Their idea of protection mostly involves brandishing a gun against an unarmed person and counting it as 'self defense'. Hell, in florida you can even start fights and shoot the other (unarmed) person and it counts as DGU.
Guns are only useful for defensive purposes when you are armed and the other person is not, which has always been the goal of the pro-gun crowd, esp the open carry people.
Ahm, the homicide rate in the US is the lowest it has been since the mid 60s. It spiked in 1972, 1980, and 1990. The 24/7 news cycle and culture of fear has really warped our ideas of how common something is.. but in general, if it is front page news, it is really damn rare.
I would not take that piece too seriously, since it includes situations where there was no actual threat in the first place. Any case of 'I felt scared and pointing a gun at someone caused things to go my way'. DGU just means that the person used a gun to get their way but did not kill someone.
Let us also not forget, the bulk of the shootings in the US involve a 'good guy' with a gun who is just one argument away from becoming a 'bad guy'. People act like there is some criminal class that is somehow distinct from us 'normal' people, but most murders are just normal people who happen to have a gun nearby when a conflict escalates.
Since this was a case of someone getting pissed off about a game and having easy access to a gun, if more people were armed we would probably see more people getting pissed off and start shooting. In fact, this is where the first gun regulations in the 17th and 18th century for schools came from... armed hormone filled teenagers tended to get into fights and it would escalate, so they banned weapons in schools.. the numbers of fights did not go down, but the lethality of them did.
Make believe using real people to do things that other people have actually been doing?
We had this same basic debate years ago when it came to writing violent revenge stories about people. It isn't 'just fantasy' when you can go 'sure, A did this thing to B, but I am C writing about D so D should not take it personally!'
The boundary tends to be 'did you use real people?'
Abstract fiction, even when violent, tends to be pretty straight forward. However this is a case where the game was using images of actual people around the player, and then the player posted a video of that artistic creation online.... which means the person posted a fantasy video of them gunning down actual fellow students. That is what crosses the line and makes people uncomfortable.
Sorta like, if I wrote a story about beating up nameless slashdot posters it would be one thing, but if I wrote a story about beating up 'stikves', including pictures of 'stikves' in their work environment, that gets a bit more personal and direct, and you would likely feel a bit more intimidated by it than the more impersonal varient.
'natural rights' was just an argument for how to construct laws that deviated from the concept of divine rights. It is complicated shorthand for 'rights that do not come from a king', that people have romanticized and warped since then.
I suspect today they are doing some kind of machine learning to look for patterns, in the past it was pretty simple. I worked on a machine years ago which had 'cheating detection' that literally only considered how much a single player was winning relative to the win percentage the machine has been configured for.
Years ago I worked on a development project for a gambling machine. Its anti-cheating code was literally 'is this person causing a short term spike in payouts'.
Ahm.. since I have never gotten into this whole skin thing, can someone explain how this gambling worked? How in the world was so much money flowing to this jerk, and why was he shut down?
Why let the people decide? Because they never had any choice. Companies and marketing departments decide what you buy, not you, and not your neighbors.. and what your neighbors buy determines what price you pay and what choices you have on the shelves.
Consumers do not decide squat.
Yeah, but bots and fake accounts are REALLY important to the right. Their whole self image is based on the idea that they are the majority, that they represent 'the real people'. Anything that threatens that belief by decreasing the raw numbers they can point to cuts them too their core.
Unfortunately courts have increasingly been oking this stuff even within the US as long as you are within 100 miles of the border and traveling with the state.
This.
No usable OS will ever be able to protect a user from installing an application they think is legit. Well, I guess really strict ACLs or every app getting its own VM/sandbox might.
They are not being 'goodie goodies', they are being pragmatically capitalist. Flash and Java are bad for their bottom line. The good of the users has nothing to do with this.
Slashdot Mirror
Their idea of protection mostly involves brandishing a gun against an unarmed person and counting it as 'self defense'. Hell, in florida you can even start fights and shoot the other (unarmed) person and it counts as DGU.
Guns are only useful for defensive purposes when you are armed and the other person is not, which has always been the goal of the pro-gun crowd, esp the open carry people.
Protect themselves and others from unarmed people you mean. A goodguy with a gun you fail to show proper respect for becomes a bad guy real fast.
