>Well, the people who created USA thought that people should have the right to carry arms as a >part of "well regulated militia". Bunch of people blasting away is not "well regulated militia"
A few things worth mentioning here:
Firstly, "well regulated" in 18th century vernacular meant "well functioning". It did not mean "functioning under rules". For example, highly accurate clocks of the era used to set the time of other, less-accurate clocks were known as "regulators".
Secondly, there is a reason why the second amendment reads, "A well-regualted militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note here that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militias. The reason for this is simple: The founders knew that the militia, being a branch of the government, could be corrupted or usurped and used against the people. Thus the means for projecting force are reserved to the people, and not the militias. And in fact, this is precisely what happened. In 1903, with the passage of The Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, creating the Organized Militia (National Guard). Now, instead of the militias serving as a counter to federal military power, they serve as an adjunct to it.
Thirdly, the Dick Act created both the Organized Militia (the National Guard), but it also created the Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia. So if you are an able-bodied man aged 17-45, you are in the militia.
Fourthly, the recent Supreme Court ruling, DC vs. Heller, has made it a matter of settled Constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, such as a militia.
>What you are describing there is warfare, opposition to invasion by a outside force. We are talking about opposition to oppressive regime.
Oppression is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. My point is that all the cases I cited, a vastly inferior force successfully resisted what they viewed as oppression by a vastly superior force. Thus the idea that it is impossible to resist a modern military force is incorrect.
>And for example to that, I will point to Poland, Russia, East-Germany, Baltic States etc. Unarmed population >overthrew the oppressive regimes in those countries.
And that's wonderful! Hooray for them! Would that everyone be able to effect change nonviolently. Firearms are the recourse for when that proves impossible.
>And the risk is that you will have a perfectly decent politician who ends up dead, because some >nutjob decides that he just doesn't like him all that much. It has happened in the past.
Absolutely! Having a society with relatively free access to firearms carries much more risk than that. The risk of crime. The risk of suicide. The risk of accidents. Freedom is seldom safe. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
>But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.
And you should be free to indulge yourself in this choice. But many people, including the people who created this country, disagree.
>And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery.
And yet there are several examples in modern history of vastly outgunned adversaries triumphing against superior ones. America vs. Vietnam. The Soviets vs. Afghanistan. America vs. Mogadishu. America vs. Iraq. America vs. Afghanistan.
>And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed. >If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve. >If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.
So what will you do when you and your fellow citizens fail? THIS is why we have the right to keep and bear arms!!! That possibility of failure is just the contingency that our founders planned for!
>And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.
But mostly history shows that violence and money wins the day.
>So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, >break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do >you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" >to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
Quite simply, owning firearms gives me the power to choose whether to do all those things or not. Most firearm owners are peaceable, law-abiding citizens who believe in our way of government and believe it still responds to the will of the people. Firearms are simply an insurance policy in case this turns out to not be true one day.
>How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
I would say that owning firearms is just like owning any other tool. It gives you other optional courses of action to follow.
>So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
That is correct.
>If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
It depends on what state you live in, but where I live I have the right to shoot the head off of people who I reasonably believe are a threat to myself or my family. If you slap me in the face, and I can be shown to reasonably believe that your intent is to cause grave harm to me, then yes, I can shoot your head off.
>Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", >while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
I believe the OPs point is that should you start to be oppressed by your government and you are unarmed you have no choice but to go along.
>Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
As the just-released crime date from the FBI shows, violent crime of all types continues to decline, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition.
>Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort.
Good for you.
>I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, >where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
You are to pitied because you have no choice in the matter. You have been lucky enough to avoid violence, but you have no recourse should you be forced to confront it. That is a pity.
>Actually, I think that does help to show just how close gun ownership is to an addiction. Gun owners actually can >experience withdrawal symptoms if they lose access to their weapons. And like most addicts, they can get agitated >and violent if they feel cut off from their high - just ask any smoker who quit cold turkey.
What a complete and utter crock of shit. People enjoy exercising their rights enumerated in the Constitution because people enjoy being FREE! I like being able to say what I want. I like being able to have equal protection under the law. And I like having the means to defend myself and my family.
I enjoy all these right not because of some fucking addiction, but because all people love freedom!
