The fact that even when it was easier to own firearms in the UK hardly anyone did makes your argument utterly ridiculous.
You underestimate the will to live. There is a large difference between "probably does not have a gun" and "definitely does not have a gun", especially when the criminal has a gun.
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
In this context it is clear we are talking about the intended use of guns implicit in our decision to manufacture and allow people to carry guns. By differentiating between "killing" and "defending" the parent (to my previous post) is clearly talking about offensive and defensive uses of guns (as the sibling to this post correctly points out). We clearly and obviously do not allow "the people" to carry guns for their offensive uses (e.g. car-jacking), yet the parent (to my previous post) is claiming the parent to his post is "smarter" for implying the same.
On a small scale (a la Kent State), you are probably right, since they can simply choose a commander who is willing.
On a large scale, officers and soldiers alike would have to decide whether to obey orders. These folks all swore to defend the Constitution. Likely, anyone planning a military coup would be quietly removing those likely to defect from positions of power, so would hold onto the majority of military assets (but probably not all). However, in the event of such a coup, the majority of civilians would almost certainly be on the side of the defectors and could help turn the tide. If the civilian/defectors have moral superiority, defection will probably continue to their side throughout the conflict. (Anyone who sees their friends' head blown off will only have more reason to defect - they'll do it the second they get the chance, even if they obey orders while they're being watched.)
Heck, we're fighting a war across the world that has resulted in high-ranking officers retiring from service in disgust. Such people would not sit by while a tyrannical government slaughtered and imprisoned American civilians. Likewise, entire states may secede in which case their national guard and any military assets within the states borders would likely fall to the defecting side.
Your worst case scenario is the same as our worst case scenario, but you have less ability to defend against it, because criminals can still get guns!
Home intruders do not want to die. If I can own a gun, chances are someone will only break into my house when I'm not at home and then only to steal my stuff. Someone meaning to do my family harm might work up the courage to break into my house while I am there, but I will have the gun to defend myself.
Take away my gun and the criminal does not have to worry about being shot. He can now break into my house at any time, including when people are home. If he was only there to steal, well, he may decide to do more once he realizes the power he has over my family. If he intends to do me or my family harm, I will not have the gun to defend myself. So, if he brings a gun, he is in complete control the minute he enters.
Taking away my gun makes home intrusion (and worse) more likely at the same time it reduces my ability to defend my home.
As the burglar is picking his moment, and your gun isn't always in your hands, I doubt you get first shot.
A burglar will have a difficult time "picking his moment" if you restrict the information that leaves your house. We always leave lights and other devices on and even have some on timers, so it is impossible to tell whether someone is awake or asleep. When the burglar does pick his moment, he's going to have to make any noise while breaking a window or chain lock to gain entry. Then he's going to have to get to where I am without making any noise. And if he is just there to burgle, he's probably not going to go into the bedrooms anyway, for fear of being shot.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government.
No, that's like saying you don't have to comply with the will of a tyrannical government (democratic or otherwise). It is because these people recognize individual sovereignty and know that the government has no natural sovereignty or power.
It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
No, it's like saying if someone is going to tread on you, you're going to defend yourself. You do realize the difference between attacking civilian targets to influence policy and defending yourself against agents of a tyrannical government, right? For instance, right or wrong, crazy or sane, the Montana Freemen were not terrorists.
The people who scream bloody murder about the government taking away the guns they need to protect their rights from the government tend to the VERY SAME PEOPLE who ELECT OFFICIALS WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!
Please show me an elected official who hasn't increased government power at the expense of our rights. Since many people vote on a host of issues and often feel dis-empowered to vote for someone who truly represents them (perhaps a third party) your argument isn't particularly compelling. In fact, if anything, it supports the idea that we need our guns to keep our rights.
How many times have you heard someone say "We need guns to protect our rights!" and then say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!"
From my mouth? Never. Please don't conflate the small, but voracious neo-con movement with true conservatism as it relates to the power of the government.
How about instead of letting people say "Elect me, and I won't take away your guns!", you elect people who say "Elect me, and I'll repeal the Patriot Act!"
The guy I voted for said both. In fact, that's why he got my vote.
Your position simply makes no sense to me. You seem to be frightened of ignorant mobs but perfectly willing to let those mobs take away your gun before they tear you apart. I completely agree that people should vote out the people who fail to preserve our rights (and have an integral position). I share your anger at those who would take away our rights or empower the same. However, I fail to see why we should give away yet another right just because we've failed to protect others.
