Goto in common lisp isn't actually called goto (can't remember what it is called), but it's definitely in there -- how else would you write the macros for all the common control structures? The primitives of Common Lisp are actually very imperative in their flavour.
Actually, it does. There's a saying about an armed society being a polite society.
There's also a saying about all Americans being gun-loving nutcases. Both sayings, no doubt, are somewhat short of the truth.
There hasn't been a serious problem with them using violence to get their way.
I said using the threat of violence to get their own way.
There has been a big problem with criminals using violence, but those criminals usually have weapons illegally: they have no permits, the guns are stolen, or worse the guns are outright illegal (automatic weapons). The guns laws don't seem to keep the criminals from carrying guns they aren't supposed to.
Most gun crimes are committed with legally owned weapons, and having lots of legally owned weapons makes it much easier to get hold of an illegal weapon (as there are simply more guns around to get stolen, lent to friends, etc.) Here in the UK, it's very rare for criminals to be armed because most guns are illegal. In the US, it's more common because they are legal. Of course some criminals still get their hands on guns, but it's less common if guns are illegal.
So now you're advocating outright oppression? Let me guess, you think Kim Jong Il is a great leader.
The point of police is to keep order and to investigate crimes so that people don't form lynch mobs. Only in police states is their role to oppress the people. I'd rather not live in one of those.
The police have to have more power than your average citizen if they are going to keep order or prevent lynch mobbing. I don't like the police having power over me, but the alternative is for some other group of people to have power over me without any democratic mandate (perhaps the local lynch mob, or whoever).
Would you care to explain that? How criminals, who by definition break the law, don't follow the laws saying they can't own weapons?
Because they can get into more trouble for an additional offence. I linked to an article about that in another post on this thread. Criminals are not by definition people who break the law. They are by definition people who have broken the law. The fact that someone has broken the law doesn't necessarily imply that they will merrily go on offending without regard to the likely consequences.
Now, how does allowing normal citizens to own weapons affect this at all?
Because it massively reduces the number of guns in circulation, and reduces criminal access to guns. It also (obviously) cuts down on the enormous amount of gun crime committed with legally owned weapons.
One of the big reasons for allowing people to own weapons is that they can overthrow the government if necessary. Sure, with the police and military, that's not that likely, but it's a question of numbers. A small group of radicals is not going to have the weaponry necessary to harm the government; the regular military is much more powerful. But when a large majority of the population doesn't want the government any more, then the govt has a problem. They can't exactly bomb their own cities.
Sure, but that argument holds whether or not ordinary citizens have easy access to guns, doesn't it? ("It's OK, we can bomb this city because the citizens don't own guns"). Anyway, if getting hold of illegal weapons is so easy, why not use illegal weapons to overthrow a government (you hardly need to obey the laws of a government you're overthrowing!)
In any case, it would only be legitimate to overthrow the government by force if it had changed radically (e.g. become a dictatorship). In this case, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the new government would allow citizens to own guns.
This whole overthrowing the government argument is quite silly. When you think of the practicalities it's clear that private ownwership of weapons doesn't make much difference.
So do you cower in fear every time you walk outside, because various people walkin
I'm not going to run down the long list of diverse languages I know, because your insults haven't inspired me to work that hard to enlighten you.
So you can't even be bothered to Google for the names of a dozen programming languages.
No, I don't know Eiffel, because I don't just experiment with Canadian engineering students.
If you don't know Eiffel, consider the possibility that it might be more self-documenting than C++.
Instead, every algorithm I use, no matter how simple or monadic, has to work with other software. Both concurrently, and in reuse at some indeterminate time, maintained by some indeterminate programmer. So encapsulating it in a class, and coding it in C, delivers everything we need from the code.
That's nice, but 1) you can encapsulate stuff in a class in lots of languages, and 2) this has nothing to do with self-documentation.
In my posts I have stated that C++ is the most self documenting language I know of, not that C++ is "the best" language.
And I have stated that you don't appear to know many languages. Your childish comments about Eiffel would appear to support this conclusion.
Apologies for the attitude, but however obnoxious I am, the fact remains that you're talking rubbish.
And I've yet to see a solution that can be automated that can't be appropriately described as objects.
Of course any algorithm can be described using objects, but to suggest that any algorithm can be described appropriately using objects is simply absurd. If you've had so much coding experience, you must be aware (for example) that many algorithms are far more simply stated in functional languages. Sometimes, even straightforward procedural code is best.
Part of the confusion over this is that it's entirely possible to use objects only as a means of modularising code, without actually using the interesting features of OO languages to any great effect. Of course, it's true that any algorithm can be usefully modularised, but definitely not true that there are always gains to using OO as the means to this end.
Of course C++ isn't the only OOP, or even the grandmama of them all. But it's the most explicit that I know of
So like I said you don't know of many. What about Eiffel, for example?
Java is close, but C++ header files are better documentation than Interface defs.
Header files are a hack in C, and a nightmare in C++ (mainly due to their effects on compile times, but also because of the duplication between headers and non-headers). If you want a cut down version of the code to use as documentation, you should use an automatic tool (e.g. javadoc, which produces documentation far superior to C++ headers) rather than painstakingly copying every method between.cpp and.hpp files.
And of course C++ headers are majorly, majorly broken when it comes to template classes.
Perhaps you are just hopelessly confused because you know several million languages and use them all in the same day, or whatever.
Public members, class inheritance, object encapsulation - all those required techniques explain how to use the code, how the code models the system being automated.
If you think that C++ is the only language with those features, you can't know many languages. (But then, if you like C++ at all, you can't know many languages;)).
The OO features of a language are only self-documenting if the problem can be described in OO terms. If it can't, then all the class definitions just obscure what the program actually does.
And yes I know that C++ is a supposedly a multi-paradigm language, but most of the interesting things you can do with templates (e.g. simulating closures) rely on classes.
You see, citing a study which supports your opinion means nothing. What you have to do is look at a number of studies which come to different conclusions and show that the ones that support your view are in some way more reliable than the others. Neither of us, needless to say, has risen to that level.
I said that you can find studies showing pretty much anything you want in this debate, so here's a few links to back that up.
this page links to a study showing that "...the use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48)."
The page also criticizes the study you cite, and contains this rather interesting argument:
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
So you see, given the fact that people who study this issue professionally can't agree, it's not particularly impressive that you can find some study supporting your views. The Wikipedia talk page on gun politics notes the conclusion of the National Acedemy of Sciences:
"The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed; for example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.... Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods."
I imagine people in the UK don't own guns because they don't want to, being conditioned that they are evil and all.
No, people don't own them because they're illegal. It's not a trivial matter to get an illegal firearm, unless you are willing to go to jail.
Its a shame UKers don't question their leaders more.
The same goes for USers.
