We are apparently continuing fast down the Bush road to a completely independent, unaccountable, all-powerful presidency.
Another knee-jerk "bad thing? Bush's fault!" reaction.
Please.
Let's see... presidents pushing federal policy that is directly in opposition to the Constitution and increases government or executive power? That goes at least as far back as, oh, John Adams.
Now, I'm not a Bush supporter, or even a Republican; his administration did a lot of things that I very strongly disagreed with. But this disingenious "blame Bush for everything bad, whether it's actually his fault or not" thing is getting real old.
Securing the border isn't a good idea because it's impossible.
No. It is not impossible. It may be hard, and it would certainly be expensive... but it is not impossible. Many people just don't like the idea, they think it's mean... I say it's just common sense. We spend so much trouble and effort to search everything coming in by airplane, to secure our ports and stuff, but leave our physical borders (which we know for certain are known transit points for drugs and criminal gangs) almost entirely undefended. It's like securing your house against burglary by barricading your front and back door with three deadbolts and an alarm system, but then leaving your garage and its inside connecting door wide open. I have nothing at all against immigration; all of my great-grandparents were immigrants. But you don't just let anyone come in at any time, just like you don't let random people off the street just walk into your house.
That doesn't change the fact that American guns are regularly used in Mexico.
See the other posts on the matter for better explanations, but the vast majority of those guns in Mexico don't actually come from the US--most are stolen from the Mexican government or purchased on the black market in South America. It is illegal to own them at all in Mexico, it's illegal in the US to purchase them under false pretenses and to export them. Making more laws in the US will not solve Mexico's problems, and will have a tiny effect at best on violence down there.
I'd like someone to explain why active sonar is necessary, being that subs are most effective when their location is not known, and active sonar instantly gives away your location.
Err, active sonar isn't just the domain of submarines. Subs very rarely use it, but sub-hunting aircraft like the SH-60, P-3, Il-18, etc. use combinations of active and passive sonobuoys, as well as dipping sonars (for the helicopters) which have active and passive modes. Surface ships like destroyers will also use active sonar on occasion. Many modern submarines are quiet enough that they can't be heard at all on a passive set, particularly when operating in littoral areas or areas of mixed or disturbed water. If you're the side with the helicopters and destroyers trying to find that submarine, you might have no choice but to blast away on active.
Hmm, I'll have to look at the salt. I thought I ate enough, but actually thinking about it, I don't think anything I've eaten lately has a significant amount of salt in it. Hmm, maybe for lunch I'll have that ramen I keep stashed away in the desk in case I forget my regular lunch...
Most of the water I drink at work comes from the big Culligan cooler bottles, because (a) it's cold, (b) it's free, and (c) the tap water in our building comes out a little brown. The pipes are ancient and I think they leech iron into the water, making it taste funny.
I certainly don't have trouble keeping weight on, though. Started losing a little recently, but I'm attributing it to the exercise program I started about the same time.
I think one of the reasons I drink the water is that it's a mindless activity my hands and mouth do in reaction to stress... some people mindlessly eat stuff like chips or candy if it's there; