I didn't say I wanted any such thing. I said it was up to the courts to decide whether or not an offence had been committed, and, if not, whether legislators might decide to legislate for the future. Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Sure it does, its about the legislation of morality which is something you mentioned. Not the fake sort of legislation that would pass, not the half assed one that is the limit of US voter attention spans but true moral legislation applied to US corporate behavior.
This shows that the US has in the past created laws directed against cooperation with another, specified government. Yet US companies deal with lots of other not so nice countries. Nor is the law that they can't do X in cuba but rather that they can't do anything in cuba period. That's my point, isolationism is the only method to ensure this and since all countries have differing laws (that encroach on each others morals in one way or another) only total isolationism is a solution.
Unless you are, in fact, a Chinese sock puppet. Fucking kick ass, yet another one to add to my list of "things I have been called." I wonder if this balances that capitalist pig item.
I do so love the assumptions people make when I talk from a rational and logical point of view (to me at least), apparently we're all expected to blind never changing zealots that keep to some invisible personal party line.
They came from my previous post and apparently you can't read. Anyway.
Morals are not black and white nor can they be agreed upon by all, laws exist to set a line in the sand. You wish to set a line in the sand based on the morals of the people and so I mentioned cases where other countries go against US morals or vice-versa.
So what if a Canadian company was asked to provide emails for a police investigation into a serial murdered in a state with the death penalty?
Since to many Canadians the death penalty is immoral I take it would the company be justified in refusing? If the US had laws that force US companies to act such a way in China would it not be hypocritical to not let the Canadian company do likewise?
So you want the US to make it illegal for any US company to have any legal presence outside the US? After all who knows what horrible laws those evil Europeans might force US companies to work under. After all maybe someone will be prosecuted for distributing violent movies to minors and heaven forbid someone encroach on god's given right for the youth to be exposed to violence in all forms. Granted the Europeans may have more cause for concern, after all the US has a death penalty and their companies may horror of horrors be forced to help the police in a murder case (where the suspect is likely to face the death penalty).
So yes, unless you advocate total isolationism there is no way to avoid a US company having to follow a law in a another country which we may find to some degree immoral. Actually since I find a number of US laws immoral I say we just go straight into anarchy or small hermit communities or better yet we all just kill ourselves (the dead after all can't help perform immoral acts).
The solution to the problem in both the Windows and Unix case, are to depend on network authentication instead of local passwords. Windows, of course, makes this harder than necessary. This WAS network authentication of a sort, if I remember it's a single networked shared passwd file that is authenticated against by client. Literally every single password (encrypted) for every single person in the school was acquired with a single command line call. For example, the principal's account was cracked by someone in 3 days then an idiot started sending out emails using it soon afterwards.
Remove the SUID/SGID bit on practically everything. Problem solved. As long as there isn't an exploit in login, X11, or the kernel, you don't have to worry about local privilege escalation. You mean till someone clears the bios, boots in from a live cd and changes the permissions?
Anyway if I remember there have been a number of kernel exploits, few systems will remain secure after 5 years of no updates and when your available time is negative patching is not high on the priority list. Not to mention that teachers also use these systems and they need to have higher privileges than students.
If you're going to restrict things that much then why not go for a full out network client?
Then again in the end it may not matter much as all it takes is one person will privileges not logging out to cause problems.
Trading is nothing but a gamble most of the time.. He gambled his time and money, and like many lost out completely. And you never know, maybe the 'other trader' found an even more Efficient Market Hypothesis. Now replace "trading" with "life" in your statement, amazing how well it fits.
Guy loses key. Guy had important data on gmail account. Guy sues google. Replace guy with class action lawsuit by dozens of small businesses using gmail.
True, but it's actually because they're control freaks. Giving users a small amount of freedom can only be a good thing. They did give us freedom, bad stuff happened because teenagers will push against any restrictions. There is no small amount of freedom, there is never enough for some teenagers.
The kids should be getting punished for skipping classes in the first place. Thrown out of the library for hogging the computers for unrelated work in the second place. They were punished, they didn't care. The librarians were overworked, computer illiterate and had better things to do than stand over the computers all day long.
