Define flying. Ah..... now it gets a little harder, doesn't it? Is flying merely the action of not crashing to the ground in a hyperbolic trajectory (parachute would constitute flying)? Does flying require the ability to control direction (Lilienthal managed control via body movement)? Does it require the ability move upward (do parachutes caught in thermal lift count)?
The genius of the wright brothers was to create a contraption that did all of this repeatably and on command. This was a feat of engineering, as the theories they relied on had been developed by a variety of people before hand. They invented the airplane, but they certainly did not discover flying.
Technically, under communism, means of production are owned by the workers. I can't help the fact that there has never been a truly communist state. Just like there has never been a truly capitalist state.
Thumbs up to entire post. I think one of the primary problems of modern life is the total disconnect between the stuff in the supermarket and where it comes from.
[blockquote]We could have won already if the rules of restraint weren't there.[/blockquote]
What you, and everyone who thinks along these lines, don't understand is that all military conflicts are by definition political. Not only that, but you also fail to define "won". In military terms, we already won. We just failed to keep the peace in Iraq.
I'd be ecstatic with that approach. I just have little hope of seeing it unless wireless AP makers are forced by law to do so. The logistics to implement that are too expensive otherwise.
Right. Everyone got that. So what's the solution? How do we distinguish authorized access to a network resource from unauthorized access to said resource?
I'll make my point explicit: if communication protocols and technical solutions aren't enough to determine permission, then what is? The idea of a sign is just plain stupid (one simple problem: I decide to be an ass, and post a sign for all SSIDs I see out in the open) as are all other options that I mentioned. You can legislate away a technological problem, and you can't legislate people to be nice to each other.
You're clearly going for the reductio ad absurdum approach. However, you didn't drive it far enough. Let's say that people follow your advice, and IP acceptance of a request is not legal authority to access that resource. Let's assume also that we go the route advocated by the people with the private door analogies, and we require personal authorization by the resource owner to access said resource. So..... exactly how do you access slashdot.org? Cnn.com? Well, I'm sure email would be enough. Send an email to Ted Turner or CmdrTaco. They'll reply and say, yes, you're ok to connect to our network and use its resources. Or they'll say no. But it can't be an automated reply, otherwise, how do we know that you actually do have permission, and didn't do something like cracking a password? Yeah, I'm sure the Internet will still be a vibrant community with that kind of permission scheme in place. *snicker*
Cleverly hiding behind badly thought out analogies makes me question your motivation, intelligence and work habits.
Wow. A horrible analogy that mixes digital communications with real world property. No wonder you got the wrong idea.
Tell me - if I *want* people to access my AP freely and without pay, how do I advertize it? Do I need to put out a sign? Do I have to name my SSID "FreeAP"? What if there are several APs with that name in the area? The simple fact is that, as other people pointed out, IP is built around default acceptance. Request a page, you get it. Request an IP, you get it. You don't sign documents before going to cnn.com, do you? Of course not; that'd make the Internet completely impossible to use. To further mangle the analogies.... when you didn't secure your AP, you removed the bouncer from the door with the doorman who lets everyone in.
Your inability to understand technology should not impede my use of it.
Err.... you might want to check your facts; I mean, your assumptions. Nowhere did I mention US towns. Not only that, but you manage to selectively assume causation when it suits you, and throw it out when it doesn't. Even if the argument used is exactly the same as yours, just with different data.
Wow. I haven't seen any cogent argument so far that supports the theory that more weapons in the population equals more safety. It's either "it's obvious, stupid!", uses anecdotes in place of actual data, or uses assumptions that are as unsupported as anything advanced by the gun-control people.
Nice that you read the same paragraph I did, but failed to notice the following tidbit: "a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security though some cantons issue the permits very liberally."
Besides, have you been to Switzerland? There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.
No, I wouldn't want the ability to defend myself with a gun. And yes, I'm aware of the possible consequences. So much for your rhetorical question.
And lastly.... yes, I do give a fuck that it is you who could be going apeshit. Or maybe you just want to take out the shooter, but missed? And now others are shooting at you, because they think you're the shooter? Fun times all around.
