Campaign finance laws were put into place to keep the playing field even. When the issue of others campaigning on candidates' behalfs arose, such as PACs, laws were put in place against "soft money" advertising, on the same principle -- no one candidate should be able to outshout the other by commandeering the limited number of media available.
But there's now an unlimited number of resources available for speech. Let one party open as many blogs as they want to open, it won't stop the other party from opening their own and letting their positions be heard. Unlike television or radio, the audience isn't bound to a limited number of channels, and thus can't be dominated by any single party.
This is a good move by the FCC. I'm torn on the issue of CFR over traditional mediums, but only because my inner libertarian can't stomach regulation of free speech and my inner citizen is sick of watching politicians elected by the size of their war chest than the quality of their performance. This isn't an issue on the Internet (yet... wait until election year banner ads), and in no way does regulation have any place there. Again, bravo, FCC. About time.
People who fill out the paperwork for a conceled permit, take the manditory safely training course, pay the rather large fee, and get fingerprinted (I have been through this process) are the ones most likely to obey the law. A criminal will NOT go through all of this trouble, and a criminal would not be stopped by a law criminalizing concealed carry.
Uh. Heh. Who exactly do you think criminals are, exactly? Damn, this almost smells like racism to the half-Mexican raised in East LA -- we (white suburban) law-abiding people don't commit crimes, they do.
Believe it or not, murder's not limited to gang wars and drug dealers. Mr. Wilson next door might find out his wife's cheating on him, or Mrs. Smith might snap over her last beating, or that teenage girl might decide to end it all with daddy's handgun -- and take her bullies with her. Criminals aren't born, they're made -- and they can be made under any number of circumstances, be it in hopes of a business promotion by removing competition, a stalking ex-husband who won't accept a divorce, or crimes of passion.
Yes, there are serial murderers out there, who kill with the intention of killing again, and they might specifically seek out black market handguns the police can't trace. But guess what, if the police can't trace them, chances are the general public at large can't find them to use them -- and the world's that much safer for the lessened odds that a scorned wife or angry businessman don't have easy access, if any, to untraceable handguns.
Because, believe it or not, these are people who commit crimes, if they have the tools at hand to do so. Waiting periods and strict control on concealed permits at least make it more difficult to commit crimes of passion and casual murder -- though I don't think they're anywhere near strict enough, and nowhere near your claim that they "criminalize carrying a gun."
People who fill out the paperwork for a conceled permit, take the manditory safely training course, pay the rather large fee, and get fingerprinted (I have been through this process) are the ones most likely to obey the law. A criminal will NOT go through all of this trouble, and a criminal would not be stopped by a law criminalizing concealed carry.
Uh. Heh. Who exactly do you think criminals are, exactly? Damn, this almost smells like racism to the half-Mexican raised in East LA -- we (white suburban) law-abiding people don't commit crimes, they do.
Believe it or not, murder's not limited to gang wars and drug dealers. Mr. Wilson next door might find out his wife's cheating on him, or Mrs. Smith might snap over her last beating, or that teenage girl might decide to end it all with daddy's handgun -- and take her bullies with her. Criminals aren't born, they're made -- and they can be made under any number of circumstances, be it in hopes of a business promotion by removing competition, a stalking ex-husband who won't accept a divorce, or crimes of passion.
Yes, there are serial murderers out there, who kill with the intention of killing again, and they might specifically seek out black market handguns the police can't trace. But guess what, if the police can't trace them, chances are the general public at large can't find them to use them -- and the world's that much safer for the lessened odds that a scorned wife or angry businessman don't have easy access, if any, to untraceable handguns.
Because, believe it or not, these are the people who commit crimes, if they have the tools at hand to do so. Waiting periods and strict control on concealed permits at least make it more difficult to commit crimes of passion and casual murder -- though I don't think they're anywhere near strict enough, and nowhere near your claim that they "criminalize carrying a gun."
They're being broadcast for free in the first place. What's the difference?
Commercials. If advertisers know their audience won't see their commercials, they lose incentive to invest in advertising, and the networks lose money.
