One must admit, however, that the whole John thing is a little strange. John Romero, John Cash, John Carmack. Does that mean during the early days of id, all three people in the company were named John?
Even stranger still... has anyone else realized that all three of those people were issued U.S. social security numbers the day after Orson Welles' famous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938? A little digging reveals that the original staff list of Id Software included such unlikely monikers as "John Bigbootey" (pronounced 'big-boo-tay') and "John Smallberries", just to name a few. That's a lot of Johns.
I, for one, am a little suspicious of the true nature and origin of this particular game company. My Jamaican friends paint a darker picture of Id than most people are aware. If only a fraction of what they suggest is true....
They oppose censorship. Therefore they are a threat. It's that simple.
But the point is that the Libertarian site is not blocked, even though they are in many ways not considered a "conservative" group. Of course, in several ways the Libertarian party can be considered conservative. In any event, despite opposing censorship, the Libertarian site can still be accessed through their filter.
If you (in general, not you specifically, pogtal) don't want to discuss, then don't. I see Slashdot as not just a community discussion forum, but also a filtered news source that is aimed towards several of my interests.
This latest article brings to light a new aspect of the censorship that is not aimed at protecting children from pornography, but seems to block political viewpoints that differ from some unknown entity. Hell, I disagree with the political views of several of the sites apparently blocked, but even I can see that this is wrong.
Don't want to hear about it? Don't click the link. The real shocker is how your post got moderated up to a five.
Yeah, but the only reliable source of an EMP that I know of is a nuclear explosion. Right there you get into the realm of nuclear escalation, so ground troops really don't matter at that point.
Keep in mind that the U.S. Military also plans on replacing the ubiquitous M16A2 with the "Objective Infantry Combat Weapon". While technology is nice, one has to wonder if we're abandoning superior training for superior equipment? Training is always useful. Technology is nice as long as the batteries last and the leads don't short and the parts don't bend and the innards don't get any dirt in them and, of course, you know what the hell you're doing.
It's clear Zimmermann has "gotten" the speech. He doesn't go so far as to endorse anything like "social structures," communities of trust, neighborhoods of understanding -- no, of course not. Zimmermann has been staunchly against laws, rules, regulations: anything that could be considered a form of social coercion.
Am I the only person who sees a major difference between a "community of trust" and "laws, rules, [and] regulations"?
All the laws in the world do no good unless the citizens involved actually start to collectively give a damn. The most obvious example of this is when neighbors get fed up with crime and decide to, as a community, "clean up" the neighborhood. Unless you get the residents to take an active part in reform, nothing will change. Doesn't matter how many laws you pass because they don't, they can't address the fundamental problems.
It's like they say, "I can't help you unless you want to be helped." Until the majority of people come together and eliminate their collective apathy, things just don't get better. Laws don't cure society. Society cures society.
Games like "Doom" also are popular. Overclockers who play them say the faster chips help them outlast their competitors. "If you don't care a lot about getting killed, you're probably not going to care a lot about overclocking," said Alex Ross, creator of SharkyExtreme, a Web site devoted to hardware.
Doom?!? Who wrote this article, Colonel "The-only-game-I've-ever-heard-of-is-Doom" Grossman?
What are these people overclocking, 386's?
Hasn't the author of this article ever heard of Doom2?
But what does the intention of the designer have to do with anything? Isn't the anti-gun argument about the criminal uses that the gun is put to? What, can't that position stand on its own merit?
By attacking the imagined intention of a gun, you seem to think that the manufacturer attaches some sort of "psychic aura" to a firearm that can be blamed for the criminal acts committed by it. Is the victim of a deliberate hit-and-run any less dead than the victim of a shooting? If not, then why does the intention of the designer enter into it at all?
Nuclear fission was researched solely for the purpose of making a destructive device on the scale no man had ever seen. And yet today a large majority of our power is produced by the seed of that first nuclear device. Does this mean those reactors are evil because a nuclear reaction was "designed" to kill?
If the first automobile had been created to run down children in the street, what difference would that make to us today? Who would give a damn?
