism is mostly based on precedent.
That would therefore include the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and probably several other nations at least where the courts make up a fair body of law as they go along.
Of course, as much of the Common Law was not favourable to governments, they don't much teach us about that heritage anymore.
djbdns (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html) works very well and has no known security holes. It's also a lot more flexible and in some situations much less resource intensive than BIND.
Re:Accidents, far more than firearms
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Yep, despite all the gun control measures introduced in the last 50 years. Hmm, maybe something other than firearm availability is at fault?
Why does it matter why you got the shit kicked out of you? Who is the mind reader who's supposed to separate one kind of assault from another based on the thoughts of the perpetrator?
Why not just punish the person who kicked the shit out of you?
>What proof is there that civilians carrying
>weapons reduces crime?
Who gives a shit?
It's a freedom issue. It means you have to prove that reducing law-abiding citizens' access to guns substantially decreases crime in order to justify decreasing their freedom.
Gun owners don't need to prove anything, any more than you need to prove that your right to speak is somehow beneficial to society to be guaranteed that right.
>OK Alan, put your money where your mouth is. Find
>me one link to a Salon article that espouses the
>simple-minded opinion you ascribe to the "PC
>Crowd".
I've seen more extreme examples but can't find them at the moment.
>Then tell me a story about how you've suffered
>from anti-white racism.
I haven't. Nor has anyone I know, in practice. I don't recall saying I had.
Look, I would never in a million years argue that anti-white racism is anything like the racism that African-Americans have suffered. But I cannot buy into the theory that past injustice makes the blatent racism of assholes like Farrakhan somehow less serious. Racism is racism, period.
>it's rarely (or never) in a way that really
>matters (loans, promotions, housing, etc.)
Absolutely. Except when some guy gets pulled out of a truck and beaten to death, just for being white. That sort of matters.
>Deep down, you know this, but it riles you that
>you're being held responsible for something you
>had no direct hand in. Life's a bitch, eh?
I really don't give it much thought. Fortunately, I live in Canada. We don't have nearly the racial strife (or the historical reasons for it) that the US has to deal with.
>not to mention that your percentages add up to
>110%
doh! I really need to proof-read...
Yes, I'm aware our population here is very diverse. I was referring to workers in the computer industry, that I am familiar with (and mostly guessing at that, just to compare with the guy posting about Calgary).
In Vancouver it's probably 50% white (that includes quite a few British, South African and eastern European immigrants), 40% Oriental and 20% east Indians. I've never met a single black person in the tech industry in Canada. Of course, they comprise a tiny percentage of the population here, so that's not a surprise.
>I think he means racism, as he said. Unless
>racism means something different in the States -
>everywhere else it can apply to anti-white as
>much as anti-black predjudice.
According to the PC crowd, there is no such thing as anti-white racism. It's simply not possible for historical oppressors to be oppressed. Or something stupid like that. Read Salon for a few weeks, someone will spell it out.
Yeah, but even if there were somewhere for everyone to go, you couldn't get them there. Millions of people are born every day. You just can't transport that kind of population anywhere that they can't walk to.
Besides, as others have pointed out, there's lots of room left on Earth and population growth levels off eventually anyhow. Now, not everyone will be able to drive an SUV, but they'll have room to live.
I thought Nixon started the war on drugs? Carter sure didn't do anything to stop it, and neither did Clinton, so don't get too off on the Republicans for that bone-headedness. I didn't hear Gore promising to end it either.
None of the alphabet-soup agencies are constitutional. Laws are supposed to be created by Congress, not the EPA, FCC, etc. Thanks to FDR for starting that mess.
Of course, ever since Abe decided to take on the South, the constitution hasn't meant much to the Feds.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they didn't need them to be safe. They needed them to be free ...
Yeah, well, hate crimes in Canada can consist of just saying offensive things. And worse, at least here in BC, they're not judged in regular court.
You get judged by a PC thought-crime panel appointed by the government, without any common law protection whatsoever.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Talk to 4 or 5 reporters and ask them what a comet is and how the tail forms.
You'll probably understand the scientists' perspective after a few minutes.
Anyone who can "see" Earth would know there's life here. Free oxygen in the atmosphere is a dead giveaway.
A hundred years ago, no one would have thought a free country would assign each citizen an ID number, then track them from job to job stealing 10-50% of their earnings for the state.
Or, to put it another way, if there's any possible benefit in it for the State, sooner or later they'll do it.
>One of the services the United States performs
>for the rest of the world is providing a
>practical example of the above logic for
>examination. Shame they're willing to sacrifice
>so many of their own in the process.
Too bad logical != true.
The parts of the US with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates. The parts of Canada with the most guns have the lowest violent crime rates.
Now, the parts of the UK with the most guns have the highest violent crime rates.
The best thing (from your point of view) that can be said about the availability of guns and their effect on violent crime rates is that there doesn't appear to be any reproducible correlation. At worst, one could construct a valid argument that gun availability actually reduces violent crime, something there is at least evidence for.
