To process credit card transactions you need a merchant account, it is the merchant's responsibility to verify the legitimacy of the card. If it's fraudulent and they clear the payment, it's their fault and you'l still get the funds.
Er... if -I- get a merchant account, -I- am the merchant. So if a fraudulent payment clears then if its the merchants problem, that would make it MY problem.
You are seriously deluded if you think otherwise. Just go ask any merchant... (ie walk into any store or restaurant and ask them who foots the bill if they accept a stolen card. They're ALL merchants with merchant accounts.)
How else are you supposed to test something thoroughly than to use it as your primary device?
Sure use it as your primary, but have a fall back plan of some sort.
When your testing a new server, first you test it in an isolated test environment, then when you are comfortable with it, you roll it out live to monitor it and give it real world testing... but you don't just trash your old server. You keep it around (whether its a separate physical box, or just a backup disk image...), so that if the new server dies you can roll back to the old one while your sort it out. Common sense.
I can understand perfectly why devs would use the iPhone as their primary. It's hard to catch the bugs unless you're regularly testing your software in a real-life environment... or do you really want the bugs (usability or functionality) to show up when the customers start using the tool in a real-life way.
But why not have a backup plan? If I'm going to put beta software into my phone as a developer, I'd have a backup phone handy to transfer the phone service to if the development phone became unusable. That's just common sense. Hell, the backup doesn't even need to be an iphone it can be some crappy old phone... just something that's going to work to send/receive calls.
New Up Convert Pioneer DVD Player with HDMI Output: 25% additional increase.
Its a little more complicated than that.
Component vs HDMI cables carrying the same resolution signal should be barely distinguishable in normal circumstances. And even when you can see a difference, it should come down to blind luck to be able guess which is HDMI and which is component.
You didn't state what resolution the component was on the Sony. (Was it 480i as well?) And more importantly, you didn't try component on the Pioneer at all!
If your TV is doing the scaling (ie you compare 480p over component and hdmi on an HDTV (720p or 1080i), then HDMI has an ever so slight advantage, because processing (scaling) the original digital image before conversion to analog is slightly better.
But if your player is doing the scaling, then all the processing is still done before the analog conversion, and sending the upscaled image at 720p or 1080i over component vs hdmi... there's almost no chance you could tell them apart. (granted if you have a digital display -- plasma/lcd/dlp/etc... theres an analog-digital conversion but a straight da-ad conversion without no other processing is pretty clean.)
I suspect the difference your seeing is that the Sony component was still only 480i, while the Pioneer HDMI is 720p/1080i. I further suspect if you tried the Pioneer on component at the same resultion as your HDMI you won't be able to tell the difference.
Provided your equipment is up to that of course. Unfortunately that test may not be possible, many DVD players only do 720p/1080i on the DVI/HDMI outputs. And similarly, many TVs only take 480p/480i into their component inputs but not 720p/1080i. My own HDTV has two component inputs for example, but only one will take 480i/480p/720p/1080i, the other only takes 480i/480p. (presumably this was done to cut costs; fortunately I use component 2 with my Wii, which only does 480p so it works out just fine for me...)
But yeah, in cases like that, yes, moving to hdmi will make a significant difference over component... but its not that component isn't as good, its just that some equipment doesn't support component at those resolutions to shave a few bucks off the product. The vendor assumes that if you've got a big HDTV you'll use the digital connector, and the component being locked at 480p isn't going to be an issue because its only going to be used with old 32" SDTV CRTs anyway...
So...you can count on HDMI to be a safe choice for 'top' picture quality. But don't underestimate component it can look equal to HDMI provided your equipment supports the same signal types on its component connectors.
The final wrinkle is 1080p (and the future), which will probably only really be supported on DVI/HDMI (with HDCP). Its not that component can't do 1080p, but it won't do HDCP (hi-def content protection), and AACS limits "MPAA" content to 1080i over component becase of this. I doubt the movie industry is going to authorize anyone to output their content in 1080p unprotected... so other than your own 1080p home movies... there's going to be practically no content that will be usable.
Bottom line... if your buying new stuff get hdmi and don't worry about it. But if you've got a system running component at the same native resolution as your TV don't assume 'upgrading' to hdmi is going to make any difference, because it probably won't.
Read up on the Intel P4 class action lawsuit - all those misleading commercials about the P4's enhanced performance, when, clock-for-clock, it lagged the P3.
Good thing they never released an 800MHz P4 then. Because the slowest P4 they sold was 1.4GHz, which was faster than the fastest P3's at the time. (Leter on a 1.1GHz P3 came out, but that's beside the point.)
1.4GHz P4's were faster than 1.0GHz P3's. Yes they sure weren't 40% faster as the clock speed difference might suggest to the uninitiated, but again, that's beside the point.
To put it into a car analagy... if I release a 2L 4cyl that puts out 150HP and then follow it up with a 170HP 6cyl at 3L, there is nothing wrong with me calling it a faster more powerful car. Even though the 4 banger puts out more power per cylinder and more power per cc, the 6cyl vehicle is still more powerful.
Its obviously not 50% more powerful which you might think if you just looked at the fact that it went from 2L to 3L or from 4cyl to 6cyl. And it is 'misleading' to only only publish the displacement and not the HP.
But in CPUs there isn't really a horsepower or 0-60mph, or 1/4mile time to show. PC benchmarks can be manipulated to show anything you want. So really what should they have done?
They advertised its specs. The MHz myth hadn't sunk in yet, so consumers assumed MHz was directly comparable, to their own detriment. But at the end of the day, the Mhz myth STILL hasn't sunk in... people are still buying celerons thinking they are faster than core2duos. Despite the fact that the celeron is cheaper, they just convicne themselves they're getting a good deal... pulling one over 'the man', or something.
Does the upconverting really make any difference? I've never seen the output of an upconverting player, but I don't understand how upconverting in the player can look much better than upconverting in the TV.
The upscaler in a new DVD player may be better than the upscaler in the TV, but that's only half the issue. For a LOT of people, the benefit to upgrading DVD players isn't so much about the scaler as it is about getting a progressive scan player with composite/dvi/hdmi output.
Hooking up a 7 year old $20 walmart DVD player that does 480i over RCA... well, you can imagine that's not going to look its best, no matter how good your TV's upscaler is. Its only got half the information to work with. It was more than good enough on the old 25" TV that only took RCAs, but on the 46" HDTV its just not up to the job.
i work as a designer and get this problem every time, they either ask for the original files and i reply that its outside of the scope of the contract or i try to explain to them in a simple term they might understand.. "When you buy windows do you own the original code used to create the system? What makes you think this is any different?"
Which is actually a good reason not to buy windows.
When my clients hire me to write custom software I always give them an unlimited license to the program, and its source materials. That said, I also generally retain rights for myself as well, as I can often reuse elements of code I've written in other projects, and that amounts to mutual respect.