The ability to install programs isn't responsible in the slightest. Browser-based Java and Flash games are quite common, and will still work. And if not for games, kids would be ditching class and occupying the computers just to surf the web and other trivialities. Locking down the computers is attacking one of the minor symptoms, rather than the disease. You could use the same justifications to say students shouldn't have internet access, or computers at all... Please link me to a good multi-player no-lag java or flash fps game with comparable gameplay to quake 2. There is a BIG difference between 2 kids playing flash games and eight playing quake 2 (it spreads, everyone wants to join in) with another 8 watching the game.
Not an issue for any operating systems with any decent security. Ah yes, linux, the reason half the school student (and teacher) passwords were known (passwd file, people cracked much of it). I mean great security, took only two weeks for some freshman to get the file. Then there are all the security flaws in most OSs, not a problem if you're up to date but trying to keep all those systems up to date (with no budget of course) can't be fun. Remember IT in schools isn't paid to run a proper network, they're paid to be helpdesk monkeys for teachers. They finally updated the Win95 systems when some kid did a school wide DoS attack on all the systems. They updated them again when another kid found an IE DoS flaw and posted the necessary JS/html as a signature on the student message board (under a different students account I think).
Students are bored to death. If you give them nothing else to do, yes, that's where their frustration is going to be vented. Sure we were bored but there were plenty of other things to do. Breaking the network just became the most amusing thing for a number of students, not much else they could do instead really. As for games, well between schoolwork and gaming with friends the later wins hand down.
First of all you probably don't want students to be able to do whatever they want till a reboot. Second of all deep freeze is a last line of defense not a first. It took a single compromised system acting as a file server at my HS to let everyone play games on the network.
fail to reboot most of the machines after a power outage Wouldn't someone pressing the power button fix this right up?
require unnecessary amount of effort to make an extra application available to a particular user... It's a school they don't want suers to install apps,if they did they'd have kids failing out for skipping classes to play games in the library while making it impossible for library systems to be used for actual work (yes this happened in my HS). Then there is all the fan wanna-be hackers that'd be putting trojans on the systems.
And still control freaks everywhere are pushing for an architecture that inhibits user creativity, User creativity in schools by students generally means figuring out how to break the school network, repeatably. I think the only thing that wasn't compromised at my HS was the grade system and the main admin's password. The later was was mostly since no one cared enough to get it (it'd be quite possible to fake a problem, get someone with the pass to need to log in locally while modifying the keyboard to have a hardware keylogger). The former was rumored to be very difficult to break into and the punishment for trying was a suspension, no one card enough to risk it. Oh and the students weren't above dissembling school computers in semi-public areas (mostly to bypass hardware security devices), one library desktop lost a cpu and the server room got raided as well.
Well these particular biologists were working with cancer genes based on micro-array experiments. Of course if my old adviser is to be trusted then that the vast majority of the Stanford biologists used word for their work.
So either your statement is quite visibly false (it's quite likely that most biologists use word if those at stanford do so) or they'll all be quite surprised to know they're in a soft science. If you feel like backing up your generalization of whom uses word then please do provide your own point of reference and what experience causes you to have it. It's like an e-penis contest at this point so we may as well start putting the cards down on the table.
I have on my side my own experience, the experience of my adviser, the experiences of something like a half dozen posters in this article and apparently two very well know science journals. And I doubt science journals probably flip a coin to pick the format for their publications but rather use what most of their submitters use themselves (and that is easy for them to process). The many posts of math+physics journals using latex (as that is what mathematicians and physicists use) backs up that point fairly well I think.
To add to what the other poster said, many scientists who only need to use small amounts of math use word or similar stuff. It's faster than using tex probably and doesn't have a learning curve. This of course annoys the statisticians who need to work with them.
I'd also like to point out that Australia apparently beats the US by decent margin (ie: 100% in some cases) in burglaries, car thefts and rapes. They're somewhat lower in robberies right now but not by that much. Likewise people in the US feel safer than those in Australia but the margins aren't that big except for burglaries.