Gun deaths and gun crimes are distinct, even though they are not mutually exclusive. You cite statistics related to gun deaths, but some number of those deaths will not be crime-related and many crimes involving guns do not result in death. So, in the context of gun-related crimes the cited statistics are meaningless.
It is meangingful to discuss an increase in gun-related crime rates in the U.K. If removing guns was effective at reducing crime, we should see a reduction in rates when guns are removed. Where we see an increase it indicates at best that removing guns was ineffective and at worst that removing the guns resulted in more crime. This is true regardless of the absolute numbers, since our rate is comparing one set of absolute numbers to the same set from another time period.
You're right, it shows he's smarter than the average person, because he's able to understand that an object can have more than one function.
Smarter? He concludes that our society wants to keep guns around for the purpose of killing people rather than the personal defense, despite overwhelming evidence the opposite is true.
By definition, if you have two guys with guns, and one is defending himself, the other one is trying to kill him.
Or rob or enslave him. All quite possible without a gun, by the way.
Unless you can guarantee that the "bad guy" can't get a gun (you can't) and that the government will never use it's monopoly on guns against the populace (impossible), then your argument really comes down to wanting to take away the right to defend ourselves with guns.
If everyone was running around only using guns to defend themselves, we wouldn't need guns to defend ourselves now, would we?
No, not if we're packed with muscles, impervious to knives and other weapons, and are never outnumbered by our attackers.
Do you also advocate moving away from places like Canada and Norway rather than building heated homes?
In the context of humans adapting to nature vs. adapting nature to humans, there is no fundamental difference between preventing the icecaps from melting and putting in better flood control. We are still adapting nature to our needs (i.e. controlling nature), not the other way around. In fact, preventing the ice caps from melting is an example of better flood control.
According to the rules they were required to have an average speed between 15 and 25 mph (24-40.23 km/hr). They drive six laps for a total of 9.6 miles (15.5km).
It could also be that those with allergies tend to move away from the farms. I wouldn't last a week on a farm without some Zyrtec.
My sister and I grew up in the same environment. We lived in air conditioning, but spent most of our childhood playing outdoors in suburbs of Minneapolis. I have severe pollen-based allergies. If I do not have air conditioning or medication, I can wake up with my eyes glued shut from secretions, my throat can hurt like the worst strep throat you ever had, and my eyes and ears itch constantly. I am also mildly allergic to pretty much every food. My sister has no allergies of any kind.
My family was on the farm two generations ago, and one generation ago they still worked on the farm during the summer. Some of them have allergies, some don't.
My daughter's skin has reacted to certain foods since she was a baby.
So, I think there are probably genetic predispositions to allergies. However, I think there may be a role for environment in those who are less severely predisposed to allergies than the members of my family.
Amazingly enough there is something known as anonymity on the internet. In other words you make sure it's not easy to find your blog using whatever info you provide to your employer.
I've always view these types of things as great filters, removing the people from my life that I would not want to associate with anyway. Don't like me because I'm funny/had purple hair when I was younger/listen to Dream Theater/love Sushi/am left handed/have OMG, political views/get drunk once in a while/whatever? Oh well, have a nice life.
Who really cares what they find out about me? I don't apologize for having freedom and using it; and I accept the consequences of the same. I don't want to associate with people (including employers) who would first hunt down that information and second use it to discriminate against me in some way. With friends/employers like that, who needs enemies?
(And ya, I realize the irony in posting this as a more or less anonymous identity, but this is/. afterall.):)
Even the article makes it abundantly clear that an infection is not the problem. The real story here is the stigma attached to anything relating to mental health. That is not to say these people are not suffering. The problem is they refuse the professional's opinion out of hand. These people are so frightened of being considered "delusional" that they act in ways that make the rest of us think they are nuts:
When Miles Lawrence sped to the hospital, he was told he had delusional parasitosis and that the weird spines were "just dirt." But over the next week his symptoms got worse. He scratched at his elbows and noticed more fibers, and little black specks. "It was like they were fighting back," he says.
It is more important to Lawrence to insist he is not delusion (or perhaps there are some other incentives, such as being special enough to be written into a Popular Mechanics article, or the attention one receives when one has a scary-sounding disease such as "Morgellons Syndrome") than to end his suffering through several apparently effective cures. Those that allow treatment see the alleviation of symptoms within weeks!