When I hire out work to other developers or designers, etc, I always require that they supply the original files. I want the original images, the photoshop/illustrator files, unlimited licenses for the fonts used if applicable, program source code, etc. If they aren't willing to provide it, I'll hire someone else. If it means we can't use a particular image or font, because they want royalties anytime anyone even sees the image or a glyph, then fine, we'll use a different image or font...
No one will know those answers because there is no "Crimes that were thwarted by a person with a gun".
Even worse, there is no statistics on 'crimes that were tharted by a person with a gun, that would have ALSO been thwarted had that person had a non-lethal weapon.' And that is what really matters.
I don't deny that people waving guns around sends criminals running.
But what if we equipped people with low power handguns with strong tranquilizers or rubber ammunition or tasers... with an effective range of 15-30ft, and by "effective" I mean it -might- kill someone, but probably wouldn't. Would these be very nearly just as effective as guns?
The pro gun people I have met all have been of the opinion that people must be trained, and learn respect for the firearm. Cause, you know.it can kill someone.
The problem with that approach is that if we lived in a world where that would actually work, we could just train people to learn proper respect for their fellow man, and their wouldn't be any crime in the first place.
We can chant education and respect all day, but at the end of the day, people just aren't that reliable. They'll still have accidents. They'll still be irressponsible. They'll still use them to shoot people fleeing them, even though their is no longer any threat to their life.
(Someone in this thread pointed me to a 'dr. lott's' website, where I could get the 'facts' about gun ownership, and that was the story featured on the front page... how some clerk was pistol whipped and robbed and then was able to get to his gun and shoot one of the suspects dead while he was leaving... and that was heralded on this site as an example of a 'pro gun' scenario. Yeah. Right.)
Far more home are invaded, then accidental deaths...
Not in my neighborhood and my demographics. My belief on that applies to me, I am fully aware it doesn't apply to everyone. Some people are a lot more likely to be victimized than me.
And even if my home were invaded, the question isn't "should I sit there totally defenceless, or should I have loaded gun within reach of my bed." There is lots of middle ground.
Your 'neighbor' is an idiot.
The whole pro-gun neighbor story was a parody of the post above mine. And yes, such a person would be an idiot. Like the anti-gun nutter in the story I was parodying.
You failed. Why? Because your parody did not show what pro-gun people say.
I'd call that a pass. The argument it was paraphrasing did not represent what anti-gun people say either, which was precisely my point.
Sure there are some nutters out there who beleives that by will alone they can decide not be attacked, and therefore need no gun. But that is HARDLY representative of anti-gunners. And if you go looking for pro-gunners you won't have any trouble finding complete nutbars among them too that think equally irrational BS.
Whether or not a progunner has ever said what I parodied isn't the point. The parody was a reflection of your post, but there are plenty of them who DO say plenty of completely ridiculous things on par with what you posted.
You don't seem to understand how violence works. We have all of recorded history to see that the powerful attack those they believe they can win against. While there have been a few recorded incidents of people attacking those that they believe will beat them, it is very rare.
Not even close. The powerful don't merely attack those they can win against, they attack those who can't harm them back at all. The powerful don't like getting injured, even if they'll win.
The gun brought parity between the physically weak and the physically strong.
Agreed.
So, would a knife be as effective as a gun? That depends on:
The effectiveness of the knife depends on whether the attacker thinks there is a non-trivial chance of getting cut. Cut, not killed, not maimed, cut. The average criminal isn't really interested in whether or not they'll ultimately prevail, they want to do it without even sustaining a minor injury.
Given a choice between just leaving and robbing someone else or robbing you and taking a non-lethal knife wound to the hand, most crooks will take the easy way out and just leave.
The robber whose carrying a gun doesn't generally mean to use it. That escalates his problems into the stratosphere. The police don't really care about a stolen TV... but a homicide? That gets some attention. For him a gun is a symbol of power, so if someone stands up to him, at all, even with a knife... again, most will just retreat, and resort to using the gun only if they actually need it in self defense.
And the crazed guy breaking into your house with murderous intent to kill you... yeah, for him, brandishing a knife isn't going to stop him... but neither is brandishing a gun... at that point, its just a question of who makes the killing shot first. But really, how common is THAT scenario?
The same would be true for any other weapon.
Indeed. But some weapons like mace and tasers don't require much physical dexterity. And if we wanted to, we could expand our arsenal of non-lethal weapons.
Could you you win a battle without bringing your capabilities up to 100%?
Like I said earlier. Its not about 'winning' its about achieving the level of 'credible threat'. For example, in school I didn't need to be able to defeat the bully to get him to leave me alone, I just needed him to believe that beating me wasn't going to be free, that he was going to take some pain himself.
Does it make sense for a person to enter battle without increasing their capabilities to their maximum? Well, while there may be specific instances where it does, generally it does not.
That's your opinion, and I'm not convinced there is anything to back it up. If most attacks can be averted with the threat of non-lethal weapons then perhaps that's enough. Sure lethal weapons would be the most effective, but they also come with a cost in terms of misuse and accidental use. And I'm unconvinced that the 'extra security' they bring above what non-lethal weapons can do isn't worth that cost.
When a non-lethal form weapon is created that is as portable and as effective both at stopping the immediate threat, as well as making sure the assailant doesn't come back for
Aaarg... sorry for the double post... damn slashdot formatting......You are a liar. You did not have that conversation....
Of course that was completely made up you twit.
Based on the fact that you took an obvious parody of the parent post and decided "I'm a liar" suggests you aren't even worth the time to continue talking to.
Obviously you do think you know the answers. If you didn't, you wouldn't be willing to lie to push your anti-gun agenda.
No. I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut. Their are lunatic fringes in both camps. The fact that mine was a parody of the parents doesn't detract in the least that there are plenty of pro-gun people out there that have irrational beleifs about how safe their gun makes them.
Personally, I am firmly in the undecided category as to whether guns increase safety or not.
It is a rare gun owner that thinks a few big dogs in the yard are ineffectual. Vary rare.
Good point. That's the trouble with parody, I was somewhat constrained by the form of what I was parodying; I could have deviated further to make a more credible point, but:
a) that would have undermined the parody b) i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter.
Of course, your comment shows that you understand the media bias and were trying to prevent that from being pointed out.
No my comment shows that I recognize that there IS a media bias. You seem bound and determined to paint me as someone whose trying to head off rational debate. I acknowledged the obvious hole in my own observation, because I know full well that what I see in the paper is not representative of what goes on. But not only does it not get reported when a gun prevents a crime, it doesn't get reported when the crimes goes by unprevented either. If the local 7-11 gets robbed I don't hear about it. If the local 7-11 is attempted to be robbed buy some citizen chases them out with a gun I don't hear about that either. I fully recognize that I only hear about incidents where that civilian ends up shooting them.