Also only 40% of homicides in the US are done with guns and the US non-firearm homicide rate is a lot higher than Australia's total homicide rate.
I predict a continual increase in the crimes rates in Australia as criminals better organize to take advantage of the almost free ride they're getting and are goign to get (police can't catch everyone and the victims can't fight back, legally even soon). I'd say homicides would be low for a while until the criminal groups begin competing then inter-gang violence would start up.
Not to be picky, but statistically speaking those countries with strict gun control laws have low homicide rates Please do provide those statistics since I always thought Norway, Finland and Switzerland were such peaceful nations. After England instituted very strict gun control laws there was no real change in homicides.
Also as a statistician I can't help but laugh at you using the term "statistically" given that by your logic you can argue than the air force should always fly bombing mission against heavy enemy numbers as in WW2 there was a very strong correlation between bombing success rates and enemies in the air (hint: both were due to cloud cover).
so yeah much joy all around for strict gun control and shit loads of misery for no gun control as a result of all the gun related homicides, resulting from a momentary flash of temper or inebriation and ready access to weapons where 'running away' provides no defence. Yes I'll take tat small number of incidents over living in constant fears of criminals who know there is no one to stop them. I enjoy not having my house constantly burglarized which is what happens in England for example.
The stupidest statement in the world is to say a law should be cancelled because some people break it, no, that is the reason the law is there, so when they get caught with illegal weapons they get prosecuted and convicted and the weapon is removed from the streets where it is a threat. The police won't get all the guns and in many areas they can't get even a sizable chunk of them (heavy crime areas).
Hand guns, their only design function is a readily portable and concealable means of killing people. Your point? I enjoy living in a country where it is not only legal for someone to defend themselves if attacked but where people have the means to do so. The police are not there and have no obligation to keep you save or save your ass if you get attacked.
Don't let us in Australia stop you, you can keep yours guns and your body count, but don't try to convince us to follow you. Your point, the crime rate in Australia has very little to do with your gun control laws. It's mostly a social issue. The US has a high crime rate due to the war on drugs and high poverty in certain areas.
Did you know that in South Australia, swords, nunchucks, shuriken, daggers, switch blades, truncheons, brass knuckles etc. are also illegal with out a permit, do I feel unsafe as a result, no, does it have a benefit, yes, it tends to reduce the bodily harm when a bunch of drunken teenagers go violently stupid. Good point, they'll just use a metal pipe or baseball bat instead now. Maybe a cooking knife or brick.
Forget the stupid American politics, laws do not stop people committing crimes they just penalise them when they do and remove them from the streets if necessary, so that they are not in a position to repeat the offence. The US has more people in prison, percentage wise, than almost every other fucking nation in the world. It does jack shit for the crime rate and we can't stick any more in jail.
Do you think a gang member cares that he gets an extra 2 year of prison for using a gun to murder someone or for possessing drugs? People who are committing crimes with decade long jail sentences do not care about the risks of committing crimes.
I live in Australia. We have fairly restrictive gun control, and consequently we have very low gun crime. ...joy, so are you one of those insane people who doesn't care what the homicide rate as long as it's not guns doing the killing? Because that is what your statement seems to imply and I don't see what else it could possibly mean rationally. It doesn't matter if someone is stabbed, shot, hanged or set on fire to death as in the end they're all just as dead.
Also mass killing are so rare in the developed world that they're only important to those people who are so media crazed as to be nearly brain dead which I must admit is most of the developed world. Not to mention that some of the most memorable mass killing in the US (and the world as a whole, look at the middle east) were not done at once or were done using explosives.
Sure, some criminals do have handguns, but that's all they can really get. With the possible exception of RPGs: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867 ,20707130-5001561,00.html
Anything bigger becomes harder to conceal. In VT two handguns were perfectly capable of killing many people. Handguns are more dangerous because they can be concealed, larger weapons aren't a big problems unless you have gang wars that resemble small wars (ie: Mexico).
