They would be if they were to remove blogs just because someone finds them offensive. The only difference now is the amount of people finding the matter offensive, but that shouldn't really make a difference. Censorship should be taken very seriously, and I don't find that yelling "RACISM!!!" at the top of your lungs is really grounds for censorship.
It's true that racist blogs and propaganda do alot of harm, and in a perfect world there wouldn't be racism at all. But to take away someones free speech 'just because' is equally bad.
It's like someone once said: "I don't like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it!"
I just wanted a short, to the point, explanation of how it worked, and that's what I got. Google and Wikipedia in all honor, but when you REALLY want something explained, you post a Slashdot comment!:)
Since the earth isn't flat, it can't reach all the way down to earth... And it certainly can't drag along the ground. So what's the practical use? How do people even get into the tube to begin with?
You seem to be forgetting that everything is a list of steps to be taken, in which the last step always is "profit!", and there's no profit in handing a lawsuit to a scissor-company...
I'm not a professional (nor a lawyer:D) but my own experience in this is that it depends MUCH more on the headphones themselves, than the player.
I'm used to listening to music on either my old Sony EX-71 in-ear buds, or my newer (since the Sony's are pure crap in quality) Sennheiser MX-300. They act as ear-plugs and headphones at the same time, which means I can turn the volume DOWN since I don't get bothered by outside noise as much.
And quality does matter too. Cheaper models (incidentally the Sony EX-71 too) have a pretty annoying habit of distorting higher frequencies, resulting in your ears hurting of you listen for too long, or too loud. I've never experienced this with the sennheisers, since they handle the higher frequencies much better.
So it'd really doesn't matter what MP3-player you use. Without headphones, they're quite silent anyway!:)
We recently read about something quite similar here in Sweden. An artist had found out that someone had downloaded a bootleg copy of a song he mostly performed live, remixed it and released it onto the internet crowds. When said artist found the song, he released it as his own on his new album. This was an excellent way to show how piracy _really_ works. It's not destructive. It's not anti-artistic. It won't hurt anyone if you don't take it so bloody damn serious!
This is pure genius! They HAVE solved the problem of DVD piracy for good! Here's why:
1. Company sells a DVD that won't play in 90% of peoples existing players. It'll also be a major hassle to use in the players it DOES work in 2. People will stop buying DVDs because they're a godawful waste of money, since chances are high you can't even play them. 3. People start pirating, and thus depleting all of Hollywood's funds. 4. Hollywood goes bankrupt, no more movies are produced and thus the problem is solved. If there's nothing to pirate, piracy has lost.
Didn't Google present some sort of "mobile server center" a while ago, that could be deployed practically anywhere, as long as there was a sufficient supply of electricity?
IMHO, I find this slightly disturbing. Although I can see all its benefits, I can't help but fear for the day that big, black box becomes self aware, locks its technicians inside and fuses them with its system *shudder*
In Sweden, where I live, we don't have even nearly as many guns as you. And our crime rate is still lower than yours. Admittedly, it's on the rise, but that has nothing to do with weapons specifically.
Now, how can a country where just a fraction of a percentage of its citizens own weapons defend itself against those Big Bad Guys? In your saying, we couldn't. Yet we do.
Our police doesn't have to spend lots and lots of time on gang rivalries, small time robberies and general nutjobs as your police obviously has. That leaves them plenty of time to a) stop illegal weapons from even entering the country at all and b) investigate organized crime thoroughly. Over here, it's not a big thing when a kid gets shot. It's a big thing when the police, or anyone, fires a gun at someone else AT ALL.
Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?
Yeah, it's bad, but it's essentially unsolvable. You can't get rid of it, only manage the problem, and guns are a useful tool for this.
Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort. Or atleast they should be. And they should only be allowed to trained professionals such as the police or military. The idea of giving guns to citizens is, to me, insane.
Yes, some people have no business owning a gun, but it is their right
Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country. Stop just giving them away to anyone that wants one! Have them take a license, several lessons in handling a weapon, a statement from a trained professional that indeed, this person has proven to be sane enough to own and operate a weapon. I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.
