Democracy is by definition a compromise. One thing it does is allow a compromise between the rich and powerful minority and the poor and weak majority, with the former giving up some of their money and power in the form of paying taxes towards society's greater good and allowing legislation preventing slavery and so on, and the latter agreeing not to string the former up from lampposts every few years when their lives become intolerable.
The concept of "inherent rights" is meaningless when you have no power to stop , or recourse against, someone exploiting or killing you.
I agree with everything you're saying, except perhaps the implication that there is no real difference between the unelected communist government of Vietnam and western democracy. Hanoi's problem isn't just a "weak PR position". They're old school tyrants plain and simple. It's not like their people have the freedom to dissent or form opposition parties.
There is a world of difference here and it's important to acknowledge that.
If they have no freedom at all, why does the government waste time using shills to shout them down? There must be some sort of conversation going on involving government criticism, or else the government wouldn't feel they were being criticised.
And no, that is not a defence of the Vietnamese government or a statement that the Vietnamese people are as free as those in the West.
I might be missing something, but how does rating a game (or movie or whatever) as "18" impact on the ability of adults to watch it? It doesn't even stop parents letting their kids play/view it in their own home if they want to. It just means that children are limited in their ability to access adult-rated material off their own bat.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is another question.
It sets a stoploss, like cash -- if you cheat me in a Bitcoin transaction, you get at most the Bitcoins I sent you and no method to get more of my money.
Soccer does actually have higher concussion rates in youth sports than football.
Unless you use special extra-heavy balls in the US, and encourage your kids to head the ball with their temple or the back of their neck or something, I'd say that's fantastically unlikely.
I quit soccer after getting to the point where I was forced to do a few of these in practice, after which I felt like I had my bell rung. It isn't worth it.
You must not have been taught how to head the ball properly then. The basic point is that you should attack the ball with your forehead (usually) and not just let it hit you as you try to avoid it. Every kid at school here in the UK learns this by the age of about 8.
You're more likely to get injured by an accidental clash of heads as you jump up to head the ball with another player, rather than from the header itself.
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants.
That'll be because they're clinically depressed, which is to say mentally ill. You really shouldn't be surprised what happens if you let mentally ill people get their hands on lethal weapons that are easy to kill dozens of people with in a few minutes
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
Not to mention that high power hunting rifles that can kill from a half a mile away have the potential to kill far more people than a fully automatic rifle that is hard to control. See the Russian snipers during world war 2.
I don't see anyone calling for those to be banned.
Most mass murderers don't have the self control and organisational ability to conduct a sniping campaign. Also, sniping is somewhat impersonal, and from what I've read most of the shooting spree type events involve someone killing people they know, up close and personal.
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
No, the point was that without air superiority, you lose. If you start an armed uprising against the government, you don't get to decide to limit it to local infantry skirmishes with your personal choice of weapons. If the government has air superiority (and in the US it certainly does) you are stuffed from the beginning.
If you think that you and your friends with guns can have a quick firefight with the army and then everything will be forgiven and forgotten, you're living in dreamland.
Even the above statistics I threw up above are biased, because they only include rifles
Excluding handguns from a discussion about gun control is about as biased as you can get.
The rifle/school shooting issue is really a red herring, the elephant in the room is the enormous number of semi-automatic handguns in the US. If you're shooting people from relatively close range (in somewhere like a classroom) there isn't that much difference in effectiveness between a rifle and a handgun.
Slashdot Mirror
The concept of "inherent rights" is meaningless when you have no power to stop , or recourse against, someone exploiting or killing you.
I agree with everything you're saying, except perhaps the implication that there is no real difference between the unelected communist government of Vietnam and western democracy. Hanoi's problem isn't just a "weak PR position". They're old school tyrants plain and simple. It's not like their people have the freedom to dissent or form opposition parties.
There is a world of difference here and it's important to acknowledge that.
If they have no freedom at all, why does the government waste time using shills to shout them down? There must be some sort of conversation going on involving government criticism, or else the government wouldn't feel they were being criticised.
And no, that is not a defence of the Vietnamese government or a statement that the Vietnamese people are as free as those in the West.