The bulk of the time, the attacker will be another 'good guy', meaning the fewer good guys that have guns the less often an attacker will have one.
Ahm, the homicide rate in the US is the lowest it has been since the mid 60s. It spiked in 1972, 1980, and 1990. The 24/7 news cycle and culture of fear has really warped our ideas of how common something is.. but in general, if it is front page news, it is really damn rare.
I would not take that piece too seriously, since it includes situations where there was no actual threat in the first place. Any case of 'I felt scared and pointing a gun at someone caused things to go my way'. DGU just means that the person used a gun to get their way but did not kill someone.
Let us also not forget, the bulk of the shootings in the US involve a 'good guy' with a gun who is just one argument away from becoming a 'bad guy'. People act like there is some criminal class that is somehow distinct from us 'normal' people, but most murders are just normal people who happen to have a gun nearby when a conflict escalates.
Yeah, but for gun fetishists, shooting a fleeing suspect is the best thing ever and counts as 'stopping them'.
Since this was a case of someone getting pissed off about a game and having easy access to a gun, if more people were armed we would probably see more people getting pissed off and start shooting. In fact, this is where the first gun regulations in the 17th and 18th century for schools came from... armed hormone filled teenagers tended to get into fights and it would escalate, so they banned weapons in schools.. the numbers of fights did not go down, but the lethality of them did.
Make believe using real people to do things that other people have actually been doing?
We had this same basic debate years ago when it came to writing violent revenge stories about people. It isn't 'just fantasy' when you can go 'sure, A did this thing to B, but I am C writing about D so D should not take it personally!'
The boundary tends to be 'did you use real people?'
Abstract fiction, even when violent, tends to be pretty straight forward. However this is a case where the game was using images of actual people around the player, and then the player posted a video of that artistic creation online.... which means the person posted a fantasy video of them gunning down actual fellow students. That is what crosses the line and makes people uncomfortable.
Sorta like, if I wrote a story about beating up nameless slashdot posters it would be one thing, but if I wrote a story about beating up 'stikves', including pictures of 'stikves' in their work environment, that gets a bit more personal and direct, and you would likely feel a bit more intimidated by it than the more impersonal varient.
'natural rights' was just an argument for how to construct laws that deviated from the concept of divine rights. It is complicated shorthand for 'rights that do not come from a king', that people have romanticized and warped since then.
However, the intimidation aspect came from posting the video, not playing the game.
This is the classic problem of when students create fiction that involves real people.
Yeah.. the guy posted a video of himself shooting fellow students at a time where the public is worried because of students doing just that.
I suspect today they are doing some kind of machine learning to look for patterns, in the past it was pretty simple. I worked on a machine years ago which had 'cheating detection' that literally only considered how much a single player was winning relative to the win percentage the machine has been configured for.
Years ago I worked on a development project for a gambling machine. Its anti-cheating code was literally 'is this person causing a short term spike in payouts'.
Yeah, somehow the people with the most power never seem to be responsible.
Ahm.. since I have never gotten into this whole skin thing, can someone explain how this gambling worked? How in the world was so much money flowing to this jerk, and why was he shut down?
Why let the people decide? Because they never had any choice. Companies and marketing departments decide what you buy, not you, and not your neighbors.. and what your neighbors buy determines what price you pay and what choices you have on the shelves. Consumers do not decide squat.
Yeah, but bots and fake accounts are REALLY important to the right. Their whole self image is based on the idea that they are the majority, that they represent 'the real people'. Anything that threatens that belief by decreasing the raw numbers they can point to cuts them too their core.
Unfortunately courts have increasingly been oking this stuff even within the US as long as you are within 100 miles of the border and traveling with the state.
As long as you are within 100 miles of the US border the 4th amendment does not apply.
This. No usable OS will ever be able to protect a user from installing an application they think is legit. Well, I guess really strict ACLs or every app getting its own VM/sandbox might.
They are not being 'goodie goodies', they are being pragmatically capitalist. Flash and Java are bad for their bottom line. The good of the users has nothing to do with this.
Flash cuts into their advertising revenue, so yeah, it is getting added to the other browser features that they really want to get people off of.
Never forget that Chrome's design decisions prioritize Google revenue, not user needs.
I am sure they will reappear next time the price goes up a little to tell us all how as 16 year olds they were buying ferraris and dating supermodels.