I've read countless comments about how you have to protect yourself from muggings, robberies, break-ins and what not. Shouldn't you rather ask yourselves why a thing like getting mugged practically equals getting killed? Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later. Once again, here in Sweden it's a whole other matter. If you get mugged, be it at gunpoint or with a knife, you live to tell about it and to fill out a police report. Rarely do you ever hear about someone being killed by a mugger, robber or other here. And my assumption is that it's because criminals aren't afraid for their lives here. Also, don't confuse this with the criminals escaping justice, just because we're not allowed to shoot them ourselves. Very often, more often than not, they're caught hours or a couple of days later, because there are always witnesses alive to report it to the police.
Yes, but I don't pay 30-40 bucks for a magazine. As I said, I'm ok with advertisement. Even though I find it's gotten quite distasteful over the years, I recognize its necessity. However, I don't like paying the same price for a game WITH advertisement (and spyware, on top of that) as a game WITHOUT it. There should be something to compensate for the fact that they're forcing advertisements on you.
There are free newspapers, free because they collect their revenue from ads (and they have about the same amount of ads as any other newspaper, neither more nor less). There are free ISPs (or atleast used to be) that gave you internet access for free, provided that you look at, or click, some ads now and then.
Advertisement shouldn't be forced on you like this without giving something back. Especially when they don't even give you a choice.
If i buy BF2142, which I won't, then I've already given my share to the developers and anyone else that deserves to get paid. It would be a whole other matter if the game was free, or significantly cheaper, but it's not.
Basically, I PAY lots of money to GET ads, and there's not even a way to pay MORE to get RID of them!
What does my ideas have to do with how old I am? And why is this thought so funny to you?
I don't see how people dying every day for absolutely nothing is funny at all. Weapons do nothing but create hurt and fear, you can't deny that. Even your own perception of "safety" with a gun in your hand, is someone elses fear of getting shot.
And yes, I am being realistic. There is ALWAYS a chance someone will go along another path if they don't have a gun. If you're the one denying that, then you're the one that shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon at all.
Weapons are a dangerous thing, no matter how trained or skilled you are. It can always jam, break or go off unintentionally, not to mention the human factor in handling them. There really isn't any excuse to allow them for anyone regardless, it's just a surefire way to get someone hurt or killed.
Well, that only applies in a world where someone could get their eye poked out, and be fine with it because it's his punishment. Sadly, that's not how someone who would poke someones eye out in the beginning works. The one who did the first eye-taking obviously thought he had a reason for it, and thus he thinks it's fair. When someone then comes and takes HIS eye, he'll think that's unfair. And that's when hell go on a one-eyed eye-gouging spree.
There's really no such thing as morality. There's only what one considers fair to themselves, and what they consider fair to everyone else. Sadly, that's the truth.
Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.
Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?
And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.
A knife is better than a gun, since you have an infintely greater chance if disarming someone 2 feet away, than someone 10 feet away. Once again, you seem to be under the impression that I think banning guns will magically do away with crime. I don't. It's step in right direction!
You're funny.
You're sad.
Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
so 100 kids dying every year for no reason whatsoever isn't really that bad? Seriously, tell that to the face of the parents who lost their children. And who would leave a gun loaded and with the safety off? Lots of people, that's who. Do you seriously think that everyone that owns a weapon knows how to use it? I wonder which one of us that's really living in a fantasy world.
Taking my argument and exaggerating it is not an automatic "I win"-button.
I didn't say guns should be outlawed in its entirety. If criminals have them, then police has to have them aswell, in order to take them away from criminals. But regular people aren't the police, and should stop thinking they are. If the police didn't have to worry about regular people killing regular people with guns they can legally own, they'd have plenty more time to take the guns away from the people you claim you're only defending yourself against.
And who ever said anything about a war against guns? Please, if you want to appear the least bit intelligent, try to stick to the actuall discussion without making things up:)
Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.
Don't think whether the robber will run away or kill someone, think of why he's robbing anyone at all. He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.
Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone, or atleast not by robbing someone at length away where he can't get hurt, but has to come in close with a knife or whatever, in a position where he can be taken down even by someone WITHOUT a weapon. Gasp! Stranger things have happened.
Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.
Crime won't stop itself, and if guns can't kill people then they can't stop violence either.
I wasn't comparing anything with Bully, I was speaking of "violent" games in general. And since GTA has been made such a big example of in the past, I chose to address it.
I haven't played Bully (has anyone here?), so I couldn't compare it to GTA or anything at all even if I wanted to.
You take my first eye. I take your first eye in revenge. You take my second eye in revenge of your first. I (somehow, while being blind o_O) take YOUR second eye in revenge of MY second eye.