I don't think it's a big issue yet, but it might be someday soon. I'm personally frustrated as hell with how long it takes to get shows to DVD -- I can understand why others tire of waiting years for a single goddamn season, then putting out $60-80 for it.
Television networks can avoid the same mistakes the RIAA has made by adapting to technology and setting up a legal alternative to piracy before television piracy begins in earnest. If they start churning out DVDs now instead of infuriating the consumer with slow marketing to squeeze every drop of money possible out of each season, and dare I think it lowering the insanely high prices on these DVDs, I can see television shows becoming far more profitable than they are today. Imagine, if they sell the latest episode online or mail-order DVD for, what, $5 after airing it? (Probably less, but then the average twelve-episode season wouldn't cost $60.) I can see them making some serious money.
But that would require that the status quo change, so, yeah, hold your breath.
Pesonally though, I would rather see a pure zero-emission hydrogen solution. At least in the U.S. electrics are still deriving their energy from mostly fossil-fuel power plants
And where exactly do you think the energy comes from to create and package hydrogen so it can be used in cars?
It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives it far more dignity relative to livestock raised solely for slaughter. Personally, I'd say the ones who take "pleasure in killing something else" aren't out hunting, they're at the slaughterhouse cracking open the skulls of cattle with a hammer.
A point, but at least those employed at slaughterhouses don't pretend it's a noble sport or take pleasure in killing their cattle.
This isn't an issue of the dignity of an animal's death, it's an issue of the pride and pleasure taken in killing. Employees of slaughterhouses, to the best of my knowledge, aren't proud of killing cattle on conveyer belts. Hunting centers around taking pride in the size of the elk shot, or whether it was moving at the time, or the size of its antlers -- that is, hunting takes pride and pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back, whereas slaughterhouses are at least grounded enough in reality to accept the killing of cattle as a grim necessity of production.
I'm aware of where meat in my store comes from, and I know the animals there had as little chance of survival as those in the sights of a high-powered rifle. And as I said before, I have no problem with the idea of killing animals for food. What I DO have a problem with is taking pleasure in shooting deer from hundreds of yards away, of pretending merit and taking pride in such kills -- if you're going to be proud of your ability to hunt, as I said before, hunt with a knife and kill with your hands. THEN I'll be impressed, when you chase down a deer and slit its throat. But shooting it unawares from far away (much less online?)? How is that any more noble than a slaughterhouse? And more to the point, employees of slaughterhouses at least have the excuse of being paid to kill -- what excuse do hunters armed with rifles (or mouse buttons, now) have for hunting, beyond that they take pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back?
I don't ask that hunters stop hunting, but at least stop pretending it's freaking noble or easily mistaken for achievement. And don't expect me to pretend respect for killing done at hundreds of yards away on animals unaware of your presence or capabilities. If hunters are intent on pretending pride in killing, have the spine to fight your prey on equal terms. If you want to kill with guns, go to Iraq and hunt with guns those who can hunt back. If you want to kill deer, that fearsome predator, at least use a knife and run it down. Or if you're unwilling to do either, at least stop pretending shooting animals from football fields away is anything worth taking pride in, or anything more "noble" than a slaughterhouse.
Re:What's the point?
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, no. Hunting, in a nutshell, is taking pleasure in killing something else.
I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent. Or anything more than overweight white people in camaflouge and masked odors, killing from several football fields away with a high-powered rifle.
If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt. And if you chase down your prey bare-footed and cut its throat with a knife, okay, I might even find respect for hunters. As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men.
Slashdot Mirror
But there's now an unlimited number of resources available for speech. Let one party open as many blogs as they want to open, it won't stop the other party from opening their own and letting their positions be heard. Unlike television or radio, the audience isn't bound to a limited number of channels, and thus can't be dominated by any single party.
This is a good move by the FCC. I'm torn on the issue of CFR over traditional mediums, but only because my inner libertarian can't stomach regulation of free speech and my inner citizen is sick of watching politicians elected by the size of their war chest than the quality of their performance. This isn't an issue on the Internet (yet... wait until election year banner ads), and in no way does regulation have any place there. Again, bravo, FCC. About time.
