The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.
If I'm going to a live event, I'm taking up space, which is a limited resource that costs money (bits are infinite and have no tangible value) and, if a price is put on my occupying that space, I pay it. In a packed venue, that space I'm standing in is space someone else could be standing in; if I'm there without paying, that's one admission fee or ticket sale lost. You're comparing the physical to the virtual and that's where your comparison breaks down.
Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.
You're right. I'm a pirate. I'm a "not wasting $20 on a CD for one song activist". I'm a "not spending $2000 on software just to learn ho to use it and be out that money if i lack the required skills activist" (that one's a dig at Adobe). I'm a "someone wrote that code and released it to you under a license requiring you to distribute the code with any product derived from it activist".
You'll probably ask how the first two can coexist with the third. Well, it's simple, let me explain.
If I hear a song I like, I find out what album it's on. I try to find a legitimate source where I can preview the entire album, but one literally never exists; failing that, I find an illegitimate source for it. Once I obtain a copy of the album, I listen to it, a few times, maybe 3 or 4, in different environments and under the influence of different moods. I, then, weigh the cost of the individual songs I like against the cost of the whole album, and buy whichever is cheaper, destroying (typically deleting the files, sometimes shattering a CD) the illegitimate copy once I've made my purchase. If I only like the one song I heard on the radio, I'd feel ripped-off (and rightly so, but if you disagree, please explain why) if I dropped $20 on an album with only one good song, especially when I could have bought the track for $1.29. Likewise, if the majority of the album is good, say 16 out of 20 tracks, it's worth $20 as the individual tracks would cost $20.64. The lower the price of the album, the fewer good tracks are required for me to justify my purchase. Say, for a $10 album, there are only 7 listenable tracks, it's worth it for my to buy them individually for $9.03; but if there are 8 or more, I buy the album for $10.
Let's talk about software for a moment. Another "product" you can't return if you don't like it. Why should I drop $1899 on CS6 Design & Web Premium just to learn how to use it? Yes, I know there's a 30 day trial; no, that's not long enough for a beginner to learn the tools. How about a more reasonable personal use license, something like, oh, 10% of the commercial use license, and watermark any images produced? But I'm not here to dictate terms, just to point out that they need to change. Let's look at this from the point of view I had 2 and a half years ago. Flat broke. I can make money working with Adobe products, if I learn them; but without money, how can I get them to make money with them? Piracy. And once I learn them and become productive with them, I can afford to buy them. And what did I do? That's $1899 they got from me last year for CS5, that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten; another $250 for the upgrade to CS6, which they also wouldn't have gotten had I not pirated CS4 2 and a half years ago.
With FREE (as in freedom) software, the source code is available, which typically means someone has a binary available for you to try, as well. Even paid FREE software, there's always the source so you can compile it yourself, or someone else has a binary they can provide. Use it as long as you need to, determine if it works for you, then pay for it; either pay the asking price, or if it's offered free as in beer, donate to the project.
It's not about getting free swag, it's not about justifying stealing bread off the table of another, it's about justifying putting bread on the table of another, rather than my own table. Every piece of media, be it music, movies, software, whatever, that I have purchased in the last decade has been a direct result of piracy. Without that, it's not like I would have bought every album ever produced that contained a song I liked, I simply wouldn't have bought any; Pandora does a good enough job at keeping me musically satisfied, and she does it for free. It's not like I would have bought CS4 2 nad a half years ago, I was broke and unemployed; had I not pirated it and landed a couple of design gigs shortly after becoming proficient in it, I would not have purchased CS5 or CS6, either. As for FREE software, I've donated and/or contributed source back to
This. Fake and insecure people annoy the piss out of me.
I have relatively few friends (51 if you ask Facebook, and that includes family; less if you count people I actually hang out with [or would if they weren't on the other side of the country]) and I recognize the reason for this as my blatant honesty. Those people who remain in my life appreciate the honesty, which is why I'm typically the first person they come to; everyone else did not, they were fake and they wanted me to be fake, as well, and I'm happier without them in my life. It's my nature to not try to screw people over and lie to them at every opportunity. If that's what someone wants, they'll be happier elsewhere and I'll be happier not trying to conform to that.