Per your 'small time criminals comment.' Small time criminals are, by definition, already fairly safe, as the police, especially in large cities, have larger criminals to bust. If you don't believe me, try driving a car around Philly with expired inspection / registration and no license or insurance...see how long you can get away with it before police come after you.
Well, first off, car insurance has nothing to do with this. Secondly, anyone in the UK who owns an illegal firearm is, to an extent, a bigtime criminal considered worthy of attention by the police. If this is not the case in the US, you need to change that. See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/westmidlands/series 5/gun_crime_states.shtml, which suggests that strictly enforcing firearms laws in the US has helped to reduce gun crime. It seems that criminals are in fact worried about owning illegal weapons. The article quotes a police officer:
"It definitely discourages the bad guys from having guns... 'cos they know if they're caught with a gun, that's an automatic five years of federal prison time."
Again, you need to take your head out of the sand. The data does not support your views.
See above. The fact is that you can find studies or other evidence to support any position on gun laws, which is why I'm not particularly concerned with reading one in a million. The effect of gun ownership on society is probably too complex a question to be studied scientifically (I mean, we don't even understand the psychology of individuals yet).
There have been various studies that seem to back up my view..thats how you have a rational discussion.
You haven't linked to any studies on the psychology of different methods of killing.
I gave you a link to an article about the study; I'm sure you're capable of goggling to find more. I believe the professor was John Lott. I'm sure there are others.
How's this for a deal: I will take the trouble to read the study if you do.
Criminals cannot by weapons legally here.
Not all criminals have criminal records. Statistically, most gun crimes are committed with legally owned firearms. Most people who own firearms legally would not be prepared to own them illegally, so if you make firearms illegal you will cut down on gun crime quite significantly (or at least cut down on the increase in gun crime, since it seems to be going up for whatever reason).
IIRC, arms were 'illegal' in the colonies as well...but that didn't stop anyone, did it?
Didn't it? Arms were legal in England at the time, it's possible that they were illegal in the colonies. If it didn't stop anyone, that just goes to show that the law wasn't very well enforced, not that such laws are futile.
Except the data seems to suggest that muggers would simply stop mugging. The stakes have become higher for you, but also for the mugger. Is taking money from you worth the risk of being killed to the common mugger? I'd think not.
I've already explained why it's virtually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger. I suppose it's possible that American muggers are stupid enough not to realise this. If so, they should be pretty easy to outwit if you're armed with a paper bag.
Also bear in mind that those criminals who do own a gun in the UK tend to be gang members who use the guns to shoot rivals. It is pretty rare for a criminal to use a gun against an ordinary member of the public, because very few ordinary members of the public are armed. You say that we must be armed because crimi
To me, even a small risk of a mugger choosing to kill me is enough that i'd rather be able to defend myself.
Yeah, but the point is that you're more likely to die if you're carrying a gun, because a mugger is much more likely to want to kill you if you're armed. So you're safer not being armed.
Its easier to buy a gun illegally then legally. All you need is cash and to know where to go.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the case. If illegal gun ownership is so easy, how come so few people own guns in the UK? First off, not all that many people know where to go. Second, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are too great for many small time criminals.
A knife wound in the right place is equally as fatal as a bullet. Likewise, there are alot of places you can be shot that are not fatal.
Yes, but it's much more difficult to stab someone, as I said, both physically and psychologically. In the UK, it's pretty rare for family members to stab each other (or indeed themselves). In the US, it's relatively common for family members to shoot themselves or each other. The gun seems to be the weapon of choice for impulse killing.
Of course thats the advice. What would be the purpose of the police if everyone could defend themselves? I think that avise also encourages crime; by people being told NOT to fight back, attackers know that most will follow besides knowing they are disarmed.
Paranoia. The police give that advice because it's the best advice, face it.
Maybe, maybe not. He may decide its easier to kill you then risk you identifying him. Remember, he wants to avoid capture at all costs.
Not at all costs, or he wouldn't be a mugger. Like I said, if he's that set on killing me, there's no point in holding me up first. As a matter of fact, it is pretty rare for muggers to kill their victims.
You're right; a mugger that doesn't want to kill would stop mugging if he likely WOULD have to kill to acomplish the robbery. This was my point of course...
Or he'd just kill against his will. Like I said, it's hard to speculate on criminal psychology.
This is of course false. As i stated before, making guns illegal does not take them out of the hands of criminals. Therefore you do need police most of the time to keep you safe. If you don't expect police to keep you safe, what exactly is their role in society?
It does take them out of the hands of criminals very effectively. It seems to be a common myth that all self-respecting criminals are armed with illegal weapons, but most gun crimes are committed with legal weapons. Some criminals in the UK have guns, but like I said, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are such that most small time criminals don't have one.
I meant difficult pyschologically. You had argued that mentally its more difficult to beat someone then shoot them. I disagree.
Really? Not sure how you can have a rational argument about this, but that seems obviously wrong to me.
Why isn't it? The drop in breakins coicidedes exactly with the law taking effect. Forcing them to arm themselves where most were not before provided an immediate benefit. There are other benefits as well (which I will bring up later).
Small sample. Probably lots of methodological errors. Can you give me a link to the study?
In the UK that may be true, but I'm in the US. Its much easier to get guns illegally then legally and it hasn't stopped criminals from getting guns.
Then either the US is doing something wrong in enforcing its gun laws, or most criminals in the US are armed with legal weapons. I suspect the latter. Either way, it's no excuse for legalising firearms.
I'll grant you that. Do you really want to take the risk that you're wrong though?
Yes, absolutely. I'd be more at risk if I was armed, and making the assumption that all muggers want to kill me.
There's lots of examples. For example, England had quite similar laws to America on ownership of weapons around 300 years ago. Needless to say, violent crime was rampant.
As soon as you are attacked, its impossible to turn the situation? Whoever attacks first wins? You were lucky to only lose some cash, you could just as easily lost your life.
Just as easily? What planet are you living on? It's very rare for muggers to kill their victims.
Agreed, but those that still chose to break the law now have a much easier target..namely those that chose to respect the law.
In the case of guns, most people who go to the trouble of obtaining an illegal weapon are not the sort of small time criminals who are likely to jump you in a dark alley (or whatever). It's true in a sense that people with illegal guns have easy targets, i.e. people without guns. Whether they would choose to pick on these targets is another question. The few who do will, as a consequence of having a massive advantage in force, probably not need do their victims any physical harm. This, to me, is a more tangible kind of safety than the knowledge that I have a remote possibility of shooting my attacker before he shoots me. It's obvious enough that the person who initiates the violence has a massive advantage. You can't shoot back if someone's pointing a gun at you (unless you're Clint Eastwood, obviously;))
Pride dictates that you should resist attack, but common sense dictates the opposite. At least in the UK, the advice given by the police is not to fight back against muggers, since it's not worth the risk.
I believe that if everyone was armed those that currently are willing to mug / murder would not be so willing to do so, as they know they will very luckly not get away with it.