Anyone who uses the term "left leaning" sounds like a McCarthyite neo-fascist from the 1950s, which is to say a conservative.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is another question.
It sets a stoploss, like cash -- if you cheat me in a Bitcoin transaction, you get at most the Bitcoins I sent you and no method to get more of my money.
How reassuring.
I just sold a bunch for $14.05 so I'll pass on your generous offer.
Careful, the sheer scale of a transaction like that could plunge the world economy into chaos.
Unfortunately, hockey is a cold weather sport, so that will always be dominated by whites.
That's right, there are no black people in Canada
Then where are all the brain injured soccer players?
They become managers.
Soccer does actually have higher concussion rates in youth sports than football.
Unless you use special extra-heavy balls in the US, and encourage your kids to head the ball with their temple or the back of their neck or something, I'd say that's fantastically unlikely.
I've been severely concussed from soccer. I was hit in the head three times in one game(!)
Being hit in the head by a ball when you're not expecting it is NOT the same thing as deliberately heading the ball.
Pro soccer players (the linked article is about a pro sport, yeah?) often have brain damage from taking hundreds of shots to the noggin
Bullshit, that's not something I've ever heard, do you have any evidence whatsoever?
I quit soccer after getting to the point where I was forced to do a few of these in practice, after which I felt like I had my bell rung. It isn't worth it.
You must not have been taught how to head the ball properly then. The basic point is that you should attack the ball with your forehead (usually) and not just let it hit you as you try to avoid it. Every kid at school here in the UK learns this by the age of about 8.
You're more likely to get injured by an accidental clash of heads as you jump up to head the ball with another player, rather than from the header itself.
And don't forget the boredom. The terrible, interminable boredom.
If you want boredom, try baseball. It's like a more monotonous version of cricket.
American football is Civilization.
Except that the football games appear to an outsider to last even longer.
... system of downs, the snap, the clock, the overtime rules, the shape of the ball, the field goal kick, the position of the goal posts, blocking...
...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
90 minutes played in an 80 minute game is quite impressive considering it can take over a minute to set a scrum.
He got momentarily confused with the length of matches in real football.
I don't know how well that translates into American.
The noteworthy studies seem to range from 80k to 2.6 million, but ~300k or so seemed most credible to me
You can't argue with solid facts like that.
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants.
That'll be because they're clinically depressed, which is to say mentally ill. You really shouldn't be surprised what happens if you let mentally ill people get their hands on lethal weapons that are easy to kill dozens of people with in a few minutes
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
Not to mention that high power hunting rifles that can kill from a half a mile away have the potential to kill far more people than a fully automatic rifle that is hard to control. See the Russian snipers during world war 2. I don't see anyone calling for those to be banned.
Most mass murderers don't have the self control and organisational ability to conduct a sniping campaign. Also, sniping is somewhat impersonal, and from what I've read most of the shooting spree type events involve someone killing people they know, up close and personal.
At that stage, your only choice is to build a sufficiently large mass opposition movement. Individual martyrdom won't change anything.
Too bad regular folks can't do anything when a thug shows up at their door.
That's why we have a police force. It's called civilisation.
Anyway, do you always answer the door with a drawn weapon? If not, what are you going to do? Ask them to wait while you go and get your gun?
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
No, the point was that without air superiority, you lose. If you start an armed uprising against the government, you don't get to decide to limit it to local infantry skirmishes with your personal choice of weapons. If the government has air superiority (and in the US it certainly does) you are stuffed from the beginning.
If you think that you and your friends with guns can have a quick firefight with the army and then everything will be forgiven and forgotten, you're living in dreamland.
Even the above statistics I threw up above are biased, because they only include rifles
Excluding handguns from a discussion about gun control is about as biased as you can get.
The rifle/school shooting issue is really a red herring, the elephant in the room is the enormous number of semi-automatic handguns in the US. If you're shooting people from relatively close range (in somewhere like a classroom) there isn't that much difference in effectiveness between a rifle and a handgun.
Then again, because so many other people have the exact same training and weapons, return fire will generally cut the problem short.
What bollocks. Civilians in Switzerland don't walk around with loaded weapons in public. The only return fire would be from on-duty police.