If you can't make your case on the argument that the evils of guns outweigh their benefits, then you simply don't have a case at all.
Whether we're discussing the Japanese detention centers during WWII, the communist witch hunt of McCarthy, or the fictitious Arab camps of The Siege, it is never right for the government to violate the inherent freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. Once that happens, our country is no better than the enemies we're fighting against.
And why pray/prey is that? One of the main points of interest on this news item is this individuals connection to the conservative christian elements within American society. As a "quoteable quote", it is 100% on-topic and highly relevent to the debate, so I would argue that it should be marked as "+1:informative".
Then you would be wrong. Not only was it mostly offtopic, but it offered nothing useful to this particular discussion at all. A single offtopic quote, no matter how enlightened, does not constitute an "informative" post, especially considering how publicized this particular quote was in recent time and how Ventura says it was really taken out of context.
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the original post, whether actually believed or not, was only posted to anger people of religious persuasion. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I know flamebait when I see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the GIMP is GPLed, wouldn't they also have to provide the source if they let people download a non-source version?
Since he's the guy who wrote it, no, he doesn't. GPL does not affect the owner's distribution rights in any way. All it does is grant a few extra rights (with restrictions) above and beyond normal the copyright law to the general public.
No, those skills are collectively referred to as "persuasion". Arm twisting, compromises, strong-arming, CYA maneuvering, manipulating, persuading, etc. are examples of getting things done without "politicing".
Killing a burglar is *not* self defence. If you can't prove that he was a lethal threat, you will probably be facing at least a manslaughter charge.
Actually, it all depends on which city, county, and state you live in. Where I live, lethal force is legal against someone merely trying to enter my residence. The best advice to anyone is to know the law and never overreact.
I did not say anything about forbidding guns for self defence. (I don't believe in them myself, but that is beside the point) I suggested a *licence* for self-defence guns. First prove that you can handle the gun properly and most important: That you understand the consequences should you ever fire the gun at another human being.
Actually, the part you said that I was responding to was:
If cops and hardened criminals are the only ones with easy access to guns, one thing is gained:
And the problem is that general licensing schemes don't solve the high-profile shootings by people who just snap. See the rampage in Hawaii, which has very tight regulations on guns... the most restrictive state in the country, if I recall. New York City style restrictions state that self-defense is not a legitimate use when applying for a license, so the average person is left out of the loop.
The self-defense licensing you describe is actually the standard for state-issued concealed carry licenses. But the other licensing... why? It's obvious safety training only addresses accidents. It's laudable to try to reduce accidental deaths wherever you can, but most people don't understand just how low the number of gun accidents are... less than 1000 in 1997 according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. That's one-quarter of the death rate from malnutrition. Maybe your proposed efforts would save more lives if the money and time were put into other programs.
(The AK-74 and its older cousin the AK-47 are assault rifles, legally classified as "machineguns" and are therefore restricted as a matter of federal law to the possessors of Class III firearms licenses. Nobody's hunting with them.)
Actually, the best defence would probably be a decent alarm system. (And a police with decent response time)
A combination which is more expensive than a typical firearm and, in some places, impossible to achieve.
What do you do in that scenario?
The problem with quoting situations is the specifics involved. It's so easy to generalize and fabricate in order to create support for your position. What if you were unarmed, completely willing to cooperate with a robber, but he said "First we're going to beat the crap out of you, then smash your skull in with this lead pipe, then take everything you have, go to the address listed on your driver's license, unlock the door with the keys in your pocket, and violate your entire family." What would you do then?
Pretty ridiculous question, isn't it? But I'll answer yours. If there's an avenue of escape, you take it while keeping your gun at the ready. As long as you have the possibility of escape without an immediate present threat, you're obliged to take it. In most states, this does not apply to your own place of residence (in which it's real hard for a burglar to claim "I was just asking the time"). If they try anything to stop you, you are justified. Like it or not, you can't trust the intentions of a robber, not when so many people are murdered for their jackets or shoes. Or even for no good reason at all.