The person is completely legal holding the automatic one step outside the campus. Automatic? He used two perfectly normal semi-automatic handguns save for using extra large magazines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_19
It's odd how people keep wanting to ban all these weapons because of the VT shooting which were not at all involved in it.
That's a social issues, you can give every person in Japan an AK-47 for example and you wouldn't have too many new murders. You can remove every gun from a crime ridden inner city area and they'll either stab each other, import guns, make guns, blow each other up or use one of the many other ways of offing themselves.
That is not my point. It doesn't help to make guns illegal on campus if it's easy to bring one to the campus. This deranged student isn't going to care if it's illegal or not. Fact is, he can get hold of a gun fairly easily. It's impossible to truly ban guns in the US as gangs would make sure a supply exists. Mexican drug cartels would be all to happy to send some guns up north along with the drugs and illegal immigrants. Furthermore explosives can still be made and they have caused larger death tolls than guns.
Maybe there's no cause-effect relation between law and murders. There isn't as the UK, Australia, Canada and many US cities have banned guns only to see no effect on crime if lucky (in a number of cases there was an increase in crime). Like I said, in the UK they simply switched to knives.
Not everyone is an utter spineless wimp incapable of getting adrenaline into their system without an injection. In the VT shooting a number of people sacrificed their own lives so that other could escape, they acted as human shields to hold door closed. Welcome to reality where a lot of people have a backbone, unlike you apparently.
If you have a gun for self defense than you likely know how to use it, classes exist and in a number of places they are free (given by the police). Gun ranges exist.
During 9/11 they didn't rush the terrorists because given their information it would have been beyond stupid. Pre 9/11 hijackers didn't fly planes into building, doing as the hijackers wanted would have saved more lives than a suicidal attempt to retake control.
As one of the planes showed, once people knew of what the hijackers wanted they were perfectly capable of rushing them.
Uhm, can you comprehend basic english or not? He is perfectly right, by definition if you make guns illegal the only people who own guns would be criminals (and law enforcement but then its not a total ban on guns). There may be many or a few of them but by definition his statement holds true.
Anyway in some of those places they use knives instead and kill more people than they did when they had guns. After all, why would they bother with a gun when they know their victim doesn't have one? Not only is the knife perfectly legal unlike a gun (convicted criminals can't legally own guns in most if not all of the US) but in a knife fight the criminal is probably much better off than in a gun fight. Remember that criminals are in better shape, younger, less prone to fear and are free to train with knives as much as they want (unlike guns which they can't train much with) compared to their victims.
In other places they all use guns since the main source of crime is gangs and they escalate the weapons used accordingly (their "victims" have guns in that case). Washington, DC bans almost all guns and there are tons of shootings there, the highest murder rate in the US by far actually.
In countries where guns are legal, deranged college students use them to kill their fellow students. Bringing guns onto the VT campus was/is illegal. As a result the only persons who had guns there were law enforcement and the deranged college student. Interestingly enough there is one case where a different deranged college student was shot dead by other students before he could do much damage.
So please heed your own advice and don't use statements that don't work.
I say go one better, set up an automatic system that asks questions. Basically all it does is randomly choose from a pre-existing list of responses, be it questions, pauses, hold music, evil background ranting, screaming, etc. I'd be mostly incomprehensible and make no sense when put together but thats what a few "I'm forwarding you to X" lines are there for. Don't forget to begin with a statement saying "we will be recording this conversation and by continuing you agree to give us full rights to use the recording as we deem fit" as well as one asking for their name + company. For even more fun, add in some lines that in an angry voice request that they put their supervisor on the line.
Record the responses of both sides and post them online.
Except thats beyond annoying to do every single time. FF downloads updates automatically by default with no prompting except to "please restart for the update to finish installing."
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, your post is barely comprehensible. I mean who the hell are "they" and what are you trying to say. And please do list example when you say things like "demonstrated very openly in most places."
Except that Indian "nations" are not nations, they are parts of the US. What they cannot and can do is set by the US government and by US courts, and they have no choice but to follow those decisions (or sue). They're no more "regular" nations than any of the soviet states or satellites were "regular nations."
Since he wants as little government influence as possible, he also needs to force companies to (for the sake of fairness): 1) Pay back ALL government funding they have received to upgrade their networks with. 2) Make it illegal for a company to have a government mandated monopoly. The government would likely need to pay for the infrastructure of new companies in areas where a monopoly exists (to make up for all the help it already gave the old monopoly).
The second one is most interesting and interesting if the laws reflect the monopolistic nature of a company, apparently in NYC Time Warner has to provide service to people because of its government mandated monopoly. If you complain enough they will have to do whatever it takes to give you proper service.
Not quite imho, career politicians almost need to be sellout to get elected. They care much more about power and influence and votes than anything else. Still even with such moderations tons of downright horrid laws and policies get passed as a result of the ideologue tendencies in them.
What we really need is rational (moderate) politicians who have backbones. People who can actually admit that they're probably not right in what they're doing (maybe close but maybe not) and plan accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I do so love the assumptions people make when I talk from a rational and logical point of view (to me at least), apparently we're all expected to blind never changing zealots that keep to some invisible personal party line.
They came from my previous post and apparently you can't read. Anyway.
Morals are not black and white nor can they be agreed upon by all, laws exist to set a line in the sand. You wish to set a line in the sand based on the morals of the people and so I mentioned cases where other countries go against US morals or vice-versa.
So what if a Canadian company was asked to provide emails for a police investigation into a serial murdered in a state with the death penalty?
Since to many Canadians the death penalty is immoral I take it would the company be justified in refusing? If the US had laws that force US companies to act such a way in China would it not be hypocritical to not let the Canadian company do likewise?
So you want the US to make it illegal for any US company to have any legal presence outside the US? After all who knows what horrible laws those evil Europeans might force US companies to work under. After all maybe someone will be prosecuted for distributing violent movies to minors and heaven forbid someone encroach on god's given right for the youth to be exposed to violence in all forms. Granted the Europeans may have more cause for concern, after all the US has a death penalty and their companies may horror of horrors be forced to help the police in a murder case (where the suspect is likely to face the death penalty).
So yes, unless you advocate total isolationism there is no way to avoid a US company having to follow a law in a another country which we may find to some degree immoral. Actually since I find a number of US laws immoral I say we just go straight into anarchy or small hermit communities or better yet we all just kill ourselves (the dead after all can't help perform immoral acts).
Anyway if I remember there have been a number of kernel exploits, few systems will remain secure after 5 years of no updates and when your available time is negative patching is not high on the priority list. Not to mention that teachers also use these systems and they need to have higher privileges than students.
If you're going to restrict things that much then why not go for a full out network client?
Then again in the end it may not matter much as all it takes is one person will privileges not logging out to cause problems.
Guy loses key. Guy had important data on gmail account. Guy sues google. Replace guy with class action lawsuit by dozens of small businesses using gmail.
They finally updated the Win95 systems when some kid did a school wide DoS attack on all the systems. They updated them again when another kid found an IE DoS flaw and posted the necessary JS/html as a signature on the student message board (under a different students account I think). Students are bored to death. If you give them nothing else to do, yes, that's where their frustration is going to be vented. Sure we were bored but there were plenty of other things to do. Breaking the network just became the most amusing thing for a number of students, not much else they could do instead really. As for games, well between schoolwork and gaming with friends the later wins hand down.
First of all you probably don't want students to be able to do whatever they want till a reboot. Second of all deep freeze is a last line of defense not a first. It took a single compromised system acting as a file server at my HS to let everyone play games on the network.
Well these particular biologists were working with cancer genes based on micro-array experiments. Of course if my old adviser is to be trusted then that the vast majority of the Stanford biologists used word for their work.
So either your statement is quite visibly false (it's quite likely that most biologists use word if those at stanford do so) or they'll all be quite surprised to know they're in a soft science. If you feel like backing up your generalization of whom uses word then please do provide your own point of reference and what experience causes you to have it. It's like an e-penis contest at this point so we may as well start putting the cards down on the table.