Parts of the US have high violent crime rates for many sociological reasons (mostly in areas of high poverty and correspondingly high drug usage). The availability of guns won't fix that any more than the illegal nature of guns in Northern Ireland fixed their problems, or the lack of firearms in Japan affects one of the world's highest suicide rates.
Yeah, it'd be horrible if we could get rid of those genetic diseases, or if we could make our kids smarter or stronger or more likely to live longer.
It's almost as bad as making corn that doesn't need pesticides.
Geesh. Let's get out and start protesting now before these awful things happen.
So if the first clones turn out OK, will you stop believing in souls. Or will you decide that God likes clones and stepped in at the appropriate time to provide it with one?
The Common Law of England and the governments that evolved from British colonialism is mostly based on precedent.
That would therefore include the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and probably several other nations at least where the courts make up a fair body of law as they go along.
Of course, as much of the Common Law was not favourable to governments, they don't much teach us about that heritage anymore.
djbdns (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html) works very well and has no known security holes. It's also a lot more flexible and in some situations much less resource intensive than BIND.
Yep, despite all the gun control measures introduced in the last 50 years. Hmm, maybe something other than firearm availability is at fault?
Columbia was the first. And Endeavour would come before Enterprise, alphabetically.
Why does it matter why you got the shit kicked out of you? Who is the mind reader who's supposed to separate one kind of assault from another based on the thoughts of the perpetrator?
Why not just punish the person who kicked the shit out of you?
>What proof is there that civilians carrying
>weapons reduces crime?
Who gives a shit?
It's a freedom issue. It means you have to prove that reducing law-abiding citizens' access to guns substantially decreases crime in order to justify decreasing their freedom.
Gun owners don't need to prove anything, any more than you need to prove that your right to speak is somehow beneficial to society to be guaranteed that right.
I suggested to a Debian developer the other day that modifying the Debian BIND config to make use of OpenNIC name servers might be nice.
Something like this could really kickstart an alternate root system.
>OK Alan, put your money where your mouth is. Find
i nd ex.html
>me one link to a Salon article that espouses the
>simple-minded opinion you ascribe to the "PC
>Crowd".
http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/06/25/racism/
I've seen more extreme examples but can't find them at the moment.
>Then tell me a story about how you've suffered
>from anti-white racism.
I haven't. Nor has anyone I know, in practice. I don't recall saying I had.
Look, I would never in a million years argue that anti-white racism is anything like the racism that African-Americans have suffered. But I cannot buy into the theory that past injustice makes the blatent racism of assholes like Farrakhan somehow less serious. Racism is racism, period.
>it's rarely (or never) in a way that really
>matters (loans, promotions, housing, etc.)
Absolutely. Except when some guy gets pulled out of a truck and beaten to death, just for being white. That sort of matters.
>Deep down, you know this, but it riles you that
>you're being held responsible for something you
>had no direct hand in. Life's a bitch, eh?
I really don't give it much thought. Fortunately, I live in Canada. We don't have nearly the racial strife (or the historical reasons for it) that the US has to deal with.
>not to mention that your percentages add up to
...
>110%
doh! I really need to proof-read
Yes, I'm aware our population here is very diverse. I was referring to workers in the computer industry, that I am familiar with (and mostly guessing at that, just to compare with the guy posting about Calgary).
Nice stats, though, thanks for the post.
In Vancouver it's probably 50% white (that includes quite a few British, South African and eastern European immigrants), 40% Oriental and 20% east Indians. I've never met a single black person in the tech industry in Canada. Of course, they comprise a tiny percentage of the population here, so that's not a surprise.
>I think he means racism, as he said. Unless
>racism means something different in the States -
>everywhere else it can apply to anti-white as
>much as anti-black predjudice.
According to the PC crowd, there is no such thing as anti-white racism. It's simply not possible for historical oppressors to be oppressed. Or something stupid like that. Read Salon for a few weeks, someone will spell it out.
um, the Normans were Vikings, not French.
Yeah, but even if there were somewhere for everyone to go, you couldn't get them there. Millions of people are born every day. You just can't transport that kind of population anywhere that they can't walk to.
Besides, as others have pointed out, there's lots of room left on Earth and population growth levels off eventually anyhow. Now, not everyone will be able to drive an SUV, but they'll have room to live.
I thought Nixon started the war on drugs? Carter sure didn't do anything to stop it, and neither did Clinton, so don't get too off on the Republicans for that bone-headedness. I didn't hear Gore promising to end it either.
None of the alphabet-soup agencies are constitutional. Laws are supposed to be created by Congress, not the EPA, FCC, etc. Thanks to FDR for starting that mess.
Of course, ever since Abe decided to take on the South, the constitution hasn't meant much to the Feds.
The author should make it so you can boot FreeBSD off a vinum volume. _That_ would be useful.