Paper, sure. Money, no; they're not liquid enough. You can't pay for your/. subscription with bonds.
Which is another way of saying "counterfeiting", as the banks of which you are speaking are commercial banks... and they effectively create money, and it's all legal, so long as you're a bank.
No, its not a way of saying "counterfeiting". Banks create money through the nature of being a bank. Let's say a bank has deposits of $50 (all the wealth in the entire economy). The economy has a worth of $50, and a money supply of $50. Now let's say the bank lends out $40 of the $50. The bank has effectively created $40. So, the economy now has a money supply of $90 (the $50 owed to depositors, but the $40 in loans). However, the economy is still only worth $50. The bank owes $50, has $10, and is owed $40. The bank increased the supply of money, but did not increase wealth. This increase in money does devalue the dollar, which is why the federal reserve sets the reserve rate.
You can do the same thing. Act as a bank to your friend and lend another friend a percentage of your first friend's deposits. Ta-da, you've created money.
Which are just accounting entries.
It increases inflation until the debt is paid back. Other than that, it doesn't really matter if it is an accounting entry or a truckload of chickens. Money is just a unit of measurement. Rather than saying 1 car = 2,000 chickens, we say 1 car = $20,000 and 1 chicken = $10.
It's a great scam, if you can manage to get in on it, though.
The only way to scam the system is to print your own money, which isn't legal. A government could print money to pay for what it needs, but not without increasing inflation. This inflation would be equivalent to a flat tax on everyone holding the local currency, but won't affect the relative value of things. So 1 car will still equal 2,000 chickens, but now 1 car = $30,000 and 1 chicken = $15. You can protect yourself from this by investing in things like gold, rather than in currencies.
The mint just prints hard currency. The Fed determines the amount of money available. It does this in three ways:
1. The Fed buys and sells government bonds. To reduce the amount of money, it sells bonds. To increase the amount of money, it buys bonds.
2. The Fed determines how much banks need to hold as reserves (the reserve rate). Banks are required to hold a certain percentage of the money they hold in reserve (the rest can be loaned out). If the fed increases this percentage, banks can lend less, reducing the amount of money in the system. If the fed decreases this percentage, banks can lend more, and more money will be in the system.
3. The Fed sets the discount rate. That's the rate which banks pay for loans from the Fed. Banks need to borrow when their reserves go below the reserve rate. If this rate is high, it discourages banks from getting into that situation, thus banks lend less and there is less money in the system. If the rate is low, it has the opposite affect.
It is only emotionally that the timing of deaths is relevant. A car pileup with a deathtoll of 2500 is an emotional event. However, in terms of lives lost it is no worse than 2500 individual car accident fatalities.
So, basically, you are supporting the point of the original poster: Terrorism isn't a significant threat, but its emotional impact is being used as a lever.
Get some perspective. Do you have any clue how many people have died defending the liberties you're willing to give away because you lost an uncle?
And what about money? In my family alone, I've lost three people to cancer (and more are in remission), including my 28-year-old aunt. So I understand your loss. But I'm not demanding or defending government expendatures of insane amounts of money to cure cancer even though about 200 times more Americans die of cancer every year than die in terrorist attacks. Feel free to add heart disease and a load of other things more deadly than terrorism to that list.
And it would almost - almost - be justifiable and understandable for you to take that point of view, if the methods the government was using to fight terrorism were effective security methods that could actually prevent terrorism. They're not, though, and you're just proving the GP's point: You're being emotionally manipulated.
Don't be angry at me. Don't be angry at the GP. At this point, don't even be angry at the terrorists - they're dead.
Be angry at the people who are using your grief for your uncle and fear for your living loved ones to convince you that they need your freedom and money to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to you and the rest of your loved ones.
>> They're trying to make a buck. Are you surprised? We are well our on way to paying for email.
> Yeah ok, sure. Wake me up when SMTP is taxed by the government. Until then my mail server will happily send and receive mail.
What good is an SMTP server going to do you if no one can receive your messages because you haven't paid?
When/If ISPs charge for email, do you really believe they're going to let you run an SMTP server without making you pay for a "Premium" internet connection?
Sure, now you can just switch to another ISP. However, the GP is suggesting a world in which a critical mass of ISPs are charging for email. In such a world, a tiered internet wouldn't be much of a leap, if it wasn't already a reality.