At every job I've ever worked, there has been that group of honest people, looking out for the customers and the company, shunned by those who would rather take what they can to get themselves ahead in life. I've always been in that group, because, like I said, it's just my nature to not try to screw people over and lie to them at every opportunity. There are companies out there, mostly startups and small businesses, that are staffed with similar-minded people. I've found a company like this and not only am I a lot happier at work, my honesty ("that idea sucks", "that product won't sell", "this guy just wants to rip us off", "that shirt doesn't make you look gay, but your boyfriend does") has helped steer the company to a position where they can afford to pay me more than anyone I've ever worked with at any other company has made.
Honesty really is the best policy and you're not doing peple any favors by telling them what they want to hear. Sure, everyone likes a "yes man" and your boss will promote you, give you bigger raises, and invite you to his birthday party, but when the bullshit backfires, don't think for a second that he's gonna take the blame; you'll be the first one out the door. Just provide an essential service (if you can't do that in your position, you're in too big of a company or too small of a position) and be honest when people come to you for advice. If your function in essential, preferably unique, they can't shitcan you for saying something they didn't want to hear; at worst, they simply stop asking you.
Have a corporate policy that says "Thou shalt not use thy corporate password outside of the corporation's computer systems, or thou shalt be fired." Then when a publicly visible violation occurs, you invoke the penalty clause in a public fashion, so that everyone can see you take the policy very seriously.
Mhm... One flaw...
It's heartless and ugly and cruel...
...and it requires one user to violate it before it becomes an effective deterrent. Even then, it only serves as a warning to those presently employed; n00bs won't have gotten the message.
Who said they don't already have a policy against using the same password in multiple places? The problem is that, whether they have such a policy or not, it's unenforceable.
Diversionary tactic or not, how many Dropbox users would understand, or even care about, the privacy implications of Dropbox's security policies? I'm guessing just the ones in this thread, so, by far, the minority. What the email they sent out (I got one, I've read it, I know what it says) does, that you're ignoring, is educate users who don't know better, including the employee whose account was hacked.
Now, I'm not supporting their securfity practices; certainly, that information should not have been stored in an employee's dropbox, but that's not the point here. Ask yourself, and answer realistically, if Dropbox had sent out an email explaining that one of their employees had a list of email addresses in their dropbox, how many people would have just been like "Oh? See? I knew I was on to something when I started doing that!".
I don't think Dropbox is trying to get users to blame themselves, I think they're speaking to their largely non-technical audience, in plain terms, and relaying a lesson they just learned, without including details that may confuse those same users. As evidence of this, I present the link from that email, which takes you to their blog, on which the most recent post explains exactly what happened, including all the juicy details you insinuate they're trying to hide.
To summarize what Dropbox has done here: They sent an email, to their largely non-technical userbase, with some very worthwhile security advice that is (sadly) not common knowledge. In that email, they provide a password change link, a link to a tool to make it easier to keep track of multiple passwords, and a link to the explanation of why they are doing this and a real-life example of exactly why the user should follow the advice. That's pretty powerful stuff; one has to wonder, if every company were as proactive in cleaning up their security messes as Dropbox is being in this instance, would the number of idiot users be reduced?
Now, I understand the point of view you're probably coming from. If Dropbox, and other companies, were more proactive in preventing these types of security issues altogether, idiot userd would be less of a problem. Here's where that point of view fails: The security issue here was an idiot user, not a Dropbox policy or a flaw in their system. There wasn't anything Dropbox could have done to prevent this, except to educate their users (and employees), it was entirely under the control of an idiot who didn't know better. User education is the correct response. Yes, they could have educated their users before this incident, but without a clear example to answer the "why are you shoving this in my face?" question, those who didn't simply ignore the advice would get pissed off or offended, then ignore the advice. And who's to say their policy hasn't been, from day one, "don't use the same password here that you use elsewhere"? How would they enforce it? They can't.
Sadly, if it means more work for the user, the user will ignore it. Even with this incident, and a clear explanation of what can happen, you know as well as I do that 90% of users are going to change their Dropbox password, then promptly change all their other passwords to match it. At least we won 10% of users, today.
Your three examples lacked depth and detail, ergo they *were* insufficient for those who don't already understand the principle you are describing. As for what you appreciate, you're an AC and I've got karma coming out of my ears, so... I don't really give a shit.
Many illegal actions (actions that are illegal by default) stop being so if the involved parties agree.