But they very likely would get away with it. Walk up behind someone, point a gun at them. By this point it doesn't matter much what they're armed with.
Compare rates of mugging and murder in the US and the UK. I don't see private ownership of weapons making the difference you say it does. You might argue that the the difference is so small as to be masked out by other factors, but then why get worked up about it?
Thats the situation setup by removing your ability to defend yourself and giving it to another.
Nonsense. I'd like to point out that my mugger didn't have a gun either, so we were on a level playing field, just as we would be in a world where everyone was armed. The point is that muggers have an inherent advantage over their victims, in that they usually catch them by surprise, and they always make the first move. It's a shame that it's so easy for someone to get this kind of advantage, but that's just life.
Your assumption is false however. Police cannot possibly keep everyone safe. The current state of affairs is such that they probably will NOT be able to keep you safe.
Sure, but in a society where guns are illegal, you don't need the police to keep you safe most of the time. Contrast this with a society where everyone is armed, where you could be shot at any minute. I don't expect the police to keep me safe, which is one reason why I want dangerous weapons to be controlled.
Do you have any proof of that last statement? Would killing you with a knife be easier then using his fists, but still harder then using a gun?
Yes, that is obviously the case.
I think that if someone can kill, the method doesn't matter to them.
Not true at all. It only takes a flash of anger to pull a trigger. You need to have a much stronger desire to kill someone to beat them to death. Knives are very dangerous, but I think knife wounds are generally less fatal than gun wounds (not sure though). And of course they have to be inflicted face to face.
You're just being ridicious here. There's quite a difference between what you suggest (killing everyone b/c you think they might kill you) vs. what I said (killing someone that just attacked you for no reason and who's intentions for you are not known).
Think about this. If a mugger attacks me using a gun
Walking around disarmed leads to the very problem you encountered. Anyone who is eitehr physically stronger, can suprise you, or simply disregards anti-gun laws can overpower you with force, and you have little recourse.
As I said, it's usually too late to defend yourself once you've been attacked. Having a weapon would make it more likely to turn into a truly violent confrontation. As it is, I just lost some cash. No big deal.
Do you think that they would respect the anti-gun laws either? Probably not.
Laws don't have to be universally respected for them to have effect. If laws were universally respected we wouldn't need to enforce them, or indeed pass them in the first place. It's much much harder to get a gun if guns are illegal, whether or not you "respect" anti-gun laws.
Oh, and soldiers are NOT free willed people, they've been conditioned to do as told without question. that is something a free willed person would not be conditioned to do.
We were talking about civility, not free will.
Now on the other hand, do you think that someone would run around shooting up their office knowing EVERYONE in said office was armed? Probably not, since its very likely the shooter would himself be shot quickly. Lets reverse the sitution you were in; would you attack a someone commiting a violent crime if he was armed and you were not?
Like I said, you can dream up scenarios where having a gun would save the day. I can dream up a scenario where my safety would only be guaranteed if I owned a tank. Nontheless, I do not think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks, or indeed guns.
don't see why people having the means to defend themselves is not civil, although waving a gun at everyone I agree would not be. Others knowing I can defend myself isn't being antisocial, but actively threatening (by waving said gun) would be.
I agree that being armed is not inherently uncivil. I fail to see how it could make people more civil, and I can see many ways in which it could do the opposite.
The only legitimate reason to NOT leave someone else alone is if they are doing harm to a 3rd party. Its likely that said harming party would not have begun to harm the 3rd party knowing there were others around that could use force easily to stop him (and the party he intends to harm may also be able to use that force).
If no-one has guns, you don't need a gun to stop someone harming another person. Of course, there will always be some people (though not many people) who own guns illegally. That's just life, unfortunately -- I don't claim that a gunless society would be perfectly safe. However, it would be considerably safer than a society where everyone is armed.
I agree, but you are universially saying that being armed is bad and never good.
No I'm not. I'm just saying that there's no clear advantage to being armed, and getting back to the original issue, that societies where everyone is armed are not likely to be very civil.
Um, wasn't the mugger already threatening your life? Could he not have killed you already if he wanted to?
Only by pummeling me to death with his fists. Very few people are capable of doing that to complete strangers without a motive. Pulling a trigger is a lot easier, both psychologically and physically.
Did you know at the time when you were first attacked that all he wanted was your wallet? Are you certain that he might not have let you live even if you gave it to him? Could you bring yourself to kill someone to stop them from killing you?
Great idea, I'd better kill everyone now in case they want to kill me. Look, he said "give me your wallet", or words to that effect. It was pretty damn obvious what he wanted. Sure, he could have killed me afterwards. He could have done that even more easily if I'd had a gun.
Someone with a gun is more able to defend themselves, as it levels the playing field, so to sp
What are you, stupid? Common people carrying weapons does not constitute "the use of violence as the primary means of social control"
OP was suggesting that common people carrying guns makes people more civil. I was saying that 1) it doesn't, and 2) using violence as (one of) the primary means of enforcing correct behaviour is pretty much a fascist idea. I mean, obviously you need the police to have some credible threat of violence in order to uphold the law, but I don't think civility is something that can (or should) be created by the threat of violence. It is, if you think about it, pretty crazy to say that pointing guns at each other will make us more civil.
I probably should have used a more specific phrase than "social control", by which I only meant control of people's social behaviour, not control of society itself.
You think these common people carrying guns are running around oppressing people by enforcing bad laws?
Yes, in a sense, but they're not even raising to the level of enforcing laws. They're using the threat of violence to get their own way.
That's what happens when only the police have guns.
If everyone has equal access to weapons, you can't really have an effective government or police force at all. Enforcing the law isn't always pleasent, and many existing laws are very oppresive. Nontheless, there's no point making laws unless you plan to enforce them, and if you want to enforce them you have to give the state disproportionate access to weaponry. As a consequence, giving ordinary people access to guns only leads to the police aquiring bigger and better guns to maintain their power. There are other arguments for allowing ordinary citizens to own guns, but the argument you make here doesn't work.
Look, all I'm saying is that the threat of violence does not make people more civil. It may make people more obedient or more frightened or more angry. I tend to think of societies where fear, anger and obedience are thought to be desirable as somewhat fascist.
Um, the 'social control' you lament about in your last sentence is actually compelling others to leave you alone, not to do as you want them to.
I don't see the distinction. If I want others to leave me alone and I tell them to do so, then am I not compelling them to do as I want? In any case, guns can be used to implement many different forms of social control, not just the one you arbitrarily mention. In an environment where everyone has the ability to quickly and easily kill anyone else, there are a number of consequences. Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone). Others will use it for other purposes, some of them quite sinister. Whatever the details, it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that the imminent threat of death is a catalyst for civility. If it were, soldiors would be the most civil members of our society.
Just like everything else, there are two sides. You CAN you force to oppress, but you can also use it to keep yourself free
True, but this trivializes the issue. Just about anything can be used for good things or bad things.