>When the Bill of Rights was framed, the writers still remembered warrantless searches and seizures by the British >army before the war for independence, and since guns and ammo were naturally scarce they didn't consider the possibility >of gluttonous gun consumption a serious concern. Coupled with how most of the western borders of the 13 original states really >were the Wild West, with lots of dangerous wildlife, it was only natural then to declare gun ownership a right.
Let's be absolutely clear on their motivations here. Their motivations had nothing to do with the availability of firearms (which had existed in much the same form for at least 200 years before the founding of the United States). Nor did it have much to do with shooting bears.
The entire country was set up as a series of checks and balances, so as to prevent a concentration of power in any one branch of the government. This philosophy extended to military power. THAT is why they enumerated the People's right to keep and bear arms.
>If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. If the criminals are likely to carry weapons, >it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
I would expect that if it were known that lots of households have weapons, a lot less criminals would rob households
And in fact, the FBI's Uniform Crime Records confirm again for 2009 that violent crime of all types, including firearm types, continue to decline, in spite of continuing record sales of firearms and ammunition
>You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
I submit to you that the United States has been engaged in an unsuccessful bid to put down rebellions in at least two countries for the last 9 years and has been unable to do so, despite massively superior military power. I think everyone pretty much sees how this will turn out - we will eventually withdraw, just as the Soviets did, without having changed much of anything.
I also submit to you that this war is fought somewhere else and most US citizens just don't care. As one soldier put it, "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." Also because of this, there is no damage to America's infrastructure. A rebellion at home would directly affect the citizens of this country and directly affect its infrastructure, causing massive economic fallout, massively eroding the tax base, thus hitting the government where it is most vulnerable - its wallet.
When the two DC Snipers went on their rampage shooting people at gas stations, the economic impact was in the millions of dollars just from people afraid to go put gasoline in their cars. Imagine the impact of outright civil war.
>I work with dozens of, if not over 100, fellow engineers. The marriage rate is well over 80%, including myself.
Hey, I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and I'm married, too. Of course, I was 27 before I lost my virginity.
I'm sure there are lots of people who don't fit the stereotypical Dilbert Engineer. Nonetheless, there is a reason why the stereotype exists, and why Dilbert is truthily funny.
Perhaps you and your enclave of 100 fellow engineers are the epitome of coolness. My experience is that most of my fellow engineers are not.
>Arguing why you can't put your DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive is about as pointless as arguing >why there is no football dispenser in your new car. Point being, it was never designed to.. Not by the >manufacturer of the HDTV. Not by the manufacturer of the Blu-Ray disc. Not by the manufacturer of the >Blu-Ray player. All arguments regarding "fair use" aside for a moment, I fail to see why this continues >to be a valid argument for people who own both the movie and the player. Load the disc already >and just watch the damn movie. Not every product in this world is designed to work around you. >If you don't like the way certain technology works, then don't fucking buy it.
This is a completely incorrect suggestion.
If I have bought and paid for an item, then if I want to modify the way it works that is entirely up to me!
If I want to make it so that when I load the DVD the lights dim and strippers descend from the ceiling on velvet ropes to the sound of trumpets, that is my prerogative, regardless of how the content creators wished I would view it!
I rip my legitimately-owned DVDs so that when I sit down to play a movie I push one button and I am watching my movie. I don't have to fumble with the remote trying to bypass fifteen minutes of commercials and FBI warnings, half of which are locked out so you can't bypass them.
I don't have a blue-ray player yet, so this is just about DVDs for me.
I rip the DVDs I own because so many of the DVDs are filled with tons of crap that frequently you are not allowed to skip through or over. Commercials. FBI warnings. And frequently, many of the main menus are actually a little animated "movie" before it "solidifies" into the actual menu, and you have to wait for it to finish doing its song and dance before you can hit play.
It's easier to rip the content to a hard drive, and then when I sit down to watch a movie it goes straight to the movie.
Another thing that's great about ripping movies, especially children movies, is I can set up a play list on the computer and let it go all day long for the kids, without having to stop what I'm doing to change out discs.
Before people freak out about the "all day long" we only let our kids watch TV on the weekends, and seldom do they actually watch the TV all day long.
>Before we get all excited about this car's potential to solve our energy problems, >we should give some thought to practical matters like crash safety.
How long do you suppose it will be until fuel economy is the only practical matter under consideration? How long until you get to choose between driving any kind of vehicle at all or a bicycle?
My guess is it won't be very long and we will be forced to drive golf carts around town. Because you won't be able to afford to drive anything else.