Guns don't solve the fundamental problem of violence. Escalating the weaponry brought to fights might make fights more rare, but it will also guarantee that any actual firefight will be far more brutal than anything seen before. The Columbine shooters were heavily armed. What's to prevent them from getting some vests, another buddy, some grenades and go through the school commando style? The carnage will still be there.
Safety through guns is completely temporary. It completely relies on you having the first shot, or, in case you miss, the ability to shoot again faster. All of which can be circumvented by technology.
Ah yes, the polite society argument. I find it interesting that you took a single example of a small town (rural, am I right?) and extrapolated a general condition from it. Tell you what - I've lived in cities larger than that, villages smaller than that and they were all very friendly places to live. Something they had in common? Lack of guns.
A polite society is polite without guns. It's the nutcases that require guns to be reasoned with. And at that point, you've lost the polite society angle.
Here's the other part people don't understand: there is nothing even close to the gun ownership that used to be common in the colonization times (term used since Wild West seems to trigger all kinds of movie related stereotypes). Everyone had a gun. Pretty much literally. Now? Very, very few people carry guns. Not nearly enough to make a difference statistically. Besides, I find it amusing that one of the worst shooting sprees in the US took place in an area famous for gun ownership.
Lastly, take the best trained people, and put them in the middle of a firefight. Even they shoot their buddies on occasion. How do I know? Friendly fire reports from the US military. That alone tells me that I ought to be worried about everyone packing heat.
I guess I ought to specify then that you're completely unlike the poster to whom I replied.:)
Interesting story about your dad - I'm wondering, were those people armed with guns themselves?
As for the military... funny story indeed. Though I'm basing my dislike of the guns for everyone approach on the fact that even a military as well trained and equipped as the American one can't get around friendly fire incidents. Imagine how small-scale firefights (like how people imagine a lone shooter would be taken down by armed civilians) would turn out when the people involved aren't trained in group tactics and don't know who the target is....
I don't think that CCW laws increase murder rates. My argument is that CCW laws won't solve the issue of killing sprees. Here's the thing: reasonable people don't need guns to protect themselves from reasonable people. Guns are required to deal with unreasonable people... the exact sort of people who don't care about CCW laws. The next point is that firefights are generally won by who pulls out the gun first... and that would be the person interested in shooting someone.
CCW laws don't solve the problem of violence. They merely increase the likelyhood that someone else gets shot.
And where do people in Switzerland keep their guns (btw, it's not 100% of the total population, merely a large % of the male population aged 19-49)? At home. Locked up. No one carries in public. You can draw conclusions from people carrying weapons in public, and it ain't pretty.
Erm.... since no one seems to have have brought this up, consider the following scenario.
Shooter opens fire on school with plenty of students who carry guns. People dive right and left at the first sound of gun fire, then pull their guns to take down the shooter. But where is the shooter? Suddenly, someone opens fire again. Is it the original shooter? Is it an honorable defender? Who do you shoot? Now multiply this problem by a dozen, and suddenly, it's a nightmare. This, by the way, is the reason that uniforms with bright colors were popular until the 1800s: to identify who is on your side and who is on their side. And if you think that friendly fire is a non-issue, consider the latest venture in Iraq, and its well-publicized friendly-fire incidents. Now realize that these are trained professionals, with far more battlefield intel than average schmoes can ever hope to come across.
Do you still think that arming everyone in school would have stopped anything? If anything, I can see far more carnage, with nobody knowing who was shot by the crazy person, and who was shoot because they were thought to be the crazy person.
I'm ok with guns. I'd rather only have a very specific set of people be allowed to carry them in public.
Since this has been brought up several times, the Swiss assault rifle in the closet is not what gun-proponents are advocating in the US. They are advocating that everyone in the US be allowed to carry a gun on their person, regardless of where they go. What you have in Switzerland is a militia with home access to military equipment, but where no one is allowed to carry them out in the open, unless on official business. Meaning, you can't take your rifle to the mall just because.
And Sweden? I've been to Sweden, and no on packs heat there. Where the hell did this idea come from?
Got a link? The studies I saw show no correlation at all in crime rate drops. The best thing they can hope for is that those enactments coincide with other approaches, such as better police patrols. Seriously, this is retarded. There are nationwide experiments with tight gun control, and none of them have the gun-violence problem that the US has. Is the rest of the world really that much more peaceful?