That leaves us both blind, as far as I can see. (pun intended)
I'd be might interested in the name of that particular country:)
First off, I simply estimated the number of citizens in your country. I never said that all of them carried guns. Actually, I stated the opposite:)
And I know you didn't just go there! So you think you saved the world, do you? Were you in WWII? Were your buddies? Even your parents? I have all the respect in the world for those that actually fought in the war, but none for the brats that try to abuse it to their own end.
While we're there, how about you take a look at your own hands, and tell me if all the native american blood was worth not having to speak british english or, god forbid, learning the language of all the natives you brutally murdered and harassed so that you could have a country of your own at all.
"You don't win a war, you survive it". Read that sentence a couple of times, and think about what it means.
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.
You're joking, right? Guns in the hands of the populace work to keep crime down. I don't even know where you got the classroom thing.
We're not talking crime. A kid killing another kid because he's angry, doesn't know better and happens to know where his father keeps his revolver has NOTHING to do with crime. It's easy access and bad parenting, and NOTHING more.
If he did, he'd get rid of guns
Yeah right, like anybody has that power.
He obviously thinks he has the power to regulate what 300 million americans do in their free time. Why can't he have the same delusions of grandeur and work for removing all the guns?
And no, it's not guns that kill people. Not people either. It's people with guns that kill people!
Have you ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"? It applies here too. You want a gun because someone else _might_ have one. And if you definitely have one, then the one who _might_ have one is definitely, definitely going to have one. And if he has one gun, why don't you carry two? And keep one in your closet? And one in the kitchen? And one...
I think you see where I'm going with this.
There's always going to be crime. Always. No matter if you carry a gun or not. But it's your duty to do something AGAINST it, and I suggest you do this by not making the problem worse.
Remember what we're actually discussing. It's not crime. It's kids killing other kids because everyone's afraid of themselves! And they're not carrying guns to keep from getting mugged. They're only out to hurt others, kill teachers and friends. It has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with there being guns all around them.
Slashdot Mirror
They would be if they were to remove blogs just because someone finds them offensive. The only difference now is the amount of people finding the matter offensive, but that shouldn't really make a difference. Censorship should be taken very seriously, and I don't find that yelling "RACISM!!!" at the top of your lungs is really grounds for censorship.
It's true that racist blogs and propaganda do alot of harm, and in a perfect world there wouldn't be racism at all. But to take away someones free speech 'just because' is equally bad.
It's like someone once said:
"I don't like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it!"
Thankyou for your insightful explanation.
:)
I just wanted a short, to the point, explanation of how it worked, and that's what I got. Google and Wikipedia in all honor, but when you REALLY want something explained, you post a Slashdot comment!
How does a space elevator work?
Since the earth isn't flat, it can't reach all the way down to earth... And it certainly can't drag along the ground. So what's the practical use? How do people even get into the tube to begin with?
I didn't mean them specifically. I was talking of both the Sonys and the Sennheisers, both of which are in-ear buds which both act as ear-plugs.
Don't nitpick just for the sake of nitpicking...
You seem to be forgetting that everything is a list of steps to be taken, in which the last step always is "profit!", and there's no profit in handing a lawsuit to a scissor-company...
I'm not a professional (nor a lawyer :D) but my own experience in this is that it depends MUCH more on the headphones themselves, than the player.
:)
I'm used to listening to music on either my old Sony EX-71 in-ear buds, or my newer (since the Sony's are pure crap in quality) Sennheiser MX-300. They act as ear-plugs and headphones at the same time, which means I can turn the volume DOWN since I don't get bothered by outside noise as much.
And quality does matter too. Cheaper models (incidentally the Sony EX-71 too) have a pretty annoying habit of distorting higher frequencies, resulting in your ears hurting of you listen for too long, or too loud. I've never experienced this with the sennheisers, since they handle the higher frequencies much better.
So it'd really doesn't matter what MP3-player you use. Without headphones, they're quite silent anyway!
I, for one, welcome our new iPodian overlords.
We recently read about something quite similar here in Sweden. An artist had found out that someone had downloaded a bootleg copy of a song he mostly performed live, remixed it and released it onto the internet crowds. When said artist found the song, he released it as his own on his new album. This was an excellent way to show how piracy _really_ works. It's not destructive. It's not anti-artistic. It won't hurt anyone if you don't take it so bloody damn serious!