I bet anyone who's been mugged had wish they had a gun on them.
Why on Earth do you bet that? I was mugged, and I'm glad I didn't have a gun. My attacker caught me by surprise so I had no time to defend myself, and if I'd had a gun he could have used it to threaten (or kill) me. Anyway, I could never bring myself to kill someone simply because they wanted my wallet, so I don't think a gun would be much use to me.
It's usually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger because you won't know you're actually being mugged until its too late. (Of course, you could always walk around pointing your gun at everyone just in case they're about to mug you, but that's not very civil. Still, at least they'd leave you alone.)
You can dream up scenarios where having a gun would save the day, just as you can dream up scenarios where it would be a disaster. I don't see that having a gun in such situations gives you any obvious overall advantage.
No, it just creates a climate of paranoia and fear. Civility is partly a result of people not being constantly afraid of being shot. When people are not afraid, they tend to be more friendly and less confrontational.
Contrary to the opinion of those who favour "deadly force" (a limp-wristed phrase generally used in this context by the sort of people who masturbate over World's Wildest Police Videos), the use of violence as the primary means of social control is just one more step along the road to fascism.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.
It's true that direct sales of conventional weapons were relatively small, but US support for Saddam was enormous. Take a look at this excellent page from the national security archive.
So people who don't own guns should be given special rights that gun owners don't have?
The point is that gun owners in America already have the same rights as everyone else, so it's a stupid slogan. A bit like, say, "equal rights for people with two vowels in their names!".
? You think the government knows how to spend my money better than I do, so you want to increase taxes?
Frankly, yes I do.
You want to pay able-bodied people to sit at home all day doing nothing, producing nothing, leeching off the system?
Many people on welfare are bringing up children, but that's beside the point. The point is that unless we're willing to allow people to starve to death, we need a welfare system. It's pretty cost effective, when you consider how much crime there would be without it.
Sounds like socialism to me.
No, taxes and basic welfare have nothing to do with Socialism. Even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman support taxation and basic welfare.
Well, most of the telecommunications infrastructure in general is maintained by government subsidy of one kind or another, even if it's subsidy of a private company rather than direct subsidy. Do you think that the phone network is maintained across every corner of America because it is profitable?
I don't think they're not logical in the least! Double negatives are not always an ungood thing. People just need to learn to not use them when they don't mean to.
What I meant is the following. It's just not the case that "I didn't see nothing" is somehow less logical than "I didn't see anything". no/any are both just elements which agree with the negative auxilluary. Some dialects use any, some dialects use no. There is no question of logic involved, it's an arbitrary choice of functional vocabulary. In many nonstandard dialects, bound variables within a negative scope are required to agree with the negative element. Standard English is in fact somewhat unsual for not having this feature. If, as your example weakly suggests, you think these constructions are somehow paralell to sentences such as "John is not unhappy", you need to take an introductorary syntax course. "I didn't see [any/no]thing" involves quantification, whereas "John is not unhappy" does not; the distinction is crucial.
I think "predjudice" is a word that is shifting in meaning and leaving a hole in the language as it does. How else does one describe their default feelings towards something? Predjudice is not always a bad thing.
I don't really get what you're talking about here. I used the word predjudice to mean an unjustified opinion, which is a pretty common usege. Of course one cannot avoid having "default feelings", but there is nothing wrong with subjecting these feelings to examination. When people resist doing this, they are holding predjudices in the worst sense.
That's not the case, but I think some people harbor inner feelings like that(many the same people who think that "predjudice" is a bad word). If you don't speak standard English, don't be upset when you have to rephrase things. Language does evolve, and what's nonstandard today becomes tommorow's standard.
I don't think anybody's upset about having to rephrase things. The point is that there is nothing wrong with speaking a nonstandard dialect, and people shouldn't be criticised for it, or told that their dialect is somehow bad or wrong.
I never said the word "improper" as far as dialect was concerned. I merely stated "Dialect cannot be considered proper english". Perhaps I should have said "Dialect cannot be considered Proper English.
I presume that's meant to be a subtle and clever distinction of some kind. From someone who is so keen for people to be careful about the language they speak, I would suggest that if you don't think dialects are improper English, you shouldn't say that they're not proper English! Who says standard English aids clarity of communication...
I also did not favor one dialect over another, hence the word "other" in your reply leaves some question, as in "other than which".
Nonsense. It's obvious that I meant "other than Standard English". You only need to read the sentence prior to that containing "other dialects" in order to see this. I assume that you're trying to be pedantic, but in fact you're just be silly.
Perhaps if the world were perfect your statement would be correct. I just want to know what dialect "You want no come in?" would fall under. I think that people, even linguists, recognize that some people fail to speak the language with any sort of pattern that can be seen in others, or even charted at all. I would consider such English bad, or broken.
Perhaps if the world were perfect your statement would be correct. I just want to know what dialect "You want no come in?" would fall under. I think that people, even linguists, recognize that some people fail to speak the language with any sort of pattern that can be seen in others, or even charted at all. I would consider such English bad, or broken.
No, linguistis do not think that (I am one so I should know). Apart from people who have geunine metal disabilities, everyone's language is intricately patterned. You may not be able to
Can you read? Can you comprehend? If so, answer this question: Is there enough food for today's population plus another billion? How about two or three billion?
The short answer is yes, if agriculture is managed properly.
Someday, perhaps the day you die, you'll discover that the universe is not nice, and thinking "nice" does not solve nasty problems.
Neither does being nasty. Being nice is preferable for independent reasons.
One of those things that I consider criminal and worthy of sterilization is willful ignorance in the face of reality.
Right. So let's get the government to round up all the people they think are ignorant and cut their balls off (or whatever). Sensible policy.
For now, I can just hope we're lucky and you don't have any kids - naturally.
The fact of the matter is, "world hunger" will not be solved without some form of population control.
Bullshit. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. The problem is that much of it is wasted and it's distributed unevenly.
Consider what would happen to our welfare system if every child was sterilized at birth and then as an adult had to pay for an operation to restore it to fertility.
Consider what would happen to the economy if there was no minimum wage underclass to keep the country running. The cost saved in welfare (if any) would be no compensation.
While I don't advocate this, I do think that there are some forms of behavior that ought to be criminal, that aren't. I also think that the sentances for some crimes should include sterilisation.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that NNs are useless, I just wanted to point out that they're not likely to revolutionize AI to the extent that some people seem to think they will.
This isn't meant as a criticism of TD-Gammon, but as you say, the approach only worked once enough processing was done prior to the NN that there was only fairly straightforward statistical analysis of the data left to do. A general problem with NNs trained from a "blank slate" is that they have no way of rationally deciding which of the many possible ways of analysing the input data to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Goto in common lisp isn't actually called goto (can't remember what it is called), but it's definitely in there -- how else would you write the macros for all the common control structures? The primitives of Common Lisp are actually very imperative in their flavour.