Bingo. It's illegal for you to take my money and it's illegal for me to take your car, but if you agree to give me the car and I agree to give you the money, that's perfectly fine. Such a simple thought process that everyone here deals with almost every day, yet it seems that so few understand it. Bravo, AC!
If guns didn't exist, criminials wouldn't be able to get them illegally, despite gun bans. However, they do exist, and banning them won't keep them out of hte hands of criminals. Therefore, the only logical course of action is to put them into as many hands as possible (preferably, backing that with training), to deter criminal use of guns. Look at gun ownership rates in countries with low violent crime rates, then look at those same numbers in countries with more violent crime. Guns per-capita and gun ownership rates do not equate, so make sure you're looking at the correct numbers. For example, in 2007, there were 88.8 (legal) guns in the US for every 100 US citizens, but only 20.9% of US citizens owned (legal) guns; that 20.9% is the number you want. At the same time, Switzerland had a 45% gun ownership rate, and much less violent crime.
Of course, if you dig deeper, you'll find that there is, in fact, no correllation between the two. The difference between Switzerland and the US is that Switzerland has more widespread military training and the US has more gangs. When you know there's a nearly 50% chance the person you're about to attask has a gun *and* knows how to use it, you're much less likely to do it than, say, a 20% chance they own a gun, a 25% chance that, if they own a gun, they're carrying it (so you can follow along, that's a 5% chance they have a gun on their person) and even given that, maybe a 10% chance they have military training and can handle it well enough to actually defend themselves. If you followed, that's a 45% chance a victim in Switzerland can defend themselves, vs a 0.5% chance a victim in the US can do the same. Follow the same logic in other countries and you *do* see a correllation.
If you're going to debunk his arguments, why not take them all out at once? You forgot to mention that Amtrak is a private corporation, who laid their own tracks, and the other train companies are the same; this is not a Government service. Police forces are largely funded by their own revenue (traffic citations and civil fines) and most often serve corporate interests, rather than civic ones; they derive their power from Government, but they rarely serve the same and, so, can not be considered part of Government. Additionally, it was Governemnt that allowed insurance companies to drive up the price of heath care to the point that people are begging Governement to do something about it. In fact, where Government has gotten involved with trains, they have become more expensive and less efficient to operate; the same could be said for police forces, as well, just as with healthcare.
I, speaking in a pro-gun tone, actually do not own a gun (lest you count my airsotf toy). However, please allow me to shoot your theory full of holes: I give you Switzerland. Funny, you mention Switzerland in your post, as well. Now, you'll turn and point out that, per capita, there are more guns in the US, with nearly 9 guns for every 10 people, compared with Switzerland's 4.5:10 ratio. Assuming even distribution of firearms, as is strongly infferred by Switzerland's policies, you are correct, a larger portion of the US population is armed. However, that is simply not the case; there are more guns, per-capita, in the US, but this is primarily because most US gun owners own more than one gun. With 65 million registered gun owners in the US and roughly 277 million guns (roughly 311,600,000 people times the per-capita ratio of 88.8% fro mthe resource above), that weighs in at an average of about 4.25 guns per owner, or a 13:4 ratio of guns to gun owners, but only about 20.9% of people actually owning guns in the US. Fewer than Switzerland, by percentage.
You can say that military training, being taught how to handle a firearm, has something to do tiwh Switzerland's reduced gun crime, but honestly, think about that. If you know you're trained, you know you'll hit your target, what's your deterrent? That everyone else is trained, as well. It's not that there are fewer armed individuals, because there aren't, there are actually more. You're more likely to encounter another armed individual in Switzerland than you are to encounter one in the US; more to the point, you're more likely to encounter an armed individual who actually knows how to use their gun in Switzerland. That's one hell of a deterrent. Here, in the US, there's a 4 in 5 chance that your victim doesn't even own a gun, and an even greater chance that they're not carrying, even if they do own; that does not, in any way, act to deter gun crime, like what you have in Switzerland.
That we don't have the same program here, in the US, speaks volumes about our government's intentions. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to piece that together.
I suppose you should read my posts again. I was arguing in favor of gun ownership, e.g. the 2nd amendment. I'm guessing you missed that. Maybe it's due to a poor understanding of the English language and, you know, words?