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
Slashdot Mirror
You underestimate the will to live. There is a large difference between "probably does not have a gun" and "definitely does not have a gun", especially when the criminal has a gun.
In this context it is clear we are talking about the intended use of guns implicit in our decision to manufacture and allow people to carry guns. By differentiating between "killing" and "defending" the parent (to my previous post) is clearly talking about offensive and defensive uses of guns (as the sibling to this post correctly points out). We clearly and obviously do not allow "the people" to carry guns for their offensive uses (e.g. car-jacking), yet the parent (to my previous post) is claiming the parent to his post is "smarter" for implying the same.
On a small scale (a la Kent State), you are probably right, since they can simply choose a commander who is willing.
On a large scale, officers and soldiers alike would have to decide whether to obey orders. These folks all swore to defend the Constitution. Likely, anyone planning a military coup would be quietly removing those likely to defect from positions of power, so would hold onto the majority of military assets (but probably not all). However, in the event of such a coup, the majority of civilians would almost certainly be on the side of the defectors and could help turn the tide. If the civilian/defectors have moral superiority, defection will probably continue to their side throughout the conflict. (Anyone who sees their friends' head blown off will only have more reason to defect - they'll do it the second they get the chance, even if they obey orders while they're being watched.)
Heck, we're fighting a war across the world that has resulted in high-ranking officers retiring from service in disgust. Such people would not sit by while a tyrannical government slaughtered and imprisoned American civilians. Likewise, entire states may secede in which case their national guard and any military assets within the states borders would likely fall to the defecting side.
Home intruders do not want to die. If I can own a gun, chances are someone will only break into my house when I'm not at home and then only to steal my stuff. Someone meaning to do my family harm might work up the courage to break into my house while I am there, but I will have the gun to defend myself.
Take away my gun and the criminal does not have to worry about being shot. He can now break into my house at any time, including when people are home. If he was only there to steal, well, he may decide to do more once he realizes the power he has over my family. If he intends to do me or my family harm, I will not have the gun to defend myself. So, if he brings a gun, he is in complete control the minute he enters.
Taking away my gun makes home intrusion (and worse) more likely at the same time it reduces my ability to defend my home.
A burglar will have a difficult time "picking his moment" if you restrict the information that leaves your house. We always leave lights and other devices on and even have some on timers, so it is impossible to tell whether someone is awake or asleep. When the burglar does pick his moment, he's going to have to make any noise while breaking a window or chain lock to gain entry. Then he's going to have to get to where I am without making any noise. And if he is just there to burgle, he's probably not going to go into the bedrooms anyway, for fear of being shot.
No, that's like saying you don't have to comply with the will of a tyrannical government (democratic or otherwise). It is because these people recognize individual sovereignty and know that the government has no natural sovereignty or power.
No, it's like saying if someone is going to tread on you, you're going to defend yourself. You do realize the difference between attacking civilian targets to influence policy and defending yourself against agents of a tyrannical government, right? For instance, right or wrong, crazy or sane, the Montana Freemen were not terrorists.
Please show me an elected official who hasn't increased government power at the expense of our rights. Since many people vote on a host of issues and often feel dis-empowered to vote for someone who truly represents them (perhaps a third party) your argument isn't particularly compelling. In fact, if anything, it supports the idea that we need our guns to keep our rights.
From my mouth? Never. Please don't conflate the small, but voracious neo-con movement with true conservatism as it relates to the power of the government.
The guy I voted for said both. In fact, that's why he got my vote.
Your position simply makes no sense to me. You seem to be frightened of ignorant mobs but perfectly willing to let those mobs take away your gun before they tear you apart. I completely agree that people should vote out the people who fail to preserve our rights (and have an integral position). I share your anger at those who would take away our rights or empower the same. However, I fail to see why we should give away yet another right just because we've failed to protect others.
Gun deaths and gun crimes are distinct, even though they are not mutually exclusive. You cite statistics related to gun deaths, but some number of those deaths will not be crime-related and many crimes involving guns do not result in death. So, in the context of gun-related crimes the cited statistics are meaningless.
It is meangingful to discuss an increase in gun-related crime rates in the U.K. If removing guns was effective at reducing crime, we should see a reduction in rates when guns are removed. Where we see an increase it indicates at best that removing guns was ineffective and at worst that removing the guns resulted in more crime. This is true regardless of the absolute numbers, since our rate is comparing one set of absolute numbers to the same set from another time period.