Common Lisp has goto. Scheme has call/cc which can be used to implement gotos.
Actually, it does. There's a saying about an armed society being a polite society.
There's also a saying about all Americans being gun-loving nutcases. Both sayings, no doubt, are somewhat short of the truth.
There hasn't been a serious problem with them using violence to get their way.
I said using the threat of violence to get their own way.
There has been a big problem with criminals using violence, but those criminals usually have weapons illegally: they have no permits, the guns are stolen, or worse the guns are outright illegal (automatic weapons). The guns laws don't seem to keep the criminals from carrying guns they aren't supposed to.
Most gun crimes are committed with legally owned weapons, and having lots of legally owned weapons makes it much easier to get hold of an illegal weapon (as there are simply more guns around to get stolen, lent to friends, etc.) Here in the UK, it's very rare for criminals to be armed because most guns are illegal. In the US, it's more common because they are legal. Of course some criminals still get their hands on guns, but it's less common if guns are illegal.
So now you're advocating outright oppression? Let me guess, you think Kim Jong Il is a great leader. The point of police is to keep order and to investigate crimes so that people don't form lynch mobs. Only in police states is their role to oppress the people. I'd rather not live in one of those.
The police have to have more power than your average citizen if they are going to keep order or prevent lynch mobbing. I don't like the police having power over me, but the alternative is for some other group of people to have power over me without any democratic mandate (perhaps the local lynch mob, or whoever).
Would you care to explain that? How criminals, who by definition break the law, don't follow the laws saying they can't own weapons?
Because they can get into more trouble for an additional offence. I linked to an article about that in another post on this thread. Criminals are not by definition people who break the law. They are by definition people who have broken the law. The fact that someone has broken the law doesn't necessarily imply that they will merrily go on offending without regard to the likely consequences.
Now, how does allowing normal citizens to own weapons affect this at all?
Because it massively reduces the number of guns in circulation, and reduces criminal access to guns. It also (obviously) cuts down on the enormous amount of gun crime committed with legally owned weapons.
One of the big reasons for allowing people to own weapons is that they can overthrow the government if necessary. Sure, with the police and military, that's not that likely, but it's a question of numbers. A small group of radicals is not going to have the weaponry necessary to harm the government; the regular military is much more powerful. But when a large majority of the population doesn't want the government any more, then the govt has a problem. They can't exactly bomb their own cities.
Sure, but that argument holds whether or not ordinary citizens have easy access to guns, doesn't it? ("It's OK, we can bomb this city because the citizens don't own guns"). Anyway, if getting hold of illegal weapons is so easy, why not use illegal weapons to overthrow a government (you hardly need to obey the laws of a government you're overthrowing!)
In any case, it would only be legitimate to overthrow the government by force if it had changed radically (e.g. become a dictatorship). In this case, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the new government would allow citizens to own guns.
This whole overthrowing the government argument is quite silly. When you think of the practicalities it's clear that private ownwership of weapons doesn't make much difference.
So do you cower in fear every time you walk outside, because various people walkin
I'm not going to run down the long list of diverse languages I know, because your insults haven't inspired me to work that hard to enlighten you.
So you can't even be bothered to Google for the names of a dozen programming languages.
No, I don't know Eiffel, because I don't just experiment with Canadian engineering students.
If you don't know Eiffel, consider the possibility that it might be more self-documenting than C++.
Instead, every algorithm I use, no matter how simple or monadic, has to work with other software. Both concurrently, and in reuse at some indeterminate time, maintained by some indeterminate programmer. So encapsulating it in a class, and coding it in C, delivers everything we need from the code.
That's nice, but 1) you can encapsulate stuff in a class in lots of languages, and 2) this has nothing to do with self-documentation.
In my posts I have stated that C++ is the most self documenting language I know of, not that C++ is "the best" language.
And I have stated that you don't appear to know many languages. Your childish comments about Eiffel would appear to support this conclusion.
Apologies for the attitude, but however obnoxious I am, the fact remains that you're talking rubbish.
And I've yet to see a solution that can be automated that can't be appropriately described as objects.
Of course any algorithm can be described using objects, but to suggest that any algorithm can be described appropriately using objects is simply absurd. If you've had so much coding experience, you must be aware (for example) that many algorithms are far more simply stated in functional languages. Sometimes, even straightforward procedural code is best.
Part of the confusion over this is that it's entirely possible to use objects only as a means of modularising code, without actually using the interesting features of OO languages to any great effect. Of course, it's true that any algorithm can be usefully modularised, but definitely not true that there are always gains to using OO as the means to this end.
Of course C++ isn't the only OOP, or even the grandmama of them all. But it's the most explicit that I know of
So like I said you don't know of many. What about Eiffel, for example?
Java is close, but C++ header files are better documentation than Interface defs.
Header files are a hack in C, and a nightmare in C++ (mainly due to their effects on compile times, but also because of the duplication between headers and non-headers). If you want a cut down version of the code to use as documentation, you should use an automatic tool (e.g. javadoc, which produces documentation far superior to C++ headers) rather than painstakingly copying every method between .cpp and .hpp files.
And of course C++ headers are majorly, majorly broken when it comes to template classes.
Perhaps you are just hopelessly confused because you know several million languages and use them all in the same day, or whatever.
Public members, class inheritance, object encapsulation - all those required techniques explain how to use the code, how the code models the system being automated.
If you think that C++ is the only language with those features, you can't know many languages. (But then, if you like C++ at all, you can't know many languages ;)).
The OO features of a language are only self-documenting if the problem can be described in OO terms. If it can't, then all the class definitions just obscure what the program actually does.
And yes I know that C++ is a supposedly a multi-paradigm language, but most of the interesting things you can do with templates (e.g. simulating closures) rely on classes.
You see, citing a study which supports your opinion means nothing. What you have to do is look at a number of studies which come to different conclusions and show that the ones that support your view are in some way more reliable than the others. Neither of us, needless to say, has risen to that level.
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
So you see, given the fact that people who study this issue professionally can't agree, it's not particularly impressive that you can find some study supporting your views. The Wikipedia talk page on gun politics notes the conclusion of the National Acedemy of Sciences:
"The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed; for example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements. ... Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods."
I imagine people in the UK don't own guns because they don't want to, being conditioned that they are evil and all.
No, people don't own them because they're illegal. It's not a trivial matter to get an illegal firearm, unless you are willing to go to jail.
Its a shame UKers don't question their leaders more.
The same goes for USers.
Per your 'small time criminals comment.' Small time criminals are, by definition, already fairly safe, as the police, especially in large cities, have larger criminals to bust. If you don't believe me, try driving a car around Philly with expired inspection / registration and no license or insurance...see how long you can get away with it before police come after you.