>I remember reading once that men were much less likely to engage in terrorism if they had a wife (or was it a girlfriend -- I'm too lazy to hunt down the reference).
You've been modded as "funny", but I think you should have been modded as "insightful".
Engineers are still, by and large, the nerds. There is probably more than a grain of truth to the observation that people who don't fit in very well socially find comfort in academic endeavors, as opposed to social or athletic endeavors.
If I was going to go find people to blow stuff up for me, social misfits would be a nice place to start. The fact that they are smart enough to design bombs is a bonus.
Right now the virtual displays that you wear as eyeglasses simulate a screen in front of the wearer, but they are limited in resolution to something like 1024x768.
It would be awesome to have lightweight, high-resolution, wearable displays that would allow interaction with the visible environment just by turning your head. Lots of gaming/simulation possibilities.
Steve
>and what we'll REALLY get is 200-300k speeds for data on a good day, and one active voice connection that works... sometimes.
But this is exactly how it works with home internet.
You can't hold an ISP to download/upload speeds because in the end we are all on a shared pipe. But we should at least have a ballpark to work with. It's generally understood when you buy home ISP service that the advertised rates are _maximums_.
I would like to see phones advertised similarly.
I have often wondered about this.
on
The Many Faces of 3G
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article:
>What we really ought to care about is the same as with any Internet service provider -- the throughput >and latency and reliability you get to the endpoints you want to reach. That's what matters, not the >sophistication of one piece of the puzzle.
I have often wondered about all the marketing jargon floating about cell phones, and about people who go ga-ga about how their cell phone browses the internet.
Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration - I feel like I'm back in college with a 2400 baud modem again.
When you shop for an ISP you shop based on best-effort advertised upload and download rates.
I have it running on our entertainment center PC. Voice quality is OK. Sometimes people will call and noone is there, and there are other slight flakiness problems, but it is definitely worth $20 a year for unlimited long distance and local calling. I ditched Vonage, which was costing me $29 a month, for the service, and it is saving me roughly $300 a year.
My biggest complaint is that when you get a call or make a call the magicjack software interface pops to the foreground, interrupting whatever television happens to be being watched on the PC at the time. Kinda neat as you get caller ID that shows up, but annoying when the kids are watching TV and you have to go and push the media player to the front again whenever there is a call.
Another problem is frequently a Microsoft update will reboot my computer but the magic jack doesn't start unless I actually log in, which means people can't call us until I go and log into the computer.
All in all, I think it's a good service. Well worth $20 a year.
>Wait, no! You see, we actually agree! My entire point is that you should only be arrested for drunk driving when you are: 1) drunk, and 2) driving. >Not when you've had 2 beers and are driving, not when your BAC is some arbitrary level set by cops, but when your driving is >impaired enough by alcohol that you become a hazard to those around you.
You are going to have to define "drunk" somehow, and scientists have determined your risk of accident compared to your BAC.
I don't know who sets the BAC limit for being considered intoxicated, but there will have to be a limit set somewhere by someone.
>My whole point is that 2 beers shouldn't be the definition of "legally drunk". I in NO WAY condone driving while intoxicated. >I do, however, condone having a beer or two with your buddies over a meal then driving home.
If two beers are sufficient to put you over the legal limit for intoxication, then it cannot be condoned. Since most people don't have portable breathalyzers, this is a risky proposition to undertake.
According to this calculator, for me, 2 beers over the course of an hour would only get me to.02 BAC.
>How can you think that BAC rates are not arbitrary when different jurisdictions have different allowable BAC levels? Why are you drunk >in some states at.08, but not until.1 in others? It is also arbitrary because different people are affected differently when they >have the same BAC levels. According to your linked chart, why don't we make it illegal to drive at.05 BAC, since there's >obviously more risk than.00 BAC? See, it's all arbitrary.
OK, you are correct, I did not have a good understanding of "arbitrary". Yes, these levels are set in an arbitrary manner. However, presumably they are set by educated people who have some scientific basis for what constitutes being impaired.
>Don't get me wrong, I am not sticking up for any drunk drivers out there. I've never driven drunk, nor do I hang >out with people who get arrested for drunk driving. I merely question the legal definition and posit that it, like >most things law-enforcement, is set artificially low in the name of public safety and revenue generation.