I would not want to try to convince anyone that they or their families could responsibly handle guns, when they don't want to own them, any more than I would want to try to convince someone that they can drive if they don't believe the can, and don't want to drive.
But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right.
Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone.
So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on...
Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest.
The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents.
...You are a liar. You did not have that conversation....
Of course that was completely made up you twit.
Based on the fact that you took an obvious parody of the parent post and decided "I'm a liar" suggests you aren't even worth the time to continue talking to.
Obviously you do think you know the answers. If you didn't, you wouldn't be willing to lie to push your anti-gun agenda.
No. I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut. Their are lunatic fringes in both camps. The fact that mine was a parody of the parents doesn't detract in the least that there are plenty of pro-gun people out there that have irrational beleifs about how safe their gun makes them.
Personally, I am firmly in the undecided category as to whether guns increase safety or not.
It is a rare gun owner that thinks a few big dogs in the yard are ineffectual. Vary rare.
Good point. That's the trouble with parody, I was somewhat constrained by the form of what I was parodying; I could have deviated further to make a more credible point, but:
a) that would have undermined the parody
b) i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter.
Of course, your comment shows that you understand the media bias and were trying to prevent that from being pointed out.
No my comment shows that I recognize that there IS a media bias. You seem bound and determined to paint me as someone whose trying to head off rational debate. I acknowledged the obvious hole in my own observation, because I know full well that what I see in the paper is not representative of what goes on. But not only does it not get reported when a gun prevents a crime, it doesn't get reported when the crimes goes by unprevented either. If the local 7-11 gets robbed I don't hear about it. If the local 7-11 is attempted to be robbed buy some citizen chases them out with a gun I don't hear about that either. I fully recognize that I only hear about incidents where that civilian ends up shooting them.
I would not want to try to convince anyone that they or their families could responsibly handle guns, when they don't want to own them, any more than I would want to try to convince someone that they can drive if they don't believe the can, and don't want to drive.
But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right.
Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone.
So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on...
Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest.
The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents.
Merely owning a gun does not harm others; it may increase the risk of that but, no harm, no foul.
By increasing the risk, in aggregate accross thousands of gun owners, there is plenty of 'harm and foul'. The question remains, is the harm that *will* be caused, really less than the harm that is averted?
You know, I'm not going to refute much of what you said. It's true: Modern political discourse on such topics as gun control is rife with hyperbole and the statements of ignorance.
You do realize I was parodying the parent post with my 'magical powers of good judgement', right?
That said, you raise good points. I agree the gun-control crowd is plenty loopy. But I see equally bad logic coming from the pro-gun crowd too.. their are lunatic fringes in both camps... but frankly, its the lunatic fringe with a loaded gun under their pillow that scares me more. My kids might play in that house one day...
Some good comments, but also some huge assumptions, like "pro-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgement...." Where does that come from?
Read the post to which I replied. It was a tongue in cheek response to the anecdote there. I wasn't serious.
The "pro-gun type" simply believes that the gun is more likely to be effective than any of these other means.
But are they right? And if they're wrong, what then?
Only if you keep it loaded and accessible (i.e. on you).
Does that really make me safer though. Or does it just increase the risk someone is going to get shot and killed needlessly? I don't dispute there are situations where it could save a life, but on balance is it more likely its actually going to save one or needlessly end one?
Some twit in this thread pointed me to a 'pro-gun' site, where a news story featured prominently involved a clerk who shot and killed a fleeing robber. To me that's a total failure, if the robber was already fleeing his life wasn't in danger anymore, and pulling the trigger not only killed someone who was no longer a threat to him, but also put anyone else in the vicinity at risk. It was completely irresponsible gun use... and the pro-guns were celebrating him like a hero.
I'd rather have the gun when I don't need it rather than not have it when I do.
Of course.
And provided you never get angry, drunk, or stupid, and the one time you do need it you actually hit your target instead of the little girl living accross the street... then I'd be happy with that. And while -you- might be level headed and responsible enough... I KNOW there are a lot of people who aren't, and even then no amount of being responsible is going to gaurantee one your shots isn't going to go astray and take out an innocent bystander.
I'd like credible evidence that giving you (and everyone else who wants one) a gun is genuinely more likely to save lives rather than end someone elses needlessly. Believing that to be true simply isn't enough.
So I popped over to Lott's website like you suggested, and lo what do I find prominently highlighted... clear evidence that guns save lives...
HOUSTON --... "Two suspects walked in the store and attempted to rob, or did rob the convenience store," Sgt. J. Rubio said.... Police said Dan was pistol-whipped and forced to put his hands on the floor and lie down. Dan opened fire on the men as they left the store, investigators said. The man who was shot died out in front of the convenience store, officials said. His name was not released. Police said they found a stack of cash and a handgun near the body. . ..
Oh wait... how does that support your theory that guns save lives again? Or even increase security for that matter?
At the end of the day, he still got robbed despite having a gun, and we now have a guy dead over some petty cash from a till, probably less than 100 bucks if they were operating under standard convenience store cash handling practices. And the clerk shot someone in the back, putting everyone in the vicinity at risk, when the damage had ALREADY been done and his safety was no longer even in question -- they were LEAVING when he shot them!! Yeah, I'm sure glad he had a gun. Really saved the day there. I feel safer already.
So this is what you and Lott support?
If that's your idea of a justification for gun ownership... you fail miserably, both of you.
Yes, that's just you. You are absolutely entitled to act in a way that you believe serves your best interests, without harming others.
Agreed. Operative phrase being 'without harming others'.
So do people who believe that having a gun makes them safer.
No. Not good enough. I'm not satisfied with letting people have guns simply because they *believe* it makes them safer. They need to be demonstrably right.
Does it REALLY make them safer? And what is the net risk to others?
Because if it actually increases the risk of harm, especially to others, with no appreciable real increase in their own safety (or even results in a decrease in their own safety) then no they should not be entitled to have one, regardless of what they believe.
I'm not saying this is the case. I am in support of finding out. And I'm prepared to accept that its not a simple black & white question. Maybe some types of guns and/or circumstances do result in net satefy increase while others don't.
But if my neighbor fired any of a large number of readily available guns with readily available ammunition at an 'honest to god psycho murderer rapist breaking in to kill him and his family' there is STILL a fairly significant chance his bullets will enter my home.
And that's a best case application. What about all those nuts with loaded guns stashed in their homes, people with kids... that play with my kids... or yours...
What would you do if your teenager got pissed off at you, took the kitchen knife and stabbed you while you slept then, realizing what he did, turned it on himself?
That would require an entirely different state of mind.
You simply can't equate "a kid storming off down the hall in a blind rage, grabbing the gun, loading it, and then storming back guns blazing" with, "a kid storming off to his room in a blind range, puttering around for 6 hours while he waits for the old man to fall asleep so that he can sneak into the room and stab him to death in cold blood."