Hey, atleast maybe this will get rid of the growing obesity? What with all the running around the house and all...
This is pure genius! They HAVE solved the problem of DVD piracy for good! Here's why:
...profit!
1. Company sells a DVD that won't play in 90% of peoples existing players. It'll also be a major hassle to use in the players it DOES work in
2. People will stop buying DVDs because they're a godawful waste of money, since chances are high you can't even play them.
3. People start pirating, and thus depleting all of Hollywood's funds.
4. Hollywood goes bankrupt, no more movies are produced and thus the problem is solved. If there's nothing to pirate, piracy has lost.
ps.
5.
ds.
Didn't Google present some sort of "mobile server center" a while ago, that could be deployed practically anywhere, as long as there was a sufficient supply of electricity?
IMHO, I find this slightly disturbing. Although I can see all its benefits, I can't help but fear for the day that big, black box becomes self aware, locks its technicians inside and fuses them with its system *shudder*
In Sweden, where I live, we don't have even nearly as many guns as you. And our crime rate is still lower than yours. Admittedly, it's on the rise, but that has nothing to do with weapons specifically.
Now, how can a country where just a fraction of a percentage of its citizens own weapons defend itself against those Big Bad Guys? In your saying, we couldn't. Yet we do.
Our police doesn't have to spend lots and lots of time on gang rivalries, small time robberies and general nutjobs as your police obviously has. That leaves them plenty of time to a) stop illegal weapons from even entering the country at all and b) investigate organized crime thoroughly. Over here, it's not a big thing when a kid gets shot. It's a big thing when the police, or anyone, fires a gun at someone else AT ALL.
Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?
Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort. Or atleast they should be. And they should only be allowed to trained professionals such as the police or military. The idea of giving guns to citizens is, to me, insane.
Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country. Stop just giving them away to anyone that wants one! Have them take a license, several lessons in handling a weapon, a statement from a trained professional that indeed, this person has proven to be sane enough to own and operate a weapon. I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.
I've read countless comments about how you have to protect yourself from muggings, robberies, break-ins and what not. Shouldn't you rather ask yourselves why a thing like getting mugged practically equals getting killed? Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later. Once again, here in Sweden it's a whole other matter. If you get mugged, be it at gunpoint or with a knife, you live to tell about it and to fill out a police report. Rarely do you ever hear about someone being killed by a mugger, robber or other here. And my assumption is that it's because criminals aren't afraid for their lives here.
Also, don't confuse this with the criminals escaping justice, just because we're not allowed to shoot them ourselves. Very often, more often than not, they're caught hours or a couple of days later, because there are always witnesses alive to report it to the police.
Yes, but I don't pay 30-40 bucks for a magazine. As I said, I'm ok with advertisement. Even though I find it's gotten quite distasteful over the years, I recognize its necessity. However, I don't like paying the same price for a game WITH advertisement (and spyware, on top of that) as a game WITHOUT it. There should be something to compensate for the fact that they're forcing advertisements on you.
There are free newspapers, free because they collect their revenue from ads (and they have about the same amount of ads as any other newspaper, neither more nor less). There are free ISPs (or atleast used to be) that gave you internet access for free, provided that you look at, or click, some ads now and then.
Advertisement shouldn't be forced on you like this without giving something back. Especially when they don't even give you a choice.
Seriously, what the hell?
If i buy BF2142, which I won't, then I've already given my share to the developers and anyone else that deserves to get paid. It would be a whole other matter if the game was free, or significantly cheaper, but it's not.
Basically, I PAY lots of money to GET ads, and there's not even a way to pay MORE to get RID of them!
It's not a bug, it's a feature :)
What does my ideas have to do with how old I am? And why is this thought so funny to you?
I don't see how people dying every day for absolutely nothing is funny at all. Weapons do nothing but create hurt and fear, you can't deny that. Even your own perception of "safety" with a gun in your hand, is someone elses fear of getting shot.
And yes, I am being realistic. There is ALWAYS a chance someone will go along another path if they don't have a gun. If you're the one denying that, then you're the one that shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon at all.
Weapons are a dangerous thing, no matter how trained or skilled you are. It can always jam, break or go off unintentionally, not to mention the human factor in handling them. There really isn't any excuse to allow them for anyone regardless, it's just a surefire way to get someone hurt or killed.