You have to have some means for scientifically determining whether or not someone is intoxicated. A simple way to do this is to determine their BAC. Admittedly, this does not give an actual measurement of _impairment_. But it does provide a means to determine how much alcohol is in someone's blood, and this, through scientific research, can be used to predict their risk of having an accident.
>If you think ruining a guy's life just because they drove after drinking 2 beers is good for society, then we disagree.
First of all, you are setting up a straw man here. I don't care how many beers someone has drunk. All that matters is whether or not they are legally intoxicated.
Secondly, if someone is legally intoxicated and operating a vehicle, they are running a very real, very serious risk of ruining other people's lives. There have been countless cases of drunk drivers killing and maiming innocent people because their intoxication prevented them from safely operating a vehicle. People who willfully do this should be punished very harshly. It is no different than playing Russian Roulette while pointing a firearm at innocent bystanders.
People who drink and drive are satisfying a purely selfish desire, and in so doing putting other people at great risk. This should be punished most harshly, in my opinion.
In my view, if you kill someone while driving drunk, it is murder. And if you are caught before you kill someone, it should be attempted murder.
>I personally prefer non-arbitrary laws to determine what "drunk" means. If drinking impairs our driving so much, >then.000001 should be illegal. Why is it ok to be.079 BAC, but not.08? Is there good science to back that up?
I doubt the BAC to be considered intoxicated was arrived at in an arbitrary manner. In any case, you have to have a metric by which you can use to enforce the law. This metric has been set.
I have no authority to cite. I simply did not understand that ( ) was to be interpreted as "x" (or some other variable).
Thus when I see ( ) + 2, I interpret this as "nothing plus two". Parenthesis are operators, and the operators are operating on nothing, thus nothing is being added to two.
Slashdot Mirror
>Well, the people who created USA thought that people should have the right to carry arms as a
>part of "well regulated militia". Bunch of people blasting away is not "well regulated militia"
A few things worth mentioning here:
Firstly, "well regulated" in 18th century vernacular meant "well functioning". It did not mean "functioning under rules". For example, highly accurate clocks of the era used to set the time of other, less-accurate clocks were known as "regulators".
Secondly, there is a reason why the second amendment reads, "A well-regualted militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note here that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militias. The reason for this is simple: The founders knew that the militia, being a branch of the government, could be corrupted or usurped and used against the people. Thus the means for projecting force are reserved to the people, and not the militias. And in fact, this is precisely what happened. In 1903, with the passage of The Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, creating the Organized Militia (National Guard). Now, instead of the militias serving as a counter to federal military power, they serve as an adjunct to it.
Thirdly, the Dick Act created both the Organized Militia (the National Guard), but it also created the Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia. So if you are an able-bodied man aged 17-45, you are in the militia.
Fourthly, the recent Supreme Court ruling, DC vs. Heller, has made it a matter of settled Constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, such as a militia.
>What you are describing there is warfare, opposition to invasion by a outside force. We are talking about opposition to oppressive regime.
Oppression is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. My point is that all the cases I cited, a vastly inferior force successfully resisted what they viewed as oppression by a vastly superior force. Thus the idea that it is impossible to resist a modern military force is incorrect.
>And for example to that, I will point to Poland, Russia, East-Germany, Baltic States etc. Unarmed population
>overthrew the oppressive regimes in those countries.
And that's wonderful! Hooray for them! Would that everyone be able to effect change nonviolently. Firearms are the recourse for when that proves impossible.
>And the risk is that you will have a perfectly decent politician who ends up dead, because some
>nutjob decides that he just doesn't like him all that much. It has happened in the past.
Absolutely! Having a society with relatively free access to firearms carries much more risk than that. The risk of crime. The risk of suicide. The risk of accidents. Freedom is seldom safe. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
>But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.
And you should be free to indulge yourself in this choice. But many people, including the people who created this country, disagree.
>And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery.
And yet there are several examples in modern history of vastly outgunned adversaries triumphing against superior ones. America vs. Vietnam. The Soviets vs. Afghanistan. America vs. Mogadishu. America vs. Iraq. America vs. Afghanistan.
>And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed.
>If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve.
>If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.
So what will you do when you and your fellow citizens fail? THIS is why we have the right to keep and bear arms!!! That possibility of failure is just the contingency that our founders planned for!
>And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.
But mostly history shows that violence and money wins the day.
>So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes,
>break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do
>you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive"
>to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
Quite simply, owning firearms gives me the power to choose whether to do all those things or not. Most firearm owners are peaceable, law-abiding citizens who believe in our way of government and believe it still responds to the will of the people. Firearms are simply an insurance policy in case this turns out to not be true one day.