I don't deny the latter can happen but its an *entirely* different situation.
When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."
I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?
What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retreive my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"
What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?
What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"
Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?
In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?
What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??
In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgement takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.
His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.
Pro-gun types actually beleive that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.
One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever, is people like my neighbor with 3 huge guns. Specially states that he feels safer having them because he lives alone, but thinks that home security systems and dogs are ineffectual. Yet, a big gun in the closet... that will stop criminals from attacking him...
Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-gun, myself. But lousy reasoning exists on both sides of the argument. And bottom line, the only questions I'm interested in:
Does having a gun actually make me safer? Or is it more likely to get me or someone I care about killed? Am I more likely to prevent a crime with it, or is it more likely that it will enable / escalate one?
I don't know the answer to those questions.
I do know I hear daily about some gun being misused, or accidently fired, or used in a fit of passion... I don't often hear about people who were able to fend off murderer/rapists with their gun. Call it media bias if you want... but until I see a REAL credible study done... well... I have serious doubts that guns will make me safer. I firmly beleive, for my own family, that the odds of the kids having an accident with it, FAR exceed the odds we'll get our home invaded by a murderous/rapist. But that's just me.
I don't welcome a world where merely opening my eye or taking a photo in public places can lead me in court if that results in being able to see your "secrets".
Bit of a straw man to equate 'seeing someone's private home' with 'taking multiple pictures of it and putting them on a website, indexed by address, for commercial purposes, without the owners permission', don't you think?
If I see a cool Ferrari parked by the side of the road and I take a picture of it because I like Ferarri's, that's clearly harmless. If I put it on my personal website in a Ferrari gallery, that's still pretty harmless, espeially if I blur the plates.
Now if I were google, taking thousands of pictures everywhere, tagging each time I saw the car, building a network map of everywhere the cars is seen, then plotting it on a map. Next I'd advertise my car tracking site 'google car tracking beta' and let people search for cars by plate number, and return the pictures and map information... allowing visitors to find out where a given car 'lives', where it 'works', what places it frequents.
Me, I see a difference there. A big one. Even if they are both just taking pictures of something in a public space. A little random information is no real threat to privacy. A massive collection of that 'random information' indexed and searchable is a whole other ballgame.
The last time I priced a machine from them, I could get equivalent performance for literally half of the price by building it myself. At least, as long as my definition of "performance" didn't include, "really cool looking, glowy case"
Actually a premium case and some glowy bits don't add that much to the bill at all.
We need, Google to start a competitor to Paypal, so I can donate some small amounts of money to the sites I like. (I don't use Paypal, because they're a bunch of crooks)
Yes lets all suckle at the google teat until we're so dependant on them the microsoft monopoly will seem like a pathetic joke. Lets give them our documents, our email, lets let them gather every detail they can about our lives, lets let them take a picture of our house... oh I know... they should totally handle our money too!
I agree paypal needs some decent competition, but suggesting it be handled by google is as stupid as suggesting it be handled by microsoft. Or maybe not, at least with microsoft I don't have to worry about my transaction history being added to one of the largest surveillance networks on the planet.
But you MUST admit, they are STEALING the music. If the law provides for retribution, either change the law as Sweden does and make it legal to pirate, or don't fucking break the law. Seems cut and dry to me. And I am a lawyer.
The RIAA is welcome to try prosecuting people for the copies they 'downloaded to their computer unlawfully'. However, so far they haven't.
Probably because it would be about is sucessful as a Walmart employee looking in your windows and then charging you with stealing anything they saw inside that they happen to sell.
Dithering does not make a new unique color from it's component colors. It's two different colors next to each other,...
You are aware that even the most expensive LCD creates ALL its color by the "different colors next to each other" method. Look at your monitor under a magnifying glass -- its just stripes of red, green, and blue.
How is "red next to green next to blue" a real color, but "red next to green next to blue next to a slightly different red next to a slightly different green next to blue" a totally different situation?
Seems to be a clear issue of interpretation to me.
And if you claim your display can show "millions of colors" it has to have more than 6-bits per color channel. Period.
Well, since we're dithering accross more than 3 static sub-pixels on a 6-bit display to achieve our full color pallette, we clearly have in excess of 6 bits per channel. We either including additional adjacent subpixels in space to shore up the number or were including additional temporally adjacent subpixels. Either way, it boosts the bit depth.
If I can show you a frame or a red frame and can switch between them fast enough, you'll see a purple frame. That's how single projector DLP HDTVs work. Rather than putting component colors adjacent on the screen, they put them in adjacent time. (Sensitive people complained of seeing 'rainbow' effects due to the oscillation on early units, but faster ocsillations have virtually eliminated the problem now.)
If the eye is adequately confused that's all that matters. And TN panels meet that threshold quite well. It generally takes close deliberate inspection against a reference to 'see' the tricks.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. I'd estimate that the vast majority of LCD panels on the market are 6-bit screens. Whether you are buying Benq, LG, Dell, Viewsonic, it doesn't matter. Most of them are 6 bit.
They are cheaper, and they have faster response times.
8-bit LCD panels are almost a niche specialty 'pro product' in today's market, and unless you went out of your way to buy an 8 bit screen odds are you took home a 6-bit TN panel, advertised as showing "16.2 million colours" without even knowing it.
Its not just Apple. Although they seem to have gone beyond marketing deceptiveness to outright lies and deserve to be taken to task about it.
But don't for a minute think all those free Dell monitors bundled with low end PCs are anything better. Hell, even the ones you can pay to upgrade to aren't often anything better than 6-bit.
Because 1,460 families are using more of the services such as schools, hospitals, roads, and all the other things that your tax dollars go towards?
Well that doesn't make any sense at all.
14,600 families living in poverty at 10k per year make the same 146M in aggregate too. They use EVEN MORE of the servcies such as schools, hospitals, roads, and so forth than the 1460 do. But they pay no taxes at all.
So WHY do the 1460 families pay the most taxes? Those that make less, pay less per dollar income. Those that make more, well, they pay less per dollar income too.
Slashdot Mirror
To process credit card transactions you need a merchant account, it is the merchant's responsibility to verify the legitimacy of the card. If it's fraudulent and they clear the payment, it's their fault and you'l still get the funds.
Er... if -I- get a merchant account, -I- am the merchant. So if a fraudulent payment clears then if its the merchants problem, that would make it MY problem.
You are seriously deluded if you think otherwise. Just go ask any merchant... (ie walk into any store or restaurant and ask them who foots the bill if they accept a stolen card. They're ALL merchants with merchant accounts.)
Nope. If it were a bank, the merchant would pay for the loss or the bank will bear it.
Half right. Its almost always the merchant.
And guess what, as the ebay seller, YOU are the merchant.
How else are you supposed to test something thoroughly than to use it as your primary device?
Sure use it as your primary, but have a fall back plan of some sort.
When your testing a new server, first you test it in an isolated test environment, then when you are comfortable with it, you roll it out live to monitor it and give it real world testing... but you don't just trash your old server. You keep it around (whether its a separate physical box, or just a backup disk image...), so that if the new server dies you can roll back to the old one while your sort it out. Common sense.
I can understand perfectly why devs would use the iPhone as their primary. It's hard to catch the bugs unless you're regularly testing your software in a real-life environment... or do you really want the bugs (usability or functionality) to show up when the customers start using the tool in a real-life way.
But why not have a backup plan? If I'm going to put beta software into my phone as a developer, I'd have a backup phone handy to transfer the phone service to if the development phone became unusable. That's just common sense. Hell, the backup doesn't even need to be an iphone it can be some crappy old phone... just something that's going to work to send/receive calls.
New Up Convert Pioneer DVD Player with HDMI Output: 25% additional increase.
Its a little more complicated than that.
Component vs HDMI cables carrying the same resolution signal should be barely distinguishable in normal circumstances. And even when you can see a difference, it should come down to blind luck to be able guess which is HDMI and which is component.
You didn't state what resolution the component was on the Sony. (Was it 480i as well?)
And more importantly, you didn't try component on the Pioneer at all!
If your TV is doing the scaling (ie you compare 480p over component and hdmi on an HDTV (720p or 1080i), then HDMI has an ever so slight advantage, because processing (scaling) the original digital image before conversion to analog is slightly better.
But if your player is doing the scaling, then all the processing is still done before the analog conversion, and sending the upscaled image at 720p or 1080i over component vs hdmi... there's almost no chance you could tell them apart. (granted if you have a digital display -- plasma/lcd/dlp/etc... theres an analog-digital conversion but a straight da-ad conversion without no other processing is pretty clean.)
I suspect the difference your seeing is that the Sony component was still only 480i, while the Pioneer HDMI is 720p/1080i. I further suspect if you tried the Pioneer on component at the same resultion as your HDMI you won't be able to tell the difference.
Provided your equipment is up to that of course. Unfortunately that test may not be possible, many DVD players only do 720p/1080i on the DVI/HDMI outputs. And similarly, many TVs only take 480p/480i into their component inputs but not 720p/1080i. My own HDTV has two component inputs for example, but only one will take 480i/480p/720p/1080i, the other only takes 480i/480p. (presumably this was done to cut costs; fortunately I use component 2 with my Wii, which only does 480p so it works out just fine for me...)
But yeah, in cases like that, yes, moving to hdmi will make a significant difference over component... but its not that component isn't as good, its just that some equipment doesn't support component at those resolutions to shave a few bucks off the product. The vendor assumes that if you've got a big HDTV you'll use the digital connector, and the component being locked at 480p isn't going to be an issue because its only going to be used with old 32" SDTV CRTs anyway...
So...you can count on HDMI to be a safe choice for 'top' picture quality. But don't underestimate component it can look equal to HDMI provided your equipment supports the same signal types on its component connectors.
The final wrinkle is 1080p (and the future), which will probably only really be supported on DVI/HDMI (with HDCP). Its not that component can't do 1080p, but it won't do HDCP (hi-def content protection), and AACS limits "MPAA" content to 1080i over component becase of this. I doubt the movie industry is going to authorize anyone to output their content in 1080p unprotected... so other than your own 1080p home movies... there's going to be practically no content that will be usable.
Bottom line... if your buying new stuff get hdmi and don't worry about it. But if you've got a system running component at the same native resolution as your TV don't assume 'upgrading' to hdmi is going to make any difference, because it probably won't.
Read up on the Intel P4 class action lawsuit - all those misleading commercials about the P4's enhanced performance, when, clock-for-clock, it lagged the P3.
Good thing they never released an 800MHz P4 then. Because the slowest P4 they sold was 1.4GHz, which was faster than the fastest P3's at the time. (Leter on a 1.1GHz P3 came out, but that's beside the point.)
1.4GHz P4's were faster than 1.0GHz P3's. Yes they sure weren't 40% faster as the clock speed difference might suggest to the uninitiated, but again, that's beside the point.
To put it into a car analagy... if I release a 2L 4cyl that puts out 150HP and then follow it up with a 170HP 6cyl at 3L, there is nothing wrong with me calling it a faster more powerful car. Even though the 4 banger puts out more power per cylinder and more power per cc, the 6cyl vehicle is still more powerful.
Its obviously not 50% more powerful which you might think if you just looked at the fact that it went from 2L to 3L or from 4cyl to 6cyl. And it is 'misleading' to only only publish the displacement and not the HP.
But in CPUs there isn't really a horsepower or 0-60mph, or 1/4mile time to show. PC benchmarks can be manipulated to show anything you want. So really what should they have done?
They advertised its specs. The MHz myth hadn't sunk in yet, so consumers assumed MHz was directly comparable, to their own detriment. But at the end of the day, the Mhz myth STILL hasn't sunk in... people are still buying celerons thinking they are faster than core2duos. Despite the fact that the celeron is cheaper, they just convicne themselves they're getting a good deal... pulling one over 'the man', or something.
Does the upconverting really make any difference? I've never seen the output of an upconverting player, but I don't understand how upconverting in the player can look much better than upconverting in the TV.
... well, you can imagine that's not going to look its best, no matter how good your TV's upscaler is. Its only got half the information to work with. It was more than good enough on the old 25" TV that only took RCAs, but on the 46" HDTV its just not up to the job.
The upscaler in a new DVD player may be better than the upscaler in the TV, but that's only half the issue. For a LOT of people, the benefit to upgrading DVD players isn't so much about the scaler as it is about getting a progressive scan player with composite/dvi/hdmi output.
Hooking up a 7 year old $20 walmart DVD player that does 480i over RCA
i work as a designer and get this problem every time, they either ask for the original files and i reply that its outside of the scope of the contract or i try to explain to them in a simple term they might understand.. "When you buy windows do you own the original code used to create the system? What makes you think this is any different?"
Which is actually a good reason not to buy windows.
When my clients hire me to write custom software I always give them an unlimited license to the program, and its source materials. That said, I also generally retain rights for myself as well, as I can often reuse elements of code I've written in other projects, and that amounts to mutual respect.
When I hire out work to other developers or designers, etc, I always require that they supply the original files. I want the original images, the photoshop/illustrator files, unlimited licenses for the fonts used if applicable, program source code, etc. If they aren't willing to provide it, I'll hire someone else. If it means we can't use a particular image or font, because they want royalties anytime anyone even sees the image or a glyph, then fine, we'll use a different image or font...
No one will know those answers because there is no "Crimes that were thwarted by a person with a gun".
Even worse, there is no statistics on 'crimes that were tharted by a person with a gun, that would have ALSO been thwarted had that person had a non-lethal weapon.' And that is what really matters.