*snicker* Heh, yeah, guns for everyone would have solved *this* particular problem. And yet, it would have created a million other problems. Such as, every minor quarrel could turn into a block wide shoot-out. Look, your approach has been tried. It was tried right here, in this country, and not even that long ago. It was called the Wild West. Where "law and order" was enforced by which group had the biggest/most guns. Where heroes were made out of people for such things as bringing federal order to remote towns.
People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun. All you have is your little pornographic power fantasies. Yeah, completely banning guns is no recipe for global peace. But neither is giving everyone a gun.
Did you watch the Olympics in the US in the nineties? If you include in the ad tally talking heads talking about upcoming segments with no actual commentary whatsoever, ads were easily at the 50% mark. I timed it once: 3 minute commercial break, followed by a one minute "coming up next!", followed by another ad break, followed by the 2 minute ice skating routine of the US ice skater. Followed by more ads. If you included in the useless content the sappy life stories (orphan raised by wolves learns to long jump with logs tied to her feet), content was about 3 minutes out of a 30 minute segment. Disgusting. I stopped watching the Olympics after that, and it pretty much started my long decline in TV watching. It's now down to zero.
Because I can't do everything in my job. I've had good bosses, and I've had bad bosses. The bad bosses made me want to quit my job due to their incompetence and interference with my job. The good bosses made themselves invisible and filtered out anything that would distract me from my job.
Bosses are necessary. Every organization needs leaders (even the most far-out communes have de-facto leaders), because someone needs to organize direction.
And unions do not have anything to do with who makes a good or a bad boss. Come to think of it, I doubt you did more than glance at the first few lines of the article. Otherwise you'd have gotten to the part about changing the system.
Wow, you truly are inept. Did Sony catch you masturbating to furry Britney porn that you cannot rationally discuss their business decisions? Or even understand basic corporate law? As for user names... glasshouses and bricks come to mind. Or eye of the beholders. Or other silly truisms.
Slashdot Mirror
Define flying. Ah..... now it gets a little harder, doesn't it? Is flying merely the action of not crashing to the ground in a hyperbolic trajectory (parachute would constitute flying)? Does flying require the ability to control direction (Lilienthal managed control via body movement)? Does it require the ability move upward (do parachutes caught in thermal lift count)?
The genius of the wright brothers was to create a contraption that did all of this repeatably and on command. This was a feat of engineering, as the theories they relied on had been developed by a variety of people before hand. They invented the airplane, but they certainly did not discover flying.
... but politicians can. How much does a Senator or Representative go for, these days?
Technically, under communism, means of production are owned by the workers. I can't help the fact that there has never been a truly communist state. Just like there has never been a truly capitalist state.
Thumbs up to entire post. I think one of the primary problems of modern life is the total disconnect between the stuff in the supermarket and where it comes from.
[blockquote]We could have won already if the rules of restraint weren't there.[/blockquote]
What you, and everyone who thinks along these lines, don't understand is that all military conflicts are by definition political. Not only that, but you also fail to define "won". In military terms, we already won. We just failed to keep the peace in Iraq.
I'd be ecstatic with that approach. I just have little hope of seeing it unless wireless AP makers are forced by law to do so. The logistics to implement that are too expensive otherwise.
Right. Everyone got that. So what's the solution? How do we distinguish authorized access to a network resource from unauthorized access to said resource?
I'll make my point explicit: if communication protocols and technical solutions aren't enough to determine permission, then what is? The idea of a sign is just plain stupid (one simple problem: I decide to be an ass, and post a sign for all SSIDs I see out in the open) as are all other options that I mentioned. You can legislate away a technological problem, and you can't legislate people to be nice to each other.
Sorry, there are no quick fixes for ass hats.
You're clearly going for the reductio ad absurdum approach. However, you didn't drive it far enough. Let's say that people follow your advice, and IP acceptance of a request is not legal authority to access that resource. Let's assume also that we go the route advocated by the people with the private door analogies, and we require personal authorization by the resource owner to access said resource. So..... exactly how do you access slashdot.org? Cnn.com? Well, I'm sure email would be enough. Send an email to Ted Turner or CmdrTaco. They'll reply and say, yes, you're ok to connect to our network and use its resources. Or they'll say no. But it can't be an automated reply, otherwise, how do we know that you actually do have permission, and didn't do something like cracking a password? Yeah, I'm sure the Internet will still be a vibrant community with that kind of permission scheme in place. *snicker*
Cleverly hiding behind badly thought out analogies makes me question your motivation, intelligence and work habits.