Well, that only applies in a world where someone could get their eye poked out, and be fine with it because it's his punishment. Sadly, that's not how someone who would poke someones eye out in the beginning works. The one who did the first eye-taking obviously thought he had a reason for it, and thus he thinks it's fair. When someone then comes and takes HIS eye, he'll think that's unfair. And that's when hell go on a one-eyed eye-gouging spree.
There's really no such thing as morality. There's only what one considers fair to themselves, and what they consider fair to everyone else. Sadly, that's the truth.
Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.
Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?
And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.
A knife is better than a gun, since you have an infintely greater chance if disarming someone 2 feet away, than someone 10 feet away. Once again, you seem to be under the impression that I think banning guns will magically do away with crime. I don't. It's step in right direction!
You're funny.
You're sad.
Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.
so 100 kids dying every year for no reason whatsoever isn't really that bad? Seriously, tell that to the face of the parents who lost their children.
And who would leave a gun loaded and with the safety off? Lots of people, that's who. Do you seriously think that everyone that owns a weapon knows how to use it? I wonder which one of us that's really living in a fantasy world.
Taking my argument and exaggerating it is not an automatic "I win"-button.
:)
I didn't say guns should be outlawed in its entirety. If criminals have them, then police has to have them aswell, in order to take them away from criminals. But regular people aren't the police, and should stop thinking they are. If the police didn't have to worry about regular people killing regular people with guns they can legally own, they'd have plenty more time to take the guns away from the people you claim you're only defending yourself against.
And who ever said anything about a war against guns? Please, if you want to appear the least bit intelligent, try to stick to the actuall discussion without making things up
Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.
Don't think whether the robber will run away or kill someone, think of why he's robbing anyone at all. He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.
Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone, or atleast not by robbing someone at length away where he can't get hurt, but has to come in close with a knife or whatever, in a position where he can be taken down even by someone WITHOUT a weapon. Gasp! Stranger things have happened.
Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.
Crime won't stop itself, and if guns can't kill people then they can't stop violence either.
People kill people, but people also stop crime.
I'm sorry, I was being vague.
I wasn't comparing anything with Bully, I was speaking of "violent" games in general. And since GTA has been made such a big example of in the past, I chose to address it.
I haven't played Bully (has anyone here?), so I couldn't compare it to GTA or anything at all even if I wanted to.
You take my first eye. I take your first eye in revenge. You take my second eye in revenge of your first. I (somehow, while being blind o_O) take YOUR second eye in revenge of MY second eye.
:)
That leaves us both blind, as far as I can see. (pun intended)
I'd be might interested in the name of that particular country
no?
Well, I thought so...
First off, I simply estimated the number of citizens in your country. I never said that all of them carried guns. Actually, I stated the opposite :)
And I know you didn't just go there! So you think you saved the world, do you? Were you in WWII? Were your buddies? Even your parents?
I have all the respect in the world for those that actually fought in the war, but none for the brats that try to abuse it to their own end.
While we're there, how about you take a look at your own hands, and tell me if all the native american blood was worth not having to speak british english or, god forbid, learning the language of all the natives you brutally murdered and harassed so that you could have a country of your own at all.
"You don't win a war, you survive it". Read that sentence a couple of times, and think about what it means.
We're not talking crime. A kid killing another kid because he's angry, doesn't know better and happens to know where his father keeps his revolver has NOTHING to do with crime. It's easy access and bad parenting, and NOTHING more.
He obviously thinks he has the power to regulate what 300 million americans do in their free time. Why can't he have the same delusions of grandeur and work for removing all the guns?
And no, it's not guns that kill people. Not people either.
It's people with guns that kill people!
Nice. Really nice.
Have you ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"? It applies here too. You want a gun because someone else _might_ have one. And if you definitely have one, then the one who _might_ have one is definitely, definitely going to have one. And if he has one gun, why don't you carry two? And keep one in your closet? And one in the kitchen? And one...
I think you see where I'm going with this.
There's always going to be crime. Always. No matter if you carry a gun or not. But it's your duty to do something AGAINST it, and I suggest you do this by not making the problem worse.
Remember what we're actually discussing. It's not crime. It's kids killing other kids because everyone's afraid of themselves! And they're not carrying guns to keep from getting mugged. They're only out to hurt others, kill teachers and friends. It has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with there being guns all around them.