>How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
I would say that owning firearms is just like owning any other tool. It gives you other optional courses of action to follow.
>So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
That is correct.
>If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
It depends on what state you live in, but where I live I have the right to shoot the head off of people who I reasonably believe are a threat to myself or my family. If you slap me in the face, and I can be shown to reasonably believe that your intent is to cause grave harm to me, then yes, I can shoot your head off.
>Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government",
>while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
I believe the OPs point is that should you start to be oppressed by your government and you are unarmed you have no choice but to go along.
>Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
As the just-released crime date from the FBI shows, violent crime of all types continues to decline, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition.
>Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort.
Good for you.
>I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied,
>where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
You are to pitied because you have no choice in the matter. You have been lucky enough to avoid violence, but you have no recourse should you be forced to confront it. That is a pity.
>Actually, I think that does help to show just how close gun ownership is to an addiction. Gun owners actually can
>experience withdrawal symptoms if they lose access to their weapons. And like most addicts, they can get agitated
>and violent if they feel cut off from their high - just ask any smoker who quit cold turkey.
What a complete and utter crock of shit. People enjoy exercising their rights enumerated in the Constitution because people enjoy being FREE! I like being able to say what I want. I like being able to have equal protection under the law. And I like having the means to defend myself and my family.
I enjoy all these right not because of some fucking addiction, but because all people love freedom!
>When the Bill of Rights was framed, the writers still remembered warrantless searches and seizures by the British
>army before the war for independence, and since guns and ammo were naturally scarce they didn't consider the possibility
>of gluttonous gun consumption a serious concern. Coupled with how most of the western borders of the 13 original states really
>were the Wild West, with lots of dangerous wildlife, it was only natural then to declare gun ownership a right.
Let's be absolutely clear on their motivations here. Their motivations had nothing to do with the availability of firearms (which had existed in much the same form for at least 200 years before the founding of the United States). Nor did it have much to do with shooting bears.
The entire country was set up as a series of checks and balances, so as to prevent a concentration of power in any one branch of the government. This philosophy extended to military power. THAT is why they enumerated the People's right to keep and bear arms.
>If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. If the criminals are likely to carry weapons,
>it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
I would expect that if it were known that lots of households have weapons, a lot less criminals would rob households
And in fact, the FBI's Uniform Crime Records confirm again for 2009 that violent crime of all types, including firearm types, continue to decline, in spite of continuing record sales of firearms and ammunition
>You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
I submit to you that the United States has been engaged in an unsuccessful bid to put down rebellions in at least two countries for the last 9 years and has been unable to do so, despite massively superior military power. I think everyone pretty much sees how this will turn out - we will eventually withdraw, just as the Soviets did, without having changed much of anything.
I also submit to you that this war is fought somewhere else and most US citizens just don't care. As one soldier put it, "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." Also because of this, there is no damage to America's infrastructure. A rebellion at home would directly affect the citizens of this country and directly affect its infrastructure, causing massive economic fallout, massively eroding the tax base, thus hitting the government where it is most vulnerable - its wallet.
When the two DC Snipers went on their rampage shooting people at gas stations, the economic impact was in the millions of dollars just from people afraid to go put gasoline in their cars. Imagine the impact of outright civil war.
>I work with dozens of, if not over 100, fellow engineers. The marriage rate is well over 80%, including myself.
Hey, I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and I'm married, too. Of course, I was 27 before I lost my virginity.
I'm sure there are lots of people who don't fit the stereotypical Dilbert Engineer. Nonetheless, there is a reason why the stereotype exists, and why Dilbert is truthily funny.
Perhaps you and your enclave of 100 fellow engineers are the epitome of coolness. My experience is that most of my fellow engineers are not.
>Arguing why you can't put your DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive is about as pointless as arguing
>why there is no football dispenser in your new car. Point being, it was never designed to.. Not by the
>manufacturer of the HDTV. Not by the manufacturer of the Blu-Ray disc. Not by the manufacturer of the
>Blu-Ray player. All arguments regarding "fair use" aside for a moment, I fail to see why this continues
>to be a valid argument for people who own both the movie and the player. Load the disc already
>and just watch the damn movie. Not every product in this world is designed to work around you.
>If you don't like the way certain technology works, then don't fucking buy it.