I don't deny that people waving guns around sends criminals running.
But what if we equipped people with low power handguns with strong tranquilizers or rubber ammunition or tasers... with an effective range of 15-30ft, and by "effective" I mean it -might- kill someone, but probably wouldn't. Would these be very nearly just as effective as guns?
The pro gun people I have met all have been of the opinion that people must be trained, and learn respect for the firearm. Cause, you know.it can kill someone.
The problem with that approach is that if we lived in a world where that would actually work, we could just train people to learn proper respect for their fellow man, and their wouldn't be any crime in the first place.
We can chant education and respect all day, but at the end of the day, people just aren't that reliable. They'll still have accidents. They'll still be irressponsible. They'll still use them to shoot people fleeing them, even though their is no longer any threat to their life.
(Someone in this thread pointed me to a 'dr. lott's' website, where I could get the 'facts' about gun ownership, and that was the story featured on the front page... how some clerk was pistol whipped and robbed and then was able to get to his gun and shoot one of the suspects dead while he was leaving... and that was heralded on this site as an example of a 'pro gun' scenario. Yeah. Right.)
Far more home are invaded, then accidental deaths...
Not in my neighborhood and my demographics. My belief on that applies to me, I am fully aware it doesn't apply to everyone. Some people are a lot more likely to be victimized than me.
And even if my home were invaded, the question isn't "should I sit there totally defenceless, or should I have loaded gun within reach of my bed." There is lots of middle ground.
Your 'neighbor' is an idiot.
The whole pro-gun neighbor story was a parody of the post above mine. And yes, such a person would be an idiot. Like the anti-gun nutter in the story I was parodying.
You failed. Why? Because your parody did not show what pro-gun people say.
I'd call that a pass. The argument it was paraphrasing did not represent what anti-gun people say either, which was precisely my point.
Sure there are some nutters out there who beleives that by will alone they can decide not be attacked, and therefore need no gun. But that is HARDLY representative of anti-gunners. And if you go looking for pro-gunners you won't have any trouble finding complete nutbars among them too that think equally irrational BS.
Whether or not a progunner has ever said what I parodied isn't the point. The parody was a reflection of your post, but there are plenty of them who DO say plenty of completely ridiculous things on par with what you posted.
You don't seem to understand how violence works. We have all of recorded history to see that the powerful attack those they believe they can win against. While there have been a few recorded incidents of people attacking those that they believe will beat them, it is very rare.
Not even close. The powerful don't merely attack those they can win against, they attack those who can't harm them back at all. The powerful don't like getting injured, even if they'll win.
The gun brought parity between the physically weak and the physically strong.
Agreed.
So, would a knife be as effective as a gun? That depends on:
The effectiveness of the knife depends on whether the attacker thinks there is a non-trivial chance of getting cut. Cut, not killed, not maimed, cut. The average criminal isn't really interested in whether or not they'll ultimately prevail, they want to do it without even sustaining a minor injury.
Given a choice between just leaving and robbing someone else or robbing you and taking a non-lethal knife wound to the hand, most crooks will take the easy way out and just leave.
The robber whose carrying a gun doesn't generally mean to use it. That escalates his problems into the stratosphere. The police don't really care about a stolen TV... but a homicide? That gets some attention. For him a gun is a symbol of power, so if someone stands up to him, at all, even with a knife... again, most will just retreat, and resort to using the gun only if they actually need it in self defense.
And the crazed guy breaking into your house with murderous intent to kill you... yeah, for him, brandishing a knife isn't going to stop him... but neither is brandishing a gun... at that point, its just a question of who makes the killing shot first. But really, how common is THAT scenario?
The same would be true for any other weapon.
Indeed. But some weapons like mace and tasers don't require much physical dexterity. And if we wanted to, we could expand our arsenal of non-lethal weapons.
Could you you win a battle without bringing your capabilities up to 100%?
Like I said earlier. Its not about 'winning' its about achieving the level of 'credible threat'. For example, in school I didn't need to be able to defeat the bully to get him to leave me alone, I just needed him to believe that beating me wasn't going to be free, that he was going to take some pain himself.
Does it make sense for a person to enter battle without increasing their capabilities to their maximum? Well, while there may be specific instances where it does, generally it does not.
That's your opinion, and I'm not convinced there is anything to back it up. If most attacks can be averted with the threat of non-lethal weapons then perhaps that's enough. Sure lethal weapons would be the most effective, but they also come with a cost in terms of misuse and accidental use. And I'm unconvinced that the 'extra security' they bring above what non-lethal weapons can do isn't worth that cost.
When a non-lethal form weapon is created that is as portable and as effective both at stopping the immediate threat, as well as making sure the assailant doesn't come back for
Aaarg... sorry for the double post... damn slashdot formatting... ...You are a liar. You did not have that conversation....
Of course that was completely made up you twit.
Based on the fact that you took an obvious parody of the parent post and decided "I'm a liar" suggests you aren't even worth the time to continue talking to.
Obviously you do think you know the answers. If you didn't, you wouldn't be willing to lie to push your anti-gun agenda.
No. I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut. Their are lunatic fringes in both camps. The fact that mine was a parody of the parents doesn't detract in the least that there are plenty of pro-gun people out there that have irrational beleifs about how safe their gun makes them.
Personally, I am firmly in the undecided category as to whether guns increase safety or not.
It is a rare gun owner that thinks a few big dogs in the yard are ineffectual. Vary rare.
Good point. That's the trouble with parody, I was somewhat constrained by the form of what I was parodying; I could have deviated further to make a more credible point, but:
a) that would have undermined the parody
b) i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter.
Of course, your comment shows that you understand the media bias and were trying to prevent that from being pointed out.
No my comment shows that I recognize that there IS a media bias. You seem bound and determined to paint me as someone whose trying to head off rational debate. I acknowledged the obvious hole in my own observation, because I know full well that what I see in the paper is not representative of what goes on. But not only does it not get reported when a gun prevents a crime, it doesn't get reported when the crimes goes by unprevented either. If the local 7-11 gets robbed I don't hear about it. If the local 7-11 is attempted to be robbed buy some citizen chases them out with a gun I don't hear about that either. I fully recognize that I only hear about incidents where that civilian ends up shooting them.
I would not want to try to convince anyone that they or their families could responsibly handle guns, when they don't want to own them, any more than I would want to try to convince someone that they can drive if they don't believe the can, and don't want to drive.
But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right.
Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone.
So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on...
Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest.
The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents.