I have on my side my own experience, the experience of my adviser, the experiences of something like a half dozen posters in this article and apparently two very well know science journals. And I doubt science journals probably flip a coin to pick the format for their publications but rather use what most of their submitters use themselves (and that is easy for them to process). The many posts of math+physics journals using latex (as that is what mathematicians and physicists use) backs up that point fairly well I think.
Well, I'm sure a lot of biologists at Stanford will be surprised to learn they're in a soft science.
To add to what the other poster said, many scientists who only need to use small amounts of math use word or similar stuff. It's faster than using tex probably and doesn't have a learning curve.
This of course annoys the statisticians who need to work with them.
I'd also like to point out that Australia apparently beats the US by decent margin (ie: 100% in some cases) in burglaries, car thefts and rapes. They're somewhat lower in robberies right now but not by that much. Likewise people in the US feel safer than those in Australia but the margins aren't that big except for burglaries.
Also only 40% of homicides in the US are done with guns and the US non-firearm homicide rate is a lot higher than Australia's total homicide rate.
I predict a continual increase in the crimes rates in Australia as criminals better organize to take advantage of the almost free ride they're getting and are goign to get (police can't catch everyone and the victims can't fight back, legally even soon). I'd say homicides would be low for a while until the criminal groups begin competing then inter-gang violence would start up.
Also as a statistician I can't help but laugh at you using the term "statistically" given that by your logic you can argue than the air force should always fly bombing mission against heavy enemy numbers as in WW2 there was a very strong correlation between bombing success rates and enemies in the air (hint: both were due to cloud cover). so yeah much joy all around for strict gun control and shit loads of misery for no gun control as a result of all the gun related homicides, resulting from a momentary flash of temper or inebriation and ready access to weapons where 'running away' provides no defence. Yes I'll take tat small number of incidents over living in constant fears of criminals who know there is no one to stop them. I enjoy not having my house constantly burglarized which is what happens in England for example. The stupidest statement in the world is to say a law should be cancelled because some people break it, no, that is the reason the law is there, so when they get caught with illegal weapons they get prosecuted and convicted and the weapon is removed from the streets where it is a threat. The police won't get all the guns and in many areas they can't get even a sizable chunk of them (heavy crime areas). Hand guns, their only design function is a readily portable and concealable means of killing people. Your point? I enjoy living in a country where it is not only legal for someone to defend themselves if attacked but where people have the means to do so. The police are not there and have no obligation to keep you save or save your ass if you get attacked. Don't let us in Australia stop you, you can keep yours guns and your body count, but don't try to convince us to follow you. Your point, the crime rate in Australia has very little to do with your gun control laws. It's mostly a social issue. The US has a high crime rate due to the war on drugs and high poverty in certain areas. Did you know that in South Australia, swords, nunchucks, shuriken, daggers, switch blades, truncheons, brass knuckles etc. are also illegal with out a permit, do I feel unsafe as a result, no, does it have a benefit, yes, it tends to reduce the bodily harm when a bunch of drunken teenagers go violently stupid. Good point, they'll just use a metal pipe or baseball bat instead now. Maybe a cooking knife or brick. Forget the stupid American politics, laws do not stop people committing crimes they just penalise them when they do and remove them from the streets if necessary, so that they are not in a position to repeat the offence. The US has more people in prison, percentage wise, than almost every other fucking nation in the world. It does jack shit for the crime rate and we can't stick any more in jail.
Do you think a gang member cares that he gets an extra 2 year of prison for using a gun to murder someone or for possessing drugs? People who are committing crimes with decade long jail sentences do not care about the risks of committing crimes.
Also mass killing are so rare in the developed world that they're only important to those people who are so media crazed as to be nearly brain dead which I must admit is most of the developed world. Not to mention that some of the most memorable mass killing in the US (and the world as a whole, look at the middle east) were not done at once or were done using explosives. Sure, some criminals do have handguns, but that's all they can really get. With the possible exception of RPGs: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2086
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_19
It's odd how people keep wanting to ban all these weapons because of the VT shooting which were not at all involved in it.