And this is the definition of a natural right: something you can do without harming anyone else. If a black man doesn't ploy your fields, he's not harming you, he's simply not helping you, either. If two men marry, they're not harming you; in fact, as a straight man, that's two fewer guys competing for the few decent women out there, they're helping you by being gay. That's the test for whether something should be a natural right or not: if everyone is able to do this, will anyone be hurt? If yes, then more consideration must be given to whether that action should be allowed; if no, then it should be considered as a natural right.
Take, for example, gun ownership. Yes, if everyone is allowed to own a gun, people will get shot. This happens, that's the proof. However, were we to ban guns, only criminals would have them; this would not reduce gun-related crimes (and would only slightly reduce gun-related accidents) and may, in fact, increase such crimes, since there will by much less chance of an assailant encountering an armed victim. Therefore, the benefit of allowing gun ownership outweights the downside, and so it is allowed.
Apply that to slave ownership, even in the light of the Confederate belief system, and it's still just as clear that, although the white slave owner benefits by not having to plow his own field, pick his own cotton, clean his own house, or pay someone else to do these things for him, the slave is still being harmed by not being given the opportunity to go out and do better for themselves. In this way, it becomes clear that slave ownership is not a natural right; that does still leave open for discussion the matter of whether it should be a right at all. This was one of the main causes of the American Civil War; since it was clearly not a natural right and the two sides couldn't agree that it should or should not be a given right, they decided to duke it out, instead.
Wow, you failed World History, didn't you? Life's not about me, it's about you? But, then, it's about all of us pitching in, for each other? So, it's partly about me, then. Wait. What? You make no sense and demonstrate next to no understanding of the subject matter. Go read an elementary school history book, then come talk to me about Government and what Government means.
If a right granted to you interferes with the natural rights of another, the law granting you that right is unjust and tyrannical.
Slaves, e.g. negroes, being humans, in and of themselves, would have their own natural right to freedom. Therefore, the law to which you refer would, indeed, be a law which steps on that right, which would certainly be tyranical.
Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming. What's alarming is that people who want these laws are the minority.
Slashdot Mirror
... and in the new rMBP line...
And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.
The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.
If I'm going to a live event, I'm taking up space, which is a limited resource that costs money (bits are infinite and have no tangible value) and, if a price is put on my occupying that space, I pay it. In a packed venue, that space I'm standing in is space someone else could be standing in; if I'm there without paying, that's one admission fee or ticket sale lost. You're comparing the physical to the virtual and that's where your comparison breaks down.
Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.
You're right. I'm a pirate. I'm a "not wasting $20 on a CD for one song activist". I'm a "not spending $2000 on software just to learn ho to use it and be out that money if i lack the required skills activist" (that one's a dig at Adobe). I'm a "someone wrote that code and released it to you under a license requiring you to distribute the code with any product derived from it activist".
You'll probably ask how the first two can coexist with the third. Well, it's simple, let me explain.
If I hear a song I like, I find out what album it's on. I try to find a legitimate source where I can preview the entire album, but one literally never exists; failing that, I find an illegitimate source for it. Once I obtain a copy of the album, I listen to it, a few times, maybe 3 or 4, in different environments and under the influence of different moods. I, then, weigh the cost of the individual songs I like against the cost of the whole album, and buy whichever is cheaper, destroying (typically deleting the files, sometimes shattering a CD) the illegitimate copy once I've made my purchase. If I only like the one song I heard on the radio, I'd feel ripped-off (and rightly so, but if you disagree, please explain why) if I dropped $20 on an album with only one good song, especially when I could have bought the track for $1.29. Likewise, if the majority of the album is good, say 16 out of 20 tracks, it's worth $20 as the individual tracks would cost $20.64. The lower the price of the album, the fewer good tracks are required for me to justify my purchase. Say, for a $10 album, there are only 7 listenable tracks, it's worth it for my to buy them individually for $9.03; but if there are 8 or more, I buy the album for $10.
Let's talk about software for a moment. Another "product" you can't return if you don't like it. Why should I drop $1899 on CS6 Design & Web Premium just to learn how to use it? Yes, I know there's a 30 day trial; no, that's not long enough for a beginner to learn the tools. How about a more reasonable personal use license, something like, oh, 10% of the commercial use license, and watermark any images produced? But I'm not here to dictate terms, just to point out that they need to change. Let's look at this from the point of view I had 2 and a half years ago. Flat broke. I can make money working with Adobe products, if I learn them; but without money, how can I get them to make money with them? Piracy. And once I learn them and become productive with them, I can afford to buy them. And what did I do? That's $1899 they got from me last year for CS5, that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten; another $250 for the upgrade to CS6, which they also wouldn't have gotten had I not pirated CS4 2 and a half years ago.