Believe it or not, murder's not limited to gang wars and drug dealers. Mr. Wilson next door might find out his wife's cheating on him, or Mrs. Smith might snap over her last beating, or that teenage girl might decide to end it all with daddy's handgun -- and take her bullies with her. Criminals aren't born, they're made -- and they can be made under any number of circumstances, be it in hopes of a business promotion by removing competition, a stalking ex-husband who won't accept a divorce, or crimes of passion.
Yes, there are serial murderers out there, who kill with the intention of killing again, and they might specifically seek out black market handguns the police can't trace. But guess what, if the police can't trace them, chances are the general public at large can't find them to use them -- and the world's that much safer for the lessened odds that a scorned wife or angry businessman don't have easy access, if any, to untraceable handguns.
Because, believe it or not, these are people who commit crimes, if they have the tools at hand to do so. Waiting periods and strict control on concealed permits at least make it more difficult to commit crimes of passion and casual murder -- though I don't think they're anywhere near strict enough, and nowhere near your claim that they "criminalize carrying a gun."
I don't think it's a big issue yet, but it might be someday soon. I'm personally frustrated as hell with how long it takes to get shows to DVD -- I can understand why others tire of waiting years for a single goddamn season, then putting out $60-80 for it.
Television networks can avoid the same mistakes the RIAA has made by adapting to technology and setting up a legal alternative to piracy before television piracy begins in earnest. If they start churning out DVDs now instead of infuriating the consumer with slow marketing to squeeze every drop of money possible out of each season, and dare I think it lowering the insanely high prices on these DVDs, I can see television shows becoming far more profitable than they are today. Imagine, if they sell the latest episode online or mail-order DVD for, what, $5 after airing it? (Probably less, but then the average twelve-episode season wouldn't cost $60.) I can see them making some serious money.
But that would require that the status quo change, so, yeah, hold your breath.
This isn't an issue of the dignity of an animal's death, it's an issue of the pride and pleasure taken in killing. Employees of slaughterhouses, to the best of my knowledge, aren't proud of killing cattle on conveyer belts. Hunting centers around taking pride in the size of the elk shot, or whether it was moving at the time, or the size of its antlers -- that is, hunting takes pride and pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back, whereas slaughterhouses are at least grounded enough in reality to accept the killing of cattle as a grim necessity of production.
I'm aware of where meat in my store comes from, and I know the animals there had as little chance of survival as those in the sights of a high-powered rifle. And as I said before, I have no problem with the idea of killing animals for food. What I DO have a problem with is taking pleasure in shooting deer from hundreds of yards away, of pretending merit and taking pride in such kills -- if you're going to be proud of your ability to hunt, as I said before, hunt with a knife and kill with your hands. THEN I'll be impressed, when you chase down a deer and slit its throat. But shooting it unawares from far away (much less online?)? How is that any more noble than a slaughterhouse? And more to the point, employees of slaughterhouses at least have the excuse of being paid to kill -- what excuse do hunters armed with rifles (or mouse buttons, now) have for hunting, beyond that they take pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back?
I don't ask that hunters stop hunting, but at least stop pretending it's freaking noble or easily mistaken for achievement. And don't expect me to pretend respect for killing done at hundreds of yards away on animals unaware of your presence or capabilities. If hunters are intent on pretending pride in killing, have the spine to fight your prey on equal terms. If you want to kill with guns, go to Iraq and hunt with guns those who can hunt back. If you want to kill deer, that fearsome predator, at least use a knife and run it down. Or if you're unwilling to do either, at least stop pretending shooting animals from football fields away is anything worth taking pride in, or anything more "noble" than a slaughterhouse.
Well, no. Hunting, in a nutshell, is taking pleasure in killing something else. I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent. Or anything more than overweight white people in camaflouge and masked odors, killing from several football fields away with a high-powered rifle. If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt. And if you chase down your prey bare-footed and cut its throat with a knife, okay, I might even find respect for hunters. As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men.