This is a completely incorrect suggestion.
If I have bought and paid for an item, then if I want to modify the way it works that is entirely up to me!
If I want to make it so that when I load the DVD the lights dim and strippers descend from the ceiling on velvet ropes to the sound of trumpets, that is my prerogative, regardless of how the content creators wished I would view it!
I rip my legitimately-owned DVDs so that when I sit down to play a movie I push one button and I am watching my movie. I don't have to fumble with the remote trying to bypass fifteen minutes of commercials and FBI warnings, half of which are locked out so you can't bypass them.
I don't have a blue-ray player yet, so this is just about DVDs for me.
I rip the DVDs I own because so many of the DVDs are filled with tons of crap that frequently you are not allowed to skip through or over. Commercials. FBI warnings. And frequently, many of the main menus are actually a little animated "movie" before it "solidifies" into the actual menu, and you have to wait for it to finish doing its song and dance before you can hit play.
It's easier to rip the content to a hard drive, and then when I sit down to watch a movie it goes straight to the movie.
Another thing that's great about ripping movies, especially children movies, is I can set up a play list on the computer and let it go all day long for the kids, without having to stop what I'm doing to change out discs.
Before people freak out about the "all day long" we only let our kids watch TV on the weekends, and seldom do they actually watch the TV all day long.
>Before we get all excited about this car's potential to solve our energy problems,
>we should give some thought to practical matters like crash safety.
How long do you suppose it will be until fuel economy is the only practical matter under consideration? How long until you get to choose between driving any kind of vehicle at all or a bicycle?
My guess is it won't be very long and we will be forced to drive golf carts around town. Because you won't be able to afford to drive anything else.
>I remember reading once that men were much less likely to engage in terrorism if they had a wife (or was it a girlfriend -- I'm too lazy to hunt down the reference).
You've been modded as "funny", but I think you should have been modded as "insightful".
Engineers are still, by and large, the nerds. There is probably more than a grain of truth to the observation that people who don't fit in very well socially find comfort in academic endeavors, as opposed to social or athletic endeavors.
If I was going to go find people to blow stuff up for me, social misfits would be a nice place to start. The fact that they are smart enough to design bombs is a bonus.
Many times enough information is presented that you can make an accurate inference before all the information is presented.
And it turns out this juror was correct - the person she thought was guilty was, in fact, found guilty.
Right now the virtual displays that you wear as eyeglasses simulate a screen in front of the wearer, but they are limited in resolution to something like 1024x768. It would be awesome to have lightweight, high-resolution, wearable displays that would allow interaction with the visible environment just by turning your head. Lots of gaming/simulation possibilities. Steve
...BONERS!
*sunglasses*
>and what we'll REALLY get is 200-300k speeds for data on a good day, and one active voice connection that works ... sometimes.
But this is exactly how it works with home internet.
You can't hold an ISP to download/upload speeds because in the end we are all on a shared pipe. But we should at least have a ballpark to work with. It's generally understood when you buy home ISP service that the advertised rates are _maximums_.
I would like to see phones advertised similarly.
From the article:
>What we really ought to care about is the same as with any Internet service provider -- the throughput
>and latency and reliability you get to the endpoints you want to reach. That's what matters, not the
>sophistication of one piece of the puzzle.
I have often wondered about all the marketing jargon floating about cell phones, and about people who go ga-ga about how their cell phone browses the internet.
Every phone I've tried browsing the web on makes me just about cry with frustration - I feel like I'm back in college with a 2400 baud modem again.
When you shop for an ISP you shop based on best-effort advertised upload and download rates.
Cell phones should be the same way.
Then presumably the test instructions said something like "Solve for what goes in the parenthesis".
Because like I said, if someone asked me what ( ) + 2 was, I'd say 2.
Steve
This used to be a desktop machine, and I had multiple accounts for various family members.
Now that it is the "TV computer", I will delete the other accounts and take the password off of the default account.
Still like the MagicSilence application though.
awesome!
Water pressure isn't quite up to swatting RC planes at my house.
We've had MagicJack for about 6 months.
I have it running on our entertainment center PC. Voice quality is OK. Sometimes people will call and noone is there, and there are other slight flakiness problems, but it is definitely worth $20 a year for unlimited long distance and local calling. I ditched Vonage, which was costing me $29 a month, for the service, and it is saving me roughly $300 a year.