Well, first off, car insurance has nothing to do with this. Secondly, anyone in the UK who owns an illegal firearm is, to an extent, a bigtime criminal considered worthy of attention by the police. If this is not the case in the US, you need to change that. See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/westmidlands/series 5/gun_crime_states.shtml, which suggests that strictly enforcing firearms laws in the US has helped to reduce gun crime. It seems that criminals are in fact worried about owning illegal weapons. The article quotes a police officer: "It definitely discourages the bad guys from having guns... 'cos they know if they're caught with a gun, that's an automatic five years of federal prison time."
Again, you need to take your head out of the sand. The data does not support your views.
See above. The fact is that you can find studies or other evidence to support any position on gun laws, which is why I'm not particularly concerned with reading one in a million. The effect of gun ownership on society is probably too complex a question to be studied scientifically (I mean, we don't even understand the psychology of individuals yet).
There have been various studies that seem to back up my view..thats how you have a rational discussion.
You haven't linked to any studies on the psychology of different methods of killing.
I gave you a link to an article about the study; I'm sure you're capable of goggling to find more. I believe the professor was John Lott. I'm sure there are others.
How's this for a deal: I will take the trouble to read the study if you do.
Criminals cannot by weapons legally here.
Not all criminals have criminal records. Statistically, most gun crimes are committed with legally owned firearms. Most people who own firearms legally would not be prepared to own them illegally, so if you make firearms illegal you will cut down on gun crime quite significantly (or at least cut down on the increase in gun crime, since it seems to be going up for whatever reason).
IIRC, arms were 'illegal' in the colonies as well...but that didn't stop anyone, did it?
Didn't it? Arms were legal in England at the time, it's possible that they were illegal in the colonies. If it didn't stop anyone, that just goes to show that the law wasn't very well enforced, not that such laws are futile.
Except the data seems to suggest that muggers would simply stop mugging. The stakes have become higher for you, but also for the mugger. Is taking money from you worth the risk of being killed to the common mugger? I'd think not.
I've already explained why it's virtually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger. I suppose it's possible that American muggers are stupid enough not to realise this. If so, they should be pretty easy to outwit if you're armed with a paper bag.
Also bear in mind that those criminals who do own a gun in the UK tend to be gang members who use the guns to shoot rivals. It is pretty rare for a criminal to use a gun against an ordinary member of the public, because very few ordinary members of the public are armed. You say that we must be armed because crimi
To me, even a small risk of a mugger choosing to kill me is enough that i'd rather be able to defend myself.
Yeah, but the point is that you're more likely to die if you're carrying a gun, because a mugger is much more likely to want to kill you if you're armed. So you're safer not being armed.
Its easier to buy a gun illegally then legally. All you need is cash and to know where to go.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the case. If illegal gun ownership is so easy, how come so few people own guns in the UK? First off, not all that many people know where to go. Second, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are too great for many small time criminals.
A knife wound in the right place is equally as fatal as a bullet. Likewise, there are alot of places you can be shot that are not fatal.
Yes, but it's much more difficult to stab someone, as I said, both physically and psychologically. In the UK, it's pretty rare for family members to stab each other (or indeed themselves). In the US, it's relatively common for family members to shoot themselves or each other. The gun seems to be the weapon of choice for impulse killing.
Of course thats the advice. What would be the purpose of the police if everyone could defend themselves? I think that avise also encourages crime; by people being told NOT to fight back, attackers know that most will follow besides knowing they are disarmed.
Paranoia. The police give that advice because it's the best advice, face it.
Maybe, maybe not. He may decide its easier to kill you then risk you identifying him. Remember, he wants to avoid capture at all costs.
Not at all costs, or he wouldn't be a mugger. Like I said, if he's that set on killing me, there's no point in holding me up first. As a matter of fact, it is pretty rare for muggers to kill their victims.
You're right; a mugger that doesn't want to kill would stop mugging if he likely WOULD have to kill to acomplish the robbery. This was my point of course...
Or he'd just kill against his will. Like I said, it's hard to speculate on criminal psychology.
This is of course false. As i stated before, making guns illegal does not take them out of the hands of criminals. Therefore you do need police most of the time to keep you safe. If you don't expect police to keep you safe, what exactly is their role in society?
It does take them out of the hands of criminals very effectively. It seems to be a common myth that all self-respecting criminals are armed with illegal weapons, but most gun crimes are committed with legal weapons. Some criminals in the UK have guns, but like I said, the risks of owning an illegal weapon are such that most small time criminals don't have one.
I meant difficult pyschologically. You had argued that mentally its more difficult to beat someone then shoot them. I disagree.
Really? Not sure how you can have a rational argument about this, but that seems obviously wrong to me.
Why isn't it? The drop in breakins coicidedes exactly with the law taking effect. Forcing them to arm themselves where most were not before provided an immediate benefit. There are other benefits as well (which I will bring up later).
Small sample. Probably lots of methodological errors. Can you give me a link to the study?
In the UK that may be true, but I'm in the US. Its much easier to get guns illegally then legally and it hasn't stopped criminals from getting guns.
Then either the US is doing something wrong in enforcing its gun laws, or most criminals in the US are armed with legal weapons. I suspect the latter. Either way, it's no excuse for legalising firearms.
I'll grant you that. Do you really want to take the risk that you're wrong though?
Yes, absolutely. I'd be more at risk if I was armed, and making the assumption that all muggers want to kill me.
Actuall
There's lots of examples. For example, England had quite similar laws to America on ownership of weapons around 300 years ago. Needless to say, violent crime was rampant.
As soon as you are attacked, its impossible to turn the situation? Whoever attacks first wins? You were lucky to only lose some cash, you could just as easily lost your life.
Just as easily? What planet are you living on? It's very rare for muggers to kill their victims.
Agreed, but those that still chose to break the law now have a much easier target..namely those that chose to respect the law.
In the case of guns, most people who go to the trouble of obtaining an illegal weapon are not the sort of small time criminals who are likely to jump you in a dark alley (or whatever). It's true in a sense that people with illegal guns have easy targets, i.e. people without guns. Whether they would choose to pick on these targets is another question. The few who do will, as a consequence of having a massive advantage in force, probably not need do their victims any physical harm. This, to me, is a more tangible kind of safety than the knowledge that I have a remote possibility of shooting my attacker before he shoots me. It's obvious enough that the person who initiates the violence has a massive advantage. You can't shoot back if someone's pointing a gun at you (unless you're Clint Eastwood, obviously ;))
Pride dictates that you should resist attack, but common sense dictates the opposite. At least in the UK, the advice given by the police is not to fight back against muggers, since it's not worth the risk.
I believe that if everyone was armed those that currently are willing to mug / murder would not be so willing to do so, as they know they will very luckly not get away with it.
But they very likely would get away with it. Walk up behind someone, point a gun at them. By this point it doesn't matter much what they're armed with.
Compare rates of mugging and murder in the US and the UK. I don't see private ownership of weapons making the difference you say it does. You might argue that the the difference is so small as to be masked out by other factors, but then why get worked up about it?
Thats the situation setup by removing your ability to defend yourself and giving it to another.
Nonsense. I'd like to point out that my mugger didn't have a gun either, so we were on a level playing field, just as we would be in a world where everyone was armed. The point is that muggers have an inherent advantage over their victims, in that they usually catch them by surprise, and they always make the first move. It's a shame that it's so easy for someone to get this kind of advantage, but that's just life.
Your assumption is false however. Police cannot possibly keep everyone safe. The current state of affairs is such that they probably will NOT be able to keep you safe.
Sure, but in a society where guns are illegal, you don't need the police to keep you safe most of the time. Contrast this with a society where everyone is armed, where you could be shot at any minute. I don't expect the police to keep me safe, which is one reason why I want dangerous weapons to be controlled.
Do you have any proof of that last statement? Would killing you with a knife be easier then using his fists, but still harder then using a gun?
Yes, that is obviously the case.
I think that if someone can kill, the method doesn't matter to them.
Not true at all. It only takes a flash of anger to pull a trigger. You need to have a much stronger desire to kill someone to beat them to death. Knives are very dangerous, but I think knife wounds are generally less fatal than gun wounds (not sure though). And of course they have to be inflicted face to face.
You're just being ridicious here. There's quite a difference between what you suggest (killing everyone b/c you think they might kill you) vs. what I said (killing someone that just attacked you for no reason and who's intentions for you are not known).
Think about this. If a mugger attacks me using a gun
Walking around disarmed leads to the very problem you encountered. Anyone who is eitehr physically stronger, can suprise you, or simply disregards anti-gun laws can overpower you with force, and you have little recourse.
As I said, it's usually too late to defend yourself once you've been attacked. Having a weapon would make it more likely to turn into a truly violent confrontation. As it is, I just lost some cash. No big deal.
Do you think that they would respect the anti-gun laws either? Probably not.
Laws don't have to be universally respected for them to have effect. If laws were universally respected we wouldn't need to enforce them, or indeed pass them in the first place. It's much much harder to get a gun if guns are illegal, whether or not you "respect" anti-gun laws.
Oh, and soldiers are NOT free willed people, they've been conditioned to do as told without question. that is something a free willed person would not be conditioned to do.
We were talking about civility, not free will.
Now on the other hand, do you think that someone would run around shooting up their office knowing EVERYONE in said office was armed? Probably not, since its very likely the shooter would himself be shot quickly. Lets reverse the sitution you were in; would you attack a someone commiting a violent crime if he was armed and you were not?
Like I said, you can dream up scenarios where having a gun would save the day. I can dream up a scenario where my safety would only be guaranteed if I owned a tank. Nontheless, I do not think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks, or indeed guns.
don't see why people having the means to defend themselves is not civil, although waving a gun at everyone I agree would not be. Others knowing I can defend myself isn't being antisocial, but actively threatening (by waving said gun) would be.
I agree that being armed is not inherently uncivil. I fail to see how it could make people more civil, and I can see many ways in which it could do the opposite.
The only legitimate reason to NOT leave someone else alone is if they are doing harm to a 3rd party. Its likely that said harming party would not have begun to harm the 3rd party knowing there were others around that could use force easily to stop him (and the party he intends to harm may also be able to use that force).
If no-one has guns, you don't need a gun to stop someone harming another person. Of course, there will always be some people (though not many people) who own guns illegally. That's just life, unfortunately -- I don't claim that a gunless society would be perfectly safe. However, it would be considerably safer than a society where everyone is armed.
I agree, but you are universially saying that being armed is bad and never good.
No I'm not. I'm just saying that there's no clear advantage to being armed, and getting back to the original issue, that societies where everyone is armed are not likely to be very civil.
Um, wasn't the mugger already threatening your life? Could he not have killed you already if he wanted to?
Only by pummeling me to death with his fists. Very few people are capable of doing that to complete strangers without a motive. Pulling a trigger is a lot easier, both psychologically and physically.
Did you know at the time when you were first attacked that all he wanted was your wallet? Are you certain that he might not have let you live even if you gave it to him? Could you bring yourself to kill someone to stop them from killing you?
Great idea, I'd better kill everyone now in case they want to kill me. Look, he said "give me your wallet", or words to that effect. It was pretty damn obvious what he wanted. Sure, he could have killed me afterwards. He could have done that even more easily if I'd had a gun.
Someone with a gun is more able to defend themselves, as it levels the playing field, so to sp
What are you, stupid? Common people carrying weapons does not constitute "the use of violence as the primary means of social control"
OP was suggesting that common people carrying guns makes people more civil. I was saying that 1) it doesn't, and 2) using violence as (one of) the primary means of enforcing correct behaviour is pretty much a fascist idea. I mean, obviously you need the police to have some credible threat of violence in order to uphold the law, but I don't think civility is something that can (or should) be created by the threat of violence. It is, if you think about it, pretty crazy to say that pointing guns at each other will make us more civil.
I probably should have used a more specific phrase than "social control", by which I only meant control of people's social behaviour, not control of society itself.
You think these common people carrying guns are running around oppressing people by enforcing bad laws?
Yes, in a sense, but they're not even raising to the level of enforcing laws. They're using the threat of violence to get their own way.
That's what happens when only the police have guns.
If everyone has equal access to weapons, you can't really have an effective government or police force at all. Enforcing the law isn't always pleasent, and many existing laws are very oppresive. Nontheless, there's no point making laws unless you plan to enforce them, and if you want to enforce them you have to give the state disproportionate access to weaponry. As a consequence, giving ordinary people access to guns only leads to the police aquiring bigger and better guns to maintain their power. There are other arguments for allowing ordinary citizens to own guns, but the argument you make here doesn't work.
Look, all I'm saying is that the threat of violence does not make people more civil. It may make people more obedient or more frightened or more angry. I tend to think of societies where fear, anger and obedience are thought to be desirable as somewhat fascist.
Um, the 'social control' you lament about in your last sentence is actually compelling others to leave you alone, not to do as you want them to.
I don't see the distinction. If I want others to leave me alone and I tell them to do so, then am I not compelling them to do as I want? In any case, guns can be used to implement many different forms of social control, not just the one you arbitrarily mention. In an environment where everyone has the ability to quickly and easily kill anyone else, there are a number of consequences. Some people may simply use the threat of death to get other people to leave them alone (which is not always a good thing, since there are often legitmate reasons not to leave people alone). Others will use it for other purposes, some of them quite sinister. Whatever the details, it's clearly ludicrous to suggest that the imminent threat of death is a catalyst for civility. If it were, soldiors would be the most civil members of our society.
Just like everything else, there are two sides. You CAN you force to oppress, but you can also use it to keep yourself free
True, but this trivializes the issue. Just about anything can be used for good things or bad things.
I bet anyone who's been mugged had wish they had a gun on them.