With FREE (as in freedom) software, the source code is available, which typically means someone has a binary available for you to try, as well. Even paid FREE software, there's always the source so you can compile it yourself, or someone else has a binary they can provide. Use it as long as you need to, determine if it works for you, then pay for it; either pay the asking price, or if it's offered free as in beer, donate to the project.
It's not about getting free swag, it's not about justifying stealing bread off the table of another, it's about justifying putting bread on the table of another, rather than my own table. Every piece of media, be it music, movies, software, whatever, that I have purchased in the last decade has been a direct result of piracy. Without that, it's not like I would have bought every album ever produced that contained a song I liked, I simply wouldn't have bought any; Pandora does a good enough job at keeping me musically satisfied, and she does it for free. It's not like I would have bought CS4 2 nad a half years ago, I was broke and unemployed; had I not pirated it and landed a couple of design gigs shortly after becoming proficient in it, I would not have purchased CS5 or CS6, either. As for FREE software, I've donated and/or contributed source back to
This. Fake and insecure people annoy the piss out of me.
I have relatively few friends (51 if you ask Facebook, and that includes family; less if you count people I actually hang out with [or would if they weren't on the other side of the country]) and I recognize the reason for this as my blatant honesty. Those people who remain in my life appreciate the honesty, which is why I'm typically the first person they come to; everyone else did not, they were fake and they wanted me to be fake, as well, and I'm happier without them in my life. It's my nature to not try to screw people over and lie to them at every opportunity. If that's what someone wants, they'll be happier elsewhere and I'll be happier not trying to conform to that.
At every job I've ever worked, there has been that group of honest people, looking out for the customers and the company, shunned by those who would rather take what they can to get themselves ahead in life. I've always been in that group, because, like I said, it's just my nature to not try to screw people over and lie to them at every opportunity. There are companies out there, mostly startups and small businesses, that are staffed with similar-minded people. I've found a company like this and not only am I a lot happier at work, my honesty ("that idea sucks", "that product won't sell", "this guy just wants to rip us off", "that shirt doesn't make you look gay, but your boyfriend does") has helped steer the company to a position where they can afford to pay me more than anyone I've ever worked with at any other company has made.
Honesty really is the best policy and you're not doing peple any favors by telling them what they want to hear. Sure, everyone likes a "yes man" and your boss will promote you, give you bigger raises, and invite you to his birthday party, but when the bullshit backfires, don't think for a second that he's gonna take the blame; you'll be the first one out the door. Just provide an essential service (if you can't do that in your position, you're in too big of a company or too small of a position) and be honest when people come to you for advice. If your function in essential, preferably unique, they can't shitcan you for saying something they didn't want to hear; at worst, they simply stop asking you.
Lol we could do this all day... But, I'm out of material...
Great, that's sorted out, now if only there were a way to type less-than and greater-than signs in HTML...
Damn, if only there was some way that internet comments could express sarcasm.
Have a corporate policy that says "Thou shalt not use thy corporate password outside of the corporation's computer systems, or thou shalt be fired." Then when a publicly visible violation occurs, you invoke the penalty clause in a public fashion, so that everyone can see you take the policy very seriously.
Mhm... One flaw...
It's heartless and ugly and cruel...
...and it requires one user to violate it before it becomes an effective deterrent. Even then, it only serves as a warning to those presently employed; n00bs won't have gotten the message.
Who said they don't already have a policy against using the same password in multiple places? The problem is that, whether they have such a policy or not, it's unenforceable.
It's Dropbox; what do you think their intranet is?
Diversionary tactic or not, how many Dropbox users would understand, or even care about, the privacy implications of Dropbox's security policies? I'm guessing just the ones in this thread, so, by far, the minority. What the email they sent out (I got one, I've read it, I know what it says) does, that you're ignoring, is educate users who don't know better, including the employee whose account was hacked.