Not everyone is an utter spineless wimp incapable of getting adrenaline into their system without an injection. In the VT shooting a number of people sacrificed their own lives so that other could escape, they acted as human shields to hold door closed. Welcome to reality where a lot of people have a backbone, unlike you apparently.
If you have a gun for self defense than you likely know how to use it, classes exist and in a number of places they are free (given by the police). Gun ranges exist.
During 9/11 they didn't rush the terrorists because given their information it would have been beyond stupid. Pre 9/11 hijackers didn't fly planes into building, doing as the hijackers wanted would have saved more lives than a suicidal attempt to retake control.
As one of the planes showed, once people knew of what the hijackers wanted they were perfectly capable of rushing them.
He is perfectly right, by definition if you make guns illegal the only people who own guns would be criminals (and law enforcement but then its not a total ban on guns). There may be many or a few of them but by definition his statement holds true.
Anyway in some of those places they use knives instead and kill more people than they did when they had guns. After all, why would they bother with a gun when they know their victim doesn't have one? Not only is the knife perfectly legal unlike a gun (convicted criminals can't legally own guns in most if not all of the US) but in a knife fight the criminal is probably much better off than in a gun fight. Remember that criminals are in better shape, younger, less prone to fear and are free to train with knives as much as they want (unlike guns which they can't train much with) compared to their victims.
In other places they all use guns since the main source of crime is gangs and they escalate the weapons used accordingly (their "victims" have guns in that case). Washington, DC bans almost all guns and there are tons of shootings there, the highest murder rate in the US by far actually. In countries where guns are legal, deranged college students use them to kill their fellow students. Bringing guns onto the VT campus was/is illegal. As a result the only persons who had guns there were law enforcement and the deranged college student. Interestingly enough there is one case where a different deranged college student was shot dead by other students before he could do much damage.
So please heed your own advice and don't use statements that don't work.
I say go one better, set up an automatic system that asks questions. Basically all it does is randomly choose from a pre-existing list of responses, be it questions, pauses, hold music, evil background ranting, screaming, etc. I'd be mostly incomprehensible and make no sense when put together but thats what a few "I'm forwarding you to X" lines are there for. Don't forget to begin with a statement saying "we will be recording this conversation and by continuing you agree to give us full rights to use the recording as we deem fit" as well as one asking for their name + company. For even more fun, add in some lines that in an angry voice request that they put their supervisor on the line.
Record the responses of both sides and post them online.
Except thats beyond annoying to do every single time. FF downloads updates automatically by default with no prompting except to "please restart for the update to finish installing."
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, your post is barely comprehensible. I mean who the hell are "they" and what are you trying to say. And please do list example when you say things like "demonstrated very openly in most places."
Except that Indian "nations" are not nations, they are parts of the US. What they cannot and can do is set by the US government and by US courts, and they have no choice but to follow those decisions (or sue). They're no more "regular" nations than any of the soviet states or satellites were "regular nations."
Since he wants as little government influence as possible, he also needs to force companies to (for the sake of fairness):
1) Pay back ALL government funding they have received to upgrade their networks with.
2) Make it illegal for a company to have a government mandated monopoly. The government would likely need to pay for the infrastructure of new companies in areas where a monopoly exists (to make up for all the help it already gave the old monopoly).
The second one is most interesting and interesting if the laws reflect the monopolistic nature of a company, apparently in NYC Time Warner has to provide service to people because of its government mandated monopoly. If you complain enough they will have to do whatever it takes to give you proper service.
Not quite imho, career politicians almost need to be sellout to get elected. They care much more about power and influence and votes than anything else. Still even with such moderations tons of downright horrid laws and policies get passed as a result of the ideologue tendencies in them.
What we really need is rational (moderate) politicians who have backbones. People who can actually admit that they're probably not right in what they're doing (maybe close but maybe not) and plan accordingly.