Why on Earth do you bet that? I was mugged, and I'm glad I didn't have a gun. My attacker caught me by surprise so I had no time to defend myself, and if I'd had a gun he could have used it to threaten (or kill) me. Anyway, I could never bring myself to kill someone simply because they wanted my wallet, so I don't think a gun would be much use to me.
It's usually impossible to use a gun to defend yourself from a mugger because you won't know you're actually being mugged until its too late. (Of course, you could always walk around pointing your gun at everyone just in case they're about to mug you, but that's not very civil. Still, at least they'd leave you alone.)
You can dream up scenarios where having a gun would save the day, just as you can dream up scenarios where it would be a disaster. I don't see that having a gun in such situations gives you any obvious overall advantage.
No, it just creates a climate of paranoia and fear. Civility is partly a result of people not being constantly afraid of being shot. When people are not afraid, they tend to be more friendly and less confrontational.
Contrary to the opinion of those who favour "deadly force" (a limp-wristed phrase generally used in this context by the sort of people who masturbate over World's Wildest Police Videos), the use of violence as the primary means of social control is just one more step along the road to fascism.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.
It's true that direct sales of conventional weapons were relatively small, but US support for Saddam was enormous. Take a look at this excellent page from the national security archive.
So people who don't own guns should be given special rights that gun owners don't have?
The point is that gun owners in America already have the same rights as everyone else, so it's a stupid slogan. A bit like, say, "equal rights for people with two vowels in their names!".
? You think the government knows how to spend my money better than I do, so you want to increase taxes?
Frankly, yes I do.
You want to pay able-bodied people to sit at home all day doing nothing, producing nothing, leeching off the system?
Many people on welfare are bringing up children, but that's beside the point. The point is that unless we're willing to allow people to starve to death, we need a welfare system. It's pretty cost effective, when you consider how much crime there would be without it.
Sounds like socialism to me.
No, taxes and basic welfare have nothing to do with Socialism. Even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman support taxation and basic welfare.
Try to stop being a parody of yourself.
Well, most of the telecommunications infrastructure in general is maintained by government subsidy of one kind or another, even if it's subsidy of a private company rather than direct subsidy. Do you think that the phone network is maintained across every corner of America because it is profitable?
orbitz is supported by our tax dollars? Please, do explain.
The internet was developed using and is now supported by tax dollars. I think that's what the OP meant.
I don't think they're not logical in the least! Double negatives are not always an ungood thing. People just need to learn to not use them when they don't mean to.
What I meant is the following. It's just not the case that "I didn't see nothing" is somehow less logical than "I didn't see anything". no/any are both just elements which agree with the negative auxilluary. Some dialects use any, some dialects use no. There is no question of logic involved, it's an arbitrary choice of functional vocabulary. In many nonstandard dialects, bound variables within a negative scope are required to agree with the negative element. Standard English is in fact somewhat unsual for not having this feature. If, as your example weakly suggests, you think these constructions are somehow paralell to sentences such as "John is not unhappy", you need to take an introductorary syntax course. "I didn't see [any/no]thing" involves quantification, whereas "John is not unhappy" does not; the distinction is crucial.
I think "predjudice" is a word that is shifting in meaning and leaving a hole in the language as it does. How else does one describe their default feelings towards something? Predjudice is not always a bad thing.
I don't really get what you're talking about here. I used the word predjudice to mean an unjustified opinion, which is a pretty common usege. Of course one cannot avoid having "default feelings", but there is nothing wrong with subjecting these feelings to examination. When people resist doing this, they are holding predjudices in the worst sense.
That's not the case, but I think some people harbor inner feelings like that(many the same people who think that "predjudice" is a bad word). If you don't speak standard English, don't be upset when you have to rephrase things. Language does evolve, and what's nonstandard today becomes tommorow's standard.
I don't think anybody's upset about having to rephrase things. The point is that there is nothing wrong with speaking a nonstandard dialect, and people shouldn't be criticised for it, or told that their dialect is somehow bad or wrong.
I never said the word "improper" as far as dialect was concerned. I merely stated "Dialect cannot be considered proper english". Perhaps I should have said "Dialect cannot be considered Proper English.
I presume that's meant to be a subtle and clever distinction of some kind. From someone who is so keen for people to be careful about the language they speak, I would suggest that if you don't think dialects are improper English, you shouldn't say that they're not proper English! Who says standard English aids clarity of communication...
I also did not favor one dialect over another, hence the word "other" in your reply leaves some question, as in "other than which".
Nonsense. It's obvious that I meant "other than Standard English". You only need to read the sentence prior to that containing "other dialects" in order to see this. I assume that you're trying to be pedantic, but in fact you're just be silly.
Perhaps if the world were perfect your statement would be correct. I just want to know what dialect "You want no come in?" would fall under. I think that people, even linguists, recognize that some people fail to speak the language with any sort of pattern that can be seen in others, or even charted at all. I would consider such English bad, or broken.
Perhaps if the world were perfect your statement would be correct. I just want to know what dialect "You want no come in?" would fall under. I think that people, even linguists, recognize that some people fail to speak the language with any sort of pattern that can be seen in others, or even charted at all. I would consider such English bad, or broken.
No, linguistis do not think that (I am one so I should know). Apart from people who have geunine metal disabilities, everyone's language is intricately patterned. You may not be able to
Can you read? Can you comprehend? If so, answer this question: Is there enough food for today's population plus another billion? How about two or three billion?
The short answer is yes, if agriculture is managed properly.
Someday, perhaps the day you die, you'll discover that the universe is not nice, and thinking "nice" does not solve nasty problems.
Neither does being nasty. Being nice is preferable for independent reasons.
One of those things that I consider criminal and worthy of sterilization is willful ignorance in the face of reality.
Right. So let's get the government to round up all the people they think are ignorant and cut their balls off (or whatever). Sensible policy.
For now, I can just hope we're lucky and you don't have any kids - naturally.
See, you're just not nice at all.
The fact of the matter is, "world hunger" will not be solved without some form of population control.
Bullshit. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. The problem is that much of it is wasted and it's distributed unevenly.
Consider what would happen to our welfare system if every child was sterilized at birth and then as an adult had to pay for an operation to restore it to fertility.
Consider what would happen to the economy if there was no minimum wage underclass to keep the country running. The cost saved in welfare (if any) would be no compensation.
While I don't advocate this, I do think that there are some forms of behavior that ought to be criminal, that aren't. I also think that the sentances for some crimes should include sterilisation.
So you're not really a very nice person, are you.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that NNs are useless, I just wanted to point out that they're not likely to revolutionize AI to the extent that some people seem to think they will. This isn't meant as a criticism of TD-Gammon, but as you say, the approach only worked once enough processing was done prior to the NN that there was only fairly straightforward statistical analysis of the data left to do. A general problem with NNs trained from a "blank slate" is that they have no way of rationally deciding which of the many possible ways of analysing the input data to choose.