Now, I'm not supporting their securfity practices; certainly, that information should not have been stored in an employee's dropbox, but that's not the point here. Ask yourself, and answer realistically, if Dropbox had sent out an email explaining that one of their employees had a list of email addresses in their dropbox, how many people would have just been like "Oh? See? I knew I was on to something when I started doing that!".
I don't think Dropbox is trying to get users to blame themselves, I think they're speaking to their largely non-technical audience, in plain terms, and relaying a lesson they just learned, without including details that may confuse those same users. As evidence of this, I present the link from that email, which takes you to their blog, on which the most recent post explains exactly what happened, including all the juicy details you insinuate they're trying to hide.
To summarize what Dropbox has done here: They sent an email, to their largely non-technical userbase, with some very worthwhile security advice that is (sadly) not common knowledge. In that email, they provide a password change link, a link to a tool to make it easier to keep track of multiple passwords, and a link to the explanation of why they are doing this and a real-life example of exactly why the user should follow the advice. That's pretty powerful stuff; one has to wonder, if every company were as proactive in cleaning up their security messes as Dropbox is being in this instance, would the number of idiot users be reduced?
Now, I understand the point of view you're probably coming from. If Dropbox, and other companies, were more proactive in preventing these types of security issues altogether, idiot userd would be less of a problem. Here's where that point of view fails: The security issue here was an idiot user, not a Dropbox policy or a flaw in their system. There wasn't anything Dropbox could have done to prevent this, except to educate their users (and employees), it was entirely under the control of an idiot who didn't know better. User education is the correct response. Yes, they could have educated their users before this incident, but without a clear example to answer the "why are you shoving this in my face?" question, those who didn't simply ignore the advice would get pissed off or offended, then ignore the advice. And who's to say their policy hasn't been, from day one, "don't use the same password here that you use elsewhere"? How would they enforce it? They can't.
Sadly, if it means more work for the user, the user will ignore it. Even with this incident, and a clear explanation of what can happen, you know as well as I do that 90% of users are going to change their Dropbox password, then promptly change all their other passwords to match it. At least we won 10% of users, today.
Your three examples lacked depth and detail, ergo they *were* insufficient for those who don't already understand the principle you are describing. As for what you appreciate, you're an AC and I've got karma coming out of my ears, so... I don't really give a shit.
Many illegal actions (actions that are illegal by default) stop being so if the involved parties agree.
Bingo. It's illegal for you to take my money and it's illegal for me to take your car, but if you agree to give me the car and I agree to give you the money, that's perfectly fine. Such a simple thought process that everyone here deals with almost every day, yet it seems that so few understand it. Bravo, AC!
If guns didn't exist, criminials wouldn't be able to get them illegally, despite gun bans. However, they do exist, and banning them won't keep them out of hte hands of criminals. Therefore, the only logical course of action is to put them into as many hands as possible (preferably, backing that with training), to deter criminal use of guns. Look at gun ownership rates in countries with low violent crime rates, then look at those same numbers in countries with more violent crime. Guns per-capita and gun ownership rates do not equate, so make sure you're looking at the correct numbers. For example, in 2007, there were 88.8 (legal) guns in the US for every 100 US citizens, but only 20.9% of US citizens owned (legal) guns; that 20.9% is the number you want. At the same time, Switzerland had a 45% gun ownership rate, and much less violent crime.
Of course, if you dig deeper, you'll find that there is, in fact, no correllation between the two. The difference between Switzerland and the US is that Switzerland has more widespread military training and the US has more gangs. When you know there's a nearly 50% chance the person you're about to attask has a gun *and* knows how to use it, you're much less likely to do it than, say, a 20% chance they own a gun, a 25% chance that, if they own a gun, they're carrying it (so you can follow along, that's a 5% chance they have a gun on their person) and even given that, maybe a 10% chance they have military training and can handle it well enough to actually defend themselves. If you followed, that's a 45% chance a victim in Switzerland can defend themselves, vs a 0.5% chance a victim in the US can do the same. Follow the same logic in other countries and you *do* see a correllation.
Can you see where this is headed?
If you're going to debunk his arguments, why not take them all out at once? You forgot to mention that Amtrak is a private corporation, who laid their own tracks, and the other train companies are the same; this is not a Government service. Police forces are largely funded by their own revenue (traffic citations and civil fines) and most often serve corporate interests, rather than civic ones; they derive their power from Government, but they rarely serve the same and, so, can not be considered part of Government. Additionally, it was Governemnt that allowed insurance companies to drive up the price of heath care to the point that people are begging Governement to do something about it. In fact, where Government has gotten involved with trains, they have become more expensive and less efficient to operate; the same could be said for police forces, as well, just as with healthcare.