You always shoot to kill because that gives you the best chances to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, this is a sad fact of life, and stopping an attacker is always the ultimate goal of self-defense. Any expert on the subject will tell you that. But you only shoot if it's your only option remaining.
There's more to the word "politics" than the passing of laws and the management of government bodies. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it also refers to "[t]he often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society." As I'm sure you know, this is where the term "office politics" comes from.
When used in this manner, saying someone doesn't know politics indicates they don't know how to make people happy without actually giving them anything substantial. And when you fail to make a lot of people happy, things simply don't get done. It may be admirable to lack this particular quality, but in reality authority figures who don't know politics are often doomed to fail.
Additionally, the argument that you need guns to "protect" from getting robbed, etc., is BS. Proven statistic (don't have it offhand, but can find it if need be.... AFAIK it is commonly accepted as fact by both "sides" on this issue): You are _far_ more likely to be severely injured or killed in a burglary, etc., attempt _if_ you own a gun in your house.
No, actually, that's very wrong. Women's groups have found, for instance, that resistance is less likely to result in harm or death than passiveness. Sorry, but it is very much not commonly accepted by both sides of the issue.
The only studies I've seen about owning "a gun in your house" are the ones that state out of a particular study group, most of the people who died a gun-related death had a gun in their home. What it doesn't mention, however, is that all but one of those deaths were suicides.
Those people with felon records who have guns... I hate to break it to you, but they are barred by law from even touching a gun. As a result, they still are criminals. Where did they get their guns? Smuggled in by the same drug lords that manage to get ton after ton of narcotics across our secure borders? Stolen? Even if you can't steal from disarmed citizens, there's always the police and military. The infamous Bonny and Clyde got their arsenal by robbing a National Guard Armory. Within the past couple years there was a story about military officers running a black market in stolen military weaponry.
Slashdot Mirror
- One must admit, however, that the whole John thing is a little strange. John Romero, John Cash, John Carmack. Does that mean during the early days of id, all three people in the company were named John?
Even stranger still... has anyone else realized that all three of those people were issued U.S. social security numbers the day after Orson Welles' famous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938? A little digging reveals that the original staff list of Id Software included such unlikely monikers as "John Bigbootey" (pronounced 'big-boo-tay') and "John Smallberries", just to name a few. That's a lot of Johns.I, for one, am a little suspicious of the true nature and origin of this particular game company. My Jamaican friends paint a darker picture of Id than most people are aware. If only a fraction of what they suggest is true....
- They oppose censorship. Therefore they are a threat. It's that simple.
But the point is that the Libertarian site is not blocked, even though they are in many ways not considered a "conservative" group. Of course, in several ways the Libertarian party can be considered conservative. In any event, despite opposing censorship, the Libertarian site can still be accessed through their filter.This latest article brings to light a new aspect of the censorship that is not aimed at protecting children from pornography, but seems to block political viewpoints that differ from some unknown entity. Hell, I disagree with the political views of several of the sites apparently blocked, but even I can see that this is wrong.
Don't want to hear about it? Don't click the link. The real shocker is how your post got moderated up to a five.
Yeah, but the only reliable source of an EMP that I know of is a nuclear explosion. Right there you get into the realm of nuclear escalation, so ground troops really don't matter at that point.
Keep in mind that the U.S. Military also plans on replacing the ubiquitous M16A2 with the "Objective Infantry Combat Weapon". While technology is nice, one has to wonder if we're abandoning superior training for superior equipment? Training is always useful. Technology is nice as long as the batteries last and the leads don't short and the parts don't bend and the innards don't get any dirt in them and, of course, you know what the hell you're doing.
Now instead of boycotting Phantom Menace for not releasing on DVD, I can boycott the DVD version because of the despotic attacks on DeCSS. Woohoo!
No shit! What the fuck is wrong with these moderators? Troll? How the hell was that a fucking troll?
Great argument. "You are misinformed." Let me guess... you were captain of the debate team, right?