Wow. A horrible analogy that mixes digital communications with real world property. No wonder you got the wrong idea.
Tell me - if I *want* people to access my AP freely and without pay, how do I advertize it? Do I need to put out a sign? Do I have to name my SSID "FreeAP"? What if there are several APs with that name in the area? The simple fact is that, as other people pointed out, IP is built around default acceptance. Request a page, you get it. Request an IP, you get it. You don't sign documents before going to cnn.com, do you? Of course not; that'd make the Internet completely impossible to use. To further mangle the analogies.... when you didn't secure your AP, you removed the bouncer from the door with the doorman who lets everyone in.
Your inability to understand technology should not impede my use of it.
Err.... you might want to check your facts; I mean, your assumptions. Nowhere did I mention US towns. Not only that, but you manage to selectively assume causation when it suits you, and throw it out when it doesn't. Even if the argument used is exactly the same as yours, just with different data.
Wow. I haven't seen any cogent argument so far that supports the theory that more weapons in the population equals more safety. It's either "it's obvious, stupid!", uses anecdotes in place of actual data, or uses assumptions that are as unsupported as anything advanced by the gun-control people.
Nice that you read the same paragraph I did, but failed to notice the following tidbit: "a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security though some cantons issue the permits very liberally."
Besides, have you been to Switzerland? There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.
No, I wouldn't want the ability to defend myself with a gun. And yes, I'm aware of the possible consequences. So much for your rhetorical question.
And lastly.... yes, I do give a fuck that it is you who could be going apeshit. Or maybe you just want to take out the shooter, but missed? And now others are shooting at you, because they think you're the shooter? Fun times all around.
Guns don't solve the fundamental problem of violence. Escalating the weaponry brought to fights might make fights more rare, but it will also guarantee that any actual firefight will be far more brutal than anything seen before. The Columbine shooters were heavily armed. What's to prevent them from getting some vests, another buddy, some grenades and go through the school commando style? The carnage will still be there.
Safety through guns is completely temporary. It completely relies on you having the first shot, or, in case you miss, the ability to shoot again faster. All of which can be circumvented by technology.
Ah yes, the polite society argument. I find it interesting that you took a single example of a small town (rural, am I right?) and extrapolated a general condition from it. Tell you what - I've lived in cities larger than that, villages smaller than that and they were all very friendly places to live. Something they had in common? Lack of guns.
A polite society is polite without guns. It's the nutcases that require guns to be reasoned with. And at that point, you've lost the polite society angle.
Here's the other part people don't understand: there is nothing even close to the gun ownership that used to be common in the colonization times (term used since Wild West seems to trigger all kinds of movie related stereotypes). Everyone had a gun. Pretty much literally. Now? Very, very few people carry guns. Not nearly enough to make a difference statistically. Besides, I find it amusing that one of the worst shooting sprees in the US took place in an area famous for gun ownership.
Lastly, take the best trained people, and put them in the middle of a firefight. Even they shoot their buddies on occasion. How do I know? Friendly fire reports from the US military. That alone tells me that I ought to be worried about everyone packing heat.
I guess I ought to specify then that you're completely unlike the poster to whom I replied. :)
Interesting story about your dad - I'm wondering, were those people armed with guns themselves?
As for the military... funny story indeed. Though I'm basing my dislike of the guns for everyone approach on the fact that even a military as well trained and equipped as the American one can't get around friendly fire incidents. Imagine how small-scale firefights (like how people imagine a lone shooter would be taken down by armed civilians) would turn out when the people involved aren't trained in group tactics and don't know who the target is....
I don't think that CCW laws increase murder rates. My argument is that CCW laws won't solve the issue of killing sprees. Here's the thing: reasonable people don't need guns to protect themselves from reasonable people. Guns are required to deal with unreasonable people... the exact sort of people who don't care about CCW laws. The next point is that firefights are generally won by who pulls out the gun first... and that would be the person interested in shooting someone.