I, speaking in a pro-gun tone, actually do not own a gun (lest you count my airsotf toy). However, please allow me to shoot your theory full of holes: I give you Switzerland. Funny, you mention Switzerland in your post, as well. Now, you'll turn and point out that, per capita, there are more guns in the US, with nearly 9 guns for every 10 people, compared with Switzerland's 4.5:10 ratio. Assuming even distribution of firearms, as is strongly infferred by Switzerland's policies, you are correct, a larger portion of the US population is armed. However, that is simply not the case; there are more guns, per-capita, in the US, but this is primarily because most US gun owners own more than one gun. With 65 million registered gun owners in the US and roughly 277 million guns (roughly 311,600,000 people times the per-capita ratio of 88.8% fro mthe resource above), that weighs in at an average of about 4.25 guns per owner, or a 13:4 ratio of guns to gun owners, but only about 20.9% of people actually owning guns in the US. Fewer than Switzerland, by percentage.
You can say that military training, being taught how to handle a firearm, has something to do tiwh Switzerland's reduced gun crime, but honestly, think about that. If you know you're trained, you know you'll hit your target, what's your deterrent? That everyone else is trained, as well. It's not that there are fewer armed individuals, because there aren't, there are actually more. You're more likely to encounter another armed individual in Switzerland than you are to encounter one in the US; more to the point, you're more likely to encounter an armed individual who actually knows how to use their gun in Switzerland. That's one hell of a deterrent. Here, in the US, there's a 4 in 5 chance that your victim doesn't even own a gun, and an even greater chance that they're not carrying, even if they do own; that does not, in any way, act to deter gun crime, like what you have in Switzerland.
That we don't have the same program here, in the US, speaks volumes about our government's intentions. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to piece that together.
If you read that post's GP, also posted by me, you'd see why your post wasn't necessary.
I suppose you should read my posts again. I was arguing in favor of gun ownership, e.g. the 2nd amendment. I'm guessing you missed that. Maybe it's due to a poor understanding of the English language and, you know, words?
And this is the definition of a natural right: something you can do without harming anyone else. If a black man doesn't ploy your fields, he's not harming you, he's simply not helping you, either. If two men marry, they're not harming you; in fact, as a straight man, that's two fewer guys competing for the few decent women out there, they're helping you by being gay. That's the test for whether something should be a natural right or not: if everyone is able to do this, will anyone be hurt? If yes, then more consideration must be given to whether that action should be allowed; if no, then it should be considered as a natural right.
Take, for example, gun ownership. Yes, if everyone is allowed to own a gun, people will get shot. This happens, that's the proof. However, were we to ban guns, only criminals would have them; this would not reduce gun-related crimes (and would only slightly reduce gun-related accidents) and may, in fact, increase such crimes, since there will by much less chance of an assailant encountering an armed victim. Therefore, the benefit of allowing gun ownership outweights the downside, and so it is allowed.
Apply that to slave ownership, even in the light of the Confederate belief system, and it's still just as clear that, although the white slave owner benefits by not having to plow his own field, pick his own cotton, clean his own house, or pay someone else to do these things for him, the slave is still being harmed by not being given the opportunity to go out and do better for themselves. In this way, it becomes clear that slave ownership is not a natural right; that does still leave open for discussion the matter of whether it should be a right at all. This was one of the main causes of the American Civil War; since it was clearly not a natural right and the two sides couldn't agree that it should or should not be a given right, they decided to duke it out, instead.
Wow, you failed World History, didn't you? Life's not about me, it's about you? But, then, it's about all of us pitching in, for each other? So, it's partly about me, then. Wait. What? You make no sense and demonstrate next to no understanding of the subject matter. Go read an elementary school history book, then come talk to me about Government and what Government means.
If a right granted to you interferes with the natural rights of another, the law granting you that right is unjust and tyrannical.
Slaves, e.g. negroes, being humans, in and of themselves, would have their own natural right to freedom. Therefore, the law to which you refer would, indeed, be a law which steps on that right, which would certainly be tyranical.
Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming. What's alarming is that people who want these laws are the minority.