...You are a liar. You did not have that conversation.... Of course that was completely made up you twit. Based on the fact that you took an obvious parody of the parent post and decided "I'm a liar" suggests you aren't even worth the time to continue talking to. Obviously you do think you know the answers. If you didn't, you wouldn't be willing to lie to push your anti-gun agenda. No. I put that parody up to counterpoint the equally irrational argument put forth by the anti-gun nut. Their are lunatic fringes in both camps. The fact that mine was a parody of the parents doesn't detract in the least that there are plenty of pro-gun people out there that have irrational beleifs about how safe their gun makes them. Personally, I am firmly in the undecided category as to whether guns increase safety or not. It is a rare gun owner that thinks a few big dogs in the yard are ineffectual. Vary rare. Good point. That's the trouble with parody, I was somewhat constrained by the form of what I was parodying; I could have deviated further to make a more credible point, but: a) that would have undermined the parody b) i wasn't trying to make a credible point. I was illustrating that their are irrational nuts on both sides of the fence, so the fact that the argument was illogical didn't really matter. Of course, your comment shows that you understand the media bias and were trying to prevent that from being pointed out. No my comment shows that I recognize that there IS a media bias. You seem bound and determined to paint me as someone whose trying to head off rational debate. I acknowledged the obvious hole in my own observation, because I know full well that what I see in the paper is not representative of what goes on. But not only does it not get reported when a gun prevents a crime, it doesn't get reported when the crimes goes by unprevented either. If the local 7-11 gets robbed I don't hear about it. If the local 7-11 is attempted to be robbed buy some citizen chases them out with a gun I don't hear about that either. I fully recognize that I only hear about incidents where that civilian ends up shooting them. I would not want to try to convince anyone that they or their families could responsibly handle guns, when they don't want to own them, any more than I would want to try to convince someone that they can drive if they don't believe the can, and don't want to drive. But what if guns is like driving drunk, where the people who think they're able to do it safely are just deluding themselves and are posing a risk to everyone. Just because you THINK your safe doesn't mean you are. Please understand I'm not saying you are wrong. But simply proclaiming you are right doesn't make you right. Anyone with actual familiarity with guns beyond what they have seen in anti-gun pamphlets knows that guns very rarely need to be fired to protect you. Gun use statistics do not, and cannot count the number of times that an unfired gun protects someone. So... what about knives, tasers, mace, baseball bats? What percentage of situations where a gun has protected somebody could have been handled by a far less [potentially] lethal alternative? If I use a gun to scare away a burglar... is that really a pro-gun argument? In reality most burglars flee if they are confronted. My father once chased a burglar out with a hammer while in his underwear, without his much needed glasses on... Trying to pretend that the number of reported incidents is even close the the actual number of times that a gun has protected someone is simply dishonest. The question remains, what percentage of those incidents actually hinged on there being a gun present. Perhaps ANY weapon would have been equally sufficient in most circumstances? Perhaps less lethal weapons like tasers would suffice in 99% of those incidents.
Merely owning a gun does not harm others; it may increase the risk of that but, no harm, no foul.
By increasing the risk, in aggregate accross thousands of gun owners, there is plenty of 'harm and foul'. The question remains, is the harm that *will* be caused, really less than the harm that is averted?
You know, I'm not going to refute much of what you said. It's true: Modern political discourse on such topics as gun control is rife with hyperbole and the statements of ignorance.
You do realize I was parodying the parent post with my 'magical powers of good judgement', right?
That said, you raise good points. I agree the gun-control crowd is plenty loopy. But I see equally bad logic coming from the pro-gun crowd too.. their are lunatic fringes in both camps... but frankly, its the lunatic fringe with a loaded gun under their pillow that scares me more. My kids might play in that house one day...
Some good comments, but also some huge assumptions, like "pro-gun types actually believe that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgement...." Where does that come from?
Read the post to which I replied. It was a tongue in cheek response to the anecdote there. I wasn't serious.
The "pro-gun type" simply believes that the gun is more likely to be effective than any of these other means.
But are they right? And if they're wrong, what then?
Only if you keep it loaded and accessible (i.e. on you).
Does that really make me safer though. Or does it just increase the risk someone is going to get shot and killed needlessly? I don't dispute there are situations where it could save a life, but on balance is it more likely its actually going to save one or needlessly end one?
Some twit in this thread pointed me to a 'pro-gun' site, where a news story featured prominently involved a clerk who shot and killed a fleeing robber. To me that's a total failure, if the robber was already fleeing his life wasn't in danger anymore, and pulling the trigger not only killed someone who was no longer a threat to him, but also put anyone else in the vicinity at risk. It was completely irresponsible gun use... and the pro-guns were celebrating him like a hero.
I'd rather have the gun when I don't need it rather than not have it when I do.
Of course.
And provided you never get angry, drunk, or stupid, and the one time you do need it you actually hit your target instead of the little girl living accross the street... then I'd be happy with that. And while -you- might be level headed and responsible enough... I KNOW there are a lot of people who aren't, and even then no amount of being responsible is going to gaurantee one your shots isn't going to go astray and take out an innocent bystander.
I'd like credible evidence that giving you (and everyone else who wants one) a gun is genuinely more likely to save lives rather than end someone elses needlessly. Believing that to be true simply isn't enough.
So I popped over to Lott's website like you suggested, and lo what do I find prominently highlighted... clear evidence that guns save lives...
... ... .
HOUSTON --
"Two suspects walked in the store and attempted to rob, or did rob the convenience store," Sgt. J. Rubio said.
Police said Dan was pistol-whipped and forced to put his hands on the floor and lie down. Dan opened fire on the men as they left the store, investigators said.
The man who was shot died out in front of the convenience store, officials said. His name was not released.
Police said they found a stack of cash and a handgun near the body. . .
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
Oh wait... how does that support your theory that guns save lives again? Or even increase security for that matter?
At the end of the day, he still got robbed despite having a gun, and we now have a guy dead over some petty cash from a till, probably less than 100 bucks if they were operating under standard convenience store cash handling practices. And the clerk shot someone in the back, putting everyone in the vicinity at risk, when the damage had ALREADY been done and his safety was no longer even in question -- they were LEAVING when he shot them!! Yeah, I'm sure glad he had a gun. Really saved the day there. I feel safer already.
So this is what you and Lott support?
If that's your idea of a justification for gun ownership... you fail miserably, both of you.
Yes, that's just you. You are absolutely entitled to act in a way that you believe serves your best interests, without harming others.
Agreed. Operative phrase being 'without harming others'.
So do people who believe that having a gun makes them safer.
No. Not good enough. I'm not satisfied with letting people have guns simply because they *believe* it makes them safer. They need to be demonstrably right.
Does it REALLY make them safer? And what is the net risk to others?
Because if it actually increases the risk of harm, especially to others, with no appreciable real increase in their own safety (or even results in a decrease in their own safety) then no they should not be entitled to have one, regardless of what they believe.
I'm not saying this is the case. I am in support of finding out. And I'm prepared to accept that its not a simple black & white question. Maybe some types of guns and/or circumstances do result in net satefy increase while others don't.