- It's clear Zimmermann has "gotten" the speech. He doesn't go so far as to endorse anything like "social structures," communities of trust, neighborhoods of understanding -- no, of course not. Zimmermann has been staunchly against laws, rules, regulations: anything that could be considered a form of social coercion.
Am I the only person who sees a major difference between a "community of trust" and "laws, rules, [and] regulations"?All the laws in the world do no good unless the citizens involved actually start to collectively give a damn. The most obvious example of this is when neighbors get fed up with crime and decide to, as a community, "clean up" the neighborhood. Unless you get the residents to take an active part in reform, nothing will change. Doesn't matter how many laws you pass because they don't, they can't address the fundamental problems.
It's like they say, "I can't help you unless you want to be helped." Until the majority of people come together and eliminate their collective apathy, things just don't get better. Laws don't cure society. Society cures society.
- Games like "Doom" also are popular. Overclockers who play them say the faster chips help them outlast their competitors. "If you don't care a lot about getting killed, you're probably not going to care a lot about overclocking," said Alex Ross, creator of SharkyExtreme, a Web site devoted to hardware.
Doom?!? Who wrote this article, Colonel "The-only-game-I've-ever-heard-of-is-Doom" Grossman?What are these people overclocking, 386's?
Hasn't the author of this article ever heard of Doom2?
Jeez! Get with the times!
- Quit with the lame analagies, please. They do not apply.
Quit with the stupid argument, please. It doesn't apply.Let those tears, flow!
Vodka... Tequila... the choice is up to you!
By attacking the imagined intention of a gun, you seem to think that the manufacturer attaches some sort of "psychic aura" to a firearm that can be blamed for the criminal acts committed by it. Is the victim of a deliberate hit-and-run any less dead than the victim of a shooting? If not, then why does the intention of the designer enter into it at all?
Nuclear fission was researched solely for the purpose of making a destructive device on the scale no man had ever seen. And yet today a large majority of our power is produced by the seed of that first nuclear device. Does this mean those reactors are evil because a nuclear reaction was "designed" to kill?
If the first automobile had been created to run down children in the street, what difference would that make to us today? Who would give a damn?
If you can't make your case on the argument that the evils of guns outweigh their benefits, then you simply don't have a case at all.
Drink the large bottle of vodka.
When you wake up, you'll find yourself in a different place with no memory of how you got there!
Now that's a wormhole!
Whether we're discussing the Japanese detention centers during WWII, the communist witch hunt of McCarthy, or the fictitious Arab camps of The Siege, it is never right for the government to violate the inherent freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. Once that happens, our country is no better than the enemies we're fighting against.
- And why pray/prey is that? One of the main points of interest on this news item is this individuals connection to the conservative christian elements within American society. As a "quoteable quote", it is 100% on-topic and highly relevent to the debate, so I would argue that it should be marked as "+1:informative".
Then you would be wrong. Not only was it mostly offtopic, but it offered nothing useful to this particular discussion at all. A single offtopic quote, no matter how enlightened, does not constitute an "informative" post, especially considering how publicized this particular quote was in recent time and how Ventura says it was really taken out of context.It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the original post, whether actually believed or not, was only posted to anger people of religious persuasion. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I know flamebait when I see it.
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the GIMP is GPLed, wouldn't they also have to provide the source if they let people download a non-source version?
Since he's the guy who wrote it, no, he doesn't. GPL does not affect the owner's distribution rights in any way. All it does is grant a few extra rights (with restrictions) above and beyond normal the copyright law to the general public.Thanks for the calm and intelligent discussion on the subject (even if we disagree).
- No, those skills are collectively referred to as "persuasion". Arm twisting, compromises, strong-arming, CYA maneuvering, manipulating, persuading, etc. are examples of getting things done without "politicing".
No, that is politics. See my previous post.- Killing a burglar is *not* self defence. If you can't prove that he was a lethal threat, you will probably be facing at least a manslaughter charge.