CCW laws don't solve the problem of violence. They merely increase the likelyhood that someone else gets shot.
The fact that people aren't allowed to carry arms in public in Switzerland?
And where do people in Switzerland keep their guns (btw, it's not 100% of the total population, merely a large % of the male population aged 19-49)? At home. Locked up. No one carries in public. You can draw conclusions from people carrying weapons in public, and it ain't pretty.
Erm.... since no one seems to have have brought this up, consider the following scenario.
Shooter opens fire on school with plenty of students who carry guns. People dive right and left at the first sound of gun fire, then pull their guns to take down the shooter. But where is the shooter? Suddenly, someone opens fire again. Is it the original shooter? Is it an honorable defender? Who do you shoot? Now multiply this problem by a dozen, and suddenly, it's a nightmare. This, by the way, is the reason that uniforms with bright colors were popular until the 1800s: to identify who is on your side and who is on their side. And if you think that friendly fire is a non-issue, consider the latest venture in Iraq, and its well-publicized friendly-fire incidents. Now realize that these are trained professionals, with far more battlefield intel than average schmoes can ever hope to come across.
Do you still think that arming everyone in school would have stopped anything? If anything, I can see far more carnage, with nobody knowing who was shot by the crazy person, and who was shoot because they were thought to be the crazy person.
I'm ok with guns. I'd rather only have a very specific set of people be allowed to carry them in public.
Since this has been brought up several times, the Swiss assault rifle in the closet is not what gun-proponents are advocating in the US. They are advocating that everyone in the US be allowed to carry a gun on their person, regardless of where they go. What you have in Switzerland is a militia with home access to military equipment, but where no one is allowed to carry them out in the open, unless on official business. Meaning, you can't take your rifle to the mall just because.
And Sweden? I've been to Sweden, and no on packs heat there. Where the hell did this idea come from?
Got a link? The studies I saw show no correlation at all in crime rate drops. The best thing they can hope for is that those enactments coincide with other approaches, such as better police patrols. Seriously, this is retarded. There are nationwide experiments with tight gun control, and none of them have the gun-violence problem that the US has. Is the rest of the world really that much more peaceful?
*snicker* Heh, yeah, guns for everyone would have solved *this* particular problem. And yet, it would have created a million other problems. Such as, every minor quarrel could turn into a block wide shoot-out. Look, your approach has been tried. It was tried right here, in this country, and not even that long ago. It was called the Wild West. Where "law and order" was enforced by which group had the biggest/most guns. Where heroes were made out of people for such things as bringing federal order to remote towns.
People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun. All you have is your little pornographic power fantasies. Yeah, completely banning guns is no recipe for global peace. But neither is giving everyone a gun.
Did you watch the Olympics in the US in the nineties? If you include in the ad tally talking heads talking about upcoming segments with no actual commentary whatsoever, ads were easily at the 50% mark. I timed it once: 3 minute commercial break, followed by a one minute "coming up next!", followed by another ad break, followed by the 2 minute ice skating routine of the US ice skater. Followed by more ads. If you included in the useless content the sappy life stories (orphan raised by wolves learns to long jump with logs tied to her feet), content was about 3 minutes out of a 30 minute segment. Disgusting. I stopped watching the Olympics after that, and it pretty much started my long decline in TV watching. It's now down to zero.
Because I can't do everything in my job. I've had good bosses, and I've had bad bosses. The bad bosses made me want to quit my job due to their incompetence and interference with my job. The good bosses made themselves invisible and filtered out anything that would distract me from my job.
Bosses are necessary. Every organization needs leaders (even the most far-out communes have de-facto leaders), because someone needs to organize direction.
And unions do not have anything to do with who makes a good or a bad boss. Come to think of it, I doubt you did more than glance at the first few lines of the article. Otherwise you'd have gotten to the part about changing the system.
Wow, you truly are inept. Did Sony catch you masturbating to furry Britney porn that you cannot rationally discuss their business decisions? Or even understand basic corporate law? As for user names... glasshouses and bricks come to mind. Or eye of the beholders. Or other silly truisms.