Smarter? He concludes that our society wants to keep guns around for the purpose of killing people rather than the personal defense, despite overwhelming evidence the opposite is true.
Or rob or enslave him. All quite possible without a gun, by the way.
Unless you can guarantee that the "bad guy" can't get a gun (you can't) and that the government will never use it's monopoly on guns against the populace (impossible), then your argument really comes down to wanting to take away the right to defend ourselves with guns.
No, not if we're packed with muscles, impervious to knives and other weapons, and are never outnumbered by our attackers.
Also, watch this video: How to Avoid being Arrested by Cops
The video shows people obviously doing things both legal and illegal, and explains how they can avoid arrest and conviction.
Not when you realize they're talking about a default password.
Bruce Schneier covered the story in question awhile ago. Lots of good comments on the page, too: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/pro
Do you also advocate moving away from places like Canada and Norway rather than building heated homes?
In the context of humans adapting to nature vs. adapting nature to humans, there is no fundamental difference between preventing the icecaps from melting and putting in better flood control. We are still adapting nature to our needs (i.e. controlling nature), not the other way around. In fact, preventing the ice caps from melting is an example of better flood control.
According to the rules they were required to have an average speed between 15 and 25 mph (24-40.23 km/hr). They drive six laps for a total of 9.6 miles (15.5km).
Yeesh, you only gotta do it once. They don't even validate the email address. That's what cookies are for, lazypants. :P
Why should I have to do it at all? Do they want me to view their advertisements or don't they?
It could also be that those with allergies tend to move away from the farms. I wouldn't last a week on a farm without some Zyrtec.
My sister and I grew up in the same environment. We lived in air conditioning, but spent most of our childhood playing outdoors in suburbs of Minneapolis. I have severe pollen-based allergies. If I do not have air conditioning or medication, I can wake up with my eyes glued shut from secretions, my throat can hurt like the worst strep throat you ever had, and my eyes and ears itch constantly. I am also mildly allergic to pretty much every food. My sister has no allergies of any kind.
My family was on the farm two generations ago, and one generation ago they still worked on the farm during the summer. Some of them have allergies, some don't.
My daughter's skin has reacted to certain foods since she was a baby.
So, I think there are probably genetic predispositions to allergies. However, I think there may be a role for environment in those who are less severely predisposed to allergies than the members of my family.
Mario! No wait, he's a plumber, not a mechanic...
Amazingly enough there is something known as anonymity on the internet. In other words you make sure it's not easy to find your blog using whatever info you provide to your employer.
/. afterall.) :)
I've always view these types of things as great filters, removing the people from my life that I would not want to associate with anyway. Don't like me because I'm funny/had purple hair when I was younger/listen to Dream Theater/love Sushi/am left handed/have OMG, political views/get drunk once in a while/whatever? Oh well, have a nice life.
Who really cares what they find out about me? I don't apologize for having freedom and using it; and I accept the consequences of the same. I don't want to associate with people (including employers) who would first hunt down that information and second use it to discriminate against me in some way. With friends/employers like that, who needs enemies?
(And ya, I realize the irony in posting this as a more or less anonymous identity, but this is
Perhaps they are citing the same law the executive branch is citing in defense of its warrantless spying on American citizens.
Even the article makes it abundantly clear that an infection is not the problem. The real story here is the stigma attached to anything relating to mental health. That is not to say these people are not suffering. The problem is they refuse the professional's opinion out of hand. These people are so frightened of being considered "delusional" that they act in ways that make the rest of us think they are nuts:
When Miles Lawrence sped to the hospital, he was told he had delusional parasitosis and that the weird spines were "just dirt." But over the next week his symptoms got worse. He scratched at his elbows and noticed more fibers, and little black specks. "It was like they were fighting back," he says.
It is more important to Lawrence to insist he is not delusion (or perhaps there are some other incentives, such as being special enough to be written into a Popular Mechanics article, or the attention one receives when one has a scary-sounding disease such as "Morgellons Syndrome") than to end his suffering through several apparently effective cures. Those that allow treatment see the alleviation of symptoms within weeks!
Which are, of course, paper, too.
/. subscription with bonds.
Paper, sure. Money, no; they're not liquid enough. You can't pay for your
Which is another way of saying "counterfeiting", as the banks of which you are speaking are commercial banks... and they effectively create money, and it's all legal, so long as you're a bank.