Actually, it all depends on which city, county, and state you live in. Where I live, lethal force is legal against someone merely trying to enter my residence. The best advice to anyone is to know the law and never overreact.- I did not say anything about forbidding guns for self defence. (I don't believe in them myself, but that is beside the point) I suggested a *licence* for self-defence guns. First prove that you can handle the gun properly and most important: That you understand the consequences should you ever fire the gun at another human being.
Actually, the part you said that I was responding to was:- If cops and hardened criminals are the only ones with easy access to guns, one thing is gained:
And the problem is that general licensing schemes don't solve the high-profile shootings by people who just snap. See the rampage in Hawaii, which has very tight regulations on guns... the most restrictive state in the country, if I recall. New York City style restrictions state that self-defense is not a legitimate use when applying for a license, so the average person is left out of the loop.The self-defense licensing you describe is actually the standard for state-issued concealed carry licenses. But the other licensing... why? It's obvious safety training only addresses accidents. It's laudable to try to reduce accidental deaths wherever you can, but most people don't understand just how low the number of gun accidents are... less than 1000 in 1997 according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. That's one-quarter of the death rate from malnutrition. Maybe your proposed efforts would save more lives if the money and time were put into other programs.
(The AK-74 and its older cousin the AK-47 are assault rifles, legally classified as "machineguns" and are therefore restricted as a matter of federal law to the possessors of Class III firearms licenses. Nobody's hunting with them.)
- Actually, the best defence would probably be a decent alarm system. (And a police with decent response time)
A combination which is more expensive than a typical firearm and, in some places, impossible to achieve.- What do you do in that scenario?
The problem with quoting situations is the specifics involved. It's so easy to generalize and fabricate in order to create support for your position. What if you were unarmed, completely willing to cooperate with a robber, but he said "First we're going to beat the crap out of you, then smash your skull in with this lead pipe, then take everything you have, go to the address listed on your driver's license, unlock the door with the keys in your pocket, and violate your entire family." What would you do then?Pretty ridiculous question, isn't it? But I'll answer yours. If there's an avenue of escape, you take it while keeping your gun at the ready. As long as you have the possibility of escape without an immediate present threat, you're obliged to take it. In most states, this does not apply to your own place of residence (in which it's real hard for a burglar to claim "I was just asking the time"). If they try anything to stop you, you are justified. Like it or not, you can't trust the intentions of a robber, not when so many people are murdered for their jackets or shoes. Or even for no good reason at all.
You always shoot to kill because that gives you the best chances to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, this is a sad fact of life, and stopping an attacker is always the ultimate goal of self-defense. Any expert on the subject will tell you that. But you only shoot if it's your only option remaining.
When used in this manner, saying someone doesn't know politics indicates they don't know how to make people happy without actually giving them anything substantial. And when you fail to make a lot of people happy, things simply don't get done. It may be admirable to lack this particular quality, but in reality authority figures who don't know politics are often doomed to fail.
I never was able to catch any of the short-lived Crusader spin-off.
- Additionally, the argument that you need guns to "protect" from getting robbed, etc., is BS. Proven statistic (don't have it offhand, but can find it if need be.... AFAIK it is commonly accepted as fact by both "sides" on this issue): You are _far_ more likely to be severely injured or killed in a burglary, etc., attempt _if_ you own a gun in your house.
No, actually, that's very wrong. Women's groups have found, for instance, that resistance is less likely to result in harm or death than passiveness. Sorry, but it is very much not commonly accepted by both sides of the issue.The only studies I've seen about owning "a gun in your house" are the ones that state out of a particular study group, most of the people who died a gun-related death had a gun in their home. What it doesn't mention, however, is that all but one of those deaths were suicides.
Those people with felon records who have guns... I hate to break it to you, but they are barred by law from even touching a gun. As a result, they still are criminals. Where did they get their guns? Smuggled in by the same drug lords that manage to get ton after ton of narcotics across our secure borders? Stolen? Even if you can't steal from disarmed citizens, there's always the police and military. The infamous Bonny and Clyde got their arsenal by robbing a National Guard Armory. Within the past couple years there was a story about military officers running a black market in stolen military weaponry.