My biggest complaint is that when you get a call or make a call the magicjack software interface pops to the foreground, interrupting whatever television happens to be being watched on the PC at the time. Kinda neat as you get caller ID that shows up, but annoying when the kids are watching TV and you have to go and push the media player to the front again whenever there is a call.
Another problem is frequently a Microsoft update will reboot my computer but the magic jack doesn't start unless I actually log in, which means people can't call us until I go and log into the computer.
All in all, I think it's a good service. Well worth $20 a year.
I assume that every single electronic communications system in the world is compromised.
We should be moving to a standard where every single communication is encrypted, not by the carrier, but by the user. It needs to be ubiquitous.
Is there an app for the iphone to encrypt calls?
>Wait, no! You see, we actually agree! My entire point is that you should only be arrested for drunk driving when you are: 1) drunk, and 2) driving.
>Not when you've had 2 beers and are driving, not when your BAC is some arbitrary level set by cops, but when your driving is
>impaired enough by alcohol that you become a hazard to those around you.
You are going to have to define "drunk" somehow, and scientists have determined your risk of accident compared to your BAC.
I don't know who sets the BAC limit for being considered intoxicated, but there will have to be a limit set somewhere by someone.
>My whole point is that 2 beers shouldn't be the definition of "legally drunk". I in NO WAY condone driving while intoxicated.
>I do, however, condone having a beer or two with your buddies over a meal then driving home.
If two beers are sufficient to put you over the legal limit for intoxication, then it cannot be condoned. Since most people don't have portable breathalyzers, this is a risky proposition to undertake.
You may be interested in this link:
http://www.healthstatus.com/bac.html
According to this calculator, for me, 2 beers over the course of an hour would only get me to .02 BAC.
>How can you think that BAC rates are not arbitrary when different jurisdictions have different allowable BAC levels? Why are you drunk .08, but not until .1 in others? It is also arbitrary because different people are affected differently when they .05 BAC, since there's .00 BAC? See, it's all arbitrary.
>in some states at
>have the same BAC levels. According to your linked chart, why don't we make it illegal to drive at
>obviously more risk than
OK, you are correct, I did not have a good understanding of "arbitrary". Yes, these levels are set in an arbitrary manner. However, presumably they are set by educated people who have some scientific basis for what constitutes being impaired.
>Don't get me wrong, I am not sticking up for any drunk drivers out there. I've never driven drunk, nor do I hang
>out with people who get arrested for drunk driving. I merely question the legal definition and posit that it, like
>most things law-enforcement, is set artificially low in the name of public safety and revenue generation.
You have to have some means for scientifically determining whether or not someone is intoxicated. A simple way to do this is to determine their BAC. Admittedly, this does not give an actual measurement of _impairment_. But it does provide a means to determine how much alcohol is in someone's blood, and this, through scientific research, can be used to predict their risk of having an accident.
>If you think ruining a guy's life just because they drove after drinking 2 beers is good for society, then we disagree.
First of all, you are setting up a straw man here. I don't care how many beers someone has drunk. All that matters is whether or not they are legally intoxicated.
Secondly, if someone is legally intoxicated and operating a vehicle, they are running a very real, very serious risk of ruining other people's lives. There have been countless cases of drunk drivers killing and maiming innocent people because their intoxication prevented them from safely operating a vehicle. People who willfully do this should be punished very harshly. It is no different than playing Russian Roulette while pointing a firearm at innocent bystanders.
People who drink and drive are satisfying a purely selfish desire, and in so doing putting other people at great risk. This should be punished most harshly, in my opinion.
In my view, if you kill someone while driving drunk, it is murder. And if you are caught before you kill someone, it should be attempted murder.
>I personally prefer non-arbitrary laws to determine what "drunk" means. If drinking impairs our driving so much, .000001 should be illegal. Why is it ok to be .079 BAC, but not .08? Is there good science to back that up?
>then
I doubt the BAC to be considered intoxicated was arrived at in an arbitrary manner. In any case, you have to have a metric by which you can use to enforce the law. This metric has been set.
I direct you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_.png
I want you to read this article:
http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/208318/Ever_held_a_child_s_decapitated_head
I have no authority to cite. I simply did not understand that ( ) was to be interpreted as "x" (or some other variable).
Thus when I see ( ) + 2, I interpret this as "nothing plus two". Parenthesis are operators, and the operators are operating on nothing, thus nothing is being added to two.