No, its not a way of saying "counterfeiting". Banks create money through the nature of being a bank. Let's say a bank has deposits of $50 (all the wealth in the entire economy). The economy has a worth of $50, and a money supply of $50. Now let's say the bank lends out $40 of the $50. The bank has effectively created $40. So, the economy now has a money supply of $90 (the $50 owed to depositors, but the $40 in loans). However, the economy is still only worth $50. The bank owes $50, has $10, and is owed $40. The bank increased the supply of money, but did not increase wealth. This increase in money does devalue the dollar, which is why the federal reserve sets the reserve rate.
You can do the same thing. Act as a bank to your friend and lend another friend a percentage of your first friend's deposits. Ta-da, you've created money.
Which are just accounting entries.
It increases inflation until the debt is paid back. Other than that, it doesn't really matter if it is an accounting entry or a truckload of chickens. Money is just a unit of measurement. Rather than saying 1 car = 2,000 chickens, we say 1 car = $20,000 and 1 chicken = $10.
It's a great scam, if you can manage to get in on it, though.
The only way to scam the system is to print your own money, which isn't legal. A government could print money to pay for what it needs, but not without increasing inflation. This inflation would be equivalent to a flat tax on everyone holding the local currency, but won't affect the relative value of things. So 1 car will still equal 2,000 chickens, but now 1 car = $30,000 and 1 chicken = $15. You can protect yourself from this by investing in things like gold, rather than in currencies.
The mint just prints hard currency. The Fed determines the amount of money available. It does this in three ways:
1. The Fed buys and sells government bonds. To reduce the amount of money, it sells bonds. To increase the amount of money, it buys bonds.
2. The Fed determines how much banks need to hold as reserves (the reserve rate). Banks are required to hold a certain percentage of the money they hold in reserve (the rest can be loaned out). If the fed increases this percentage, banks can lend less, reducing the amount of money in the system. If the fed decreases this percentage, banks can lend more, and more money will be in the system.
3. The Fed sets the discount rate. That's the rate which banks pay for loans from the Fed. Banks need to borrow when their reserves go below the reserve rate. If this rate is high, it discourages banks from getting into that situation, thus banks lend less and there is less money in the system. If the rate is low, it has the opposite affect.
It is only emotionally that the timing of deaths is relevant. A car pileup with a deathtoll of 2500 is an emotional event. However, in terms of lives lost it is no worse than 2500 individual car accident fatalities.
So, basically, you are supporting the point of the original poster: Terrorism isn't a significant threat, but its emotional impact is being used as a lever.
Get some perspective. Do you have any clue how many people have died defending the liberties you're willing to give away because you lost an uncle?
And what about money? In my family alone, I've lost three people to cancer (and more are in remission), including my 28-year-old aunt. So I understand your loss. But I'm not demanding or defending government expendatures of insane amounts of money to cure cancer even though about 200 times more Americans die of cancer every year than die in terrorist attacks. Feel free to add heart disease and a load of other things more deadly than terrorism to that list.
And it would almost - almost - be justifiable and understandable for you to take that point of view, if the methods the government was using to fight terrorism were effective security methods that could actually prevent terrorism. They're not, though, and you're just proving the GP's point: You're being emotionally manipulated.
Don't be angry at me. Don't be angry at the GP. At this point, don't even be angry at the terrorists - they're dead.
Be angry at the people who are using your grief for your uncle and fear for your living loved ones to convince you that they need your freedom and money to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to you and the rest of your loved ones.
>> They're trying to make a buck. Are you surprised? We are well our on way to paying for email.
> Yeah ok, sure. Wake me up when SMTP is taxed by the government. Until then my mail server will happily send and receive mail.
What good is an SMTP server going to do you if no one can receive your messages because you haven't paid?
When/If ISPs charge for email, do you really believe they're going to let you run an SMTP server without making you pay for a "Premium" internet connection?
Sure, now you can just switch to another ISP. However, the GP is suggesting a world in which a critical mass of ISPs are charging for email. In such a world, a tiered internet wouldn't be much of a leap, if it wasn't already a reality.
LOL!
What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.
Things aren't that different..
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
...that Google's response will be, "If you don't want to be listed, you don't have to be listed. Bye."
It amazes me how willing people are to shoot themselves in the foot.