But if my neighbor fired any of a large number of readily available guns with readily available ammunition at an 'honest to god psycho murderer rapist breaking in to kill him and his family' there is STILL a fairly significant chance his bullets will enter my home.
And that's a best case application. What about all those nuts with loaded guns stashed in their homes, people with kids... that play with my kids... or yours...
What would you do if your teenager got pissed off at you, took the kitchen knife and stabbed you while you slept then, realizing what he did, turned it on himself?
That would require an entirely different state of mind.
You simply can't equate "a kid storming off down the hall in a blind rage, grabbing the gun, loading it, and then storming back guns blazing" with, "a kid storming off to his room in a blind range, puttering around for 6 hours while he waits for the old man to fall asleep so that he can sneak into the room and stab him to death in cold blood."
I don't deny the latter can happen but its an *entirely* different situation.
When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."
I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?
What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retreive my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"
What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?
What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"
Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?
In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?
What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??
In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgement takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.
His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.
Pro-gun types actually beleive that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.
One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever, is people like my neighbor with 3 huge guns. Specially states that he feels safer having them because he lives alone, but thinks that home security systems and dogs are ineffectual. Yet, a big gun in the closet... that will stop criminals from attacking him...
Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-gun, myself. But lousy reasoning exists on both sides of the argument. And bottom line, the only questions I'm interested in:
Does having a gun actually make me safer? Or is it more likely to get me or someone I care about killed?
Am I more likely to prevent a crime with it, or is it more likely that it will enable / escalate one?
I don't know the answer to those questions.
I do know I hear daily about some gun being misused, or accidently fired, or used in a fit of passion... I don't often hear about people who were able to fend off murderer/rapists with their gun. Call it media bias if you want... but until I see a REAL credible study done... well... I have serious doubts that guns will make me safer. I firmly beleive, for my own family, that the odds of the kids having an accident with it, FAR exceed the odds we'll get our home invaded by a murderous/rapist. But that's just me.
I don't welcome a world where merely opening my eye or taking a photo in public places can lead me in court if that results in being able to see your "secrets".
Bit of a straw man to equate 'seeing someone's private home' with 'taking multiple pictures of it and putting them on a website, indexed by address, for commercial purposes, without the owners permission', don't you think?
If I see a cool Ferrari parked by the side of the road and I take a picture of it because I like Ferarri's, that's clearly harmless. If I put it on my personal website in a Ferrari gallery, that's still pretty harmless, espeially if I blur the plates.
Now if I were google, taking thousands of pictures everywhere, tagging each time I saw the car, building a network map of everywhere the cars is seen, then plotting it on a map. Next I'd advertise my car tracking site 'google car tracking beta' and let people search for cars by plate number, and return the pictures and map information... allowing visitors to find out where a given car 'lives', where it 'works', what places it frequents.
Me, I see a difference there. A big one. Even if they are both just taking pictures of something in a public space. A little random information is no real threat to privacy. A massive collection of that 'random information' indexed and searchable is a whole other ballgame.
The last time I priced a machine from them, I could get equivalent performance for literally half of the price by building it myself. At least, as long as my definition of "performance" didn't include, "really cool looking, glowy case"
Actually a premium case and some glowy bits don't add that much to the bill at all.
We need, Google to start a competitor to Paypal, so I can donate some small amounts of money to the sites I like. (I don't use Paypal, because they're a bunch of crooks)
Yes lets all suckle at the google teat until we're so dependant on them the microsoft monopoly will seem like a pathetic joke. Lets give them our documents, our email, lets let them gather every detail they can about our lives, lets let them take a picture of our house... oh I know... they should totally handle our money too!
I agree paypal needs some decent competition, but suggesting it be handled by google is as stupid as suggesting it be handled by microsoft. Or maybe not, at least with microsoft I don't have to worry about my transaction history being added to one of the largest surveillance networks on the planet.
Thanks, but no thanks.
But you MUST admit, they are STEALING the music. If the law provides for retribution, either change the law as Sweden does and make it legal to pirate, or don't fucking break the law. Seems cut and dry to me. And I am a lawyer.
The RIAA is welcome to try prosecuting people for the copies they 'downloaded to their computer unlawfully'. However, so far they haven't.
Probably because it would be about is sucessful as a Walmart employee looking in your windows and then charging you with stealing anything they saw inside that they happen to sell.
Dithering does not make a new unique color from it's component colors. It's two different colors next to each other,...
You are aware that even the most expensive LCD creates ALL its color by the "different colors next to each other" method. Look at your monitor under a magnifying glass -- its just stripes of red, green, and blue.
How is "red next to green next to blue" a real color, but "red next to green next to blue next to a slightly different red next to a slightly different green next to blue" a totally different situation?
Seems to be a clear issue of interpretation to me.
And if you claim your display can show "millions of colors" it has to have more than 6-bits per color channel. Period.
Well, since we're dithering accross more than 3 static sub-pixels on a 6-bit display to achieve our full color pallette, we clearly have in excess of 6 bits per channel. We either including additional adjacent subpixels in space to shore up the number or were including additional temporally adjacent subpixels. Either way, it boosts the bit depth.
If I can show you a frame or a red frame and can switch between them fast enough, you'll see a purple frame. That's how single projector DLP HDTVs work. Rather than putting component colors adjacent on the screen, they put them in adjacent time. (Sensitive people complained of seeing 'rainbow' effects due to the oscillation on early units, but faster ocsillations have virtually eliminated the problem now.)
If the eye is adequately confused that's all that matters. And TN panels meet that threshold quite well. It generally takes close deliberate inspection against a reference to 'see' the tricks.
No, it's not an issue of interpretation.
No. That's exactly what it is.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. I'd estimate that the vast majority of LCD panels on the market are 6-bit screens. Whether you are buying Benq, LG, Dell, Viewsonic, it doesn't matter. Most of them are 6 bit.
They are cheaper, and they have faster response times.
8-bit LCD panels are almost a niche specialty 'pro product' in today's market, and unless you went out of your way to buy an 8 bit screen odds are you took home a 6-bit TN panel, advertised as showing "16.2 million colours" without even knowing it.
Its not just Apple. Although they seem to have gone beyond marketing deceptiveness to outright lies and deserve to be taken to task about it.
But don't for a minute think all those free Dell monitors bundled with low end PCs are anything better. Hell, even the ones you can pay to upgrade to aren't often anything better than 6-bit.
Because 1,460 families are using more of the services such as schools, hospitals, roads, and all the other things that your tax dollars go towards?
Well that doesn't make any sense at all.
14,600 families living in poverty at 10k per year make the same 146M in aggregate too. They use EVEN MORE of the servcies such as schools, hospitals, roads, and so forth than the 1460 do. But they pay no taxes at all.
So WHY do the 1460 families pay the most taxes? Those that make less, pay less per dollar income. Those that make more, well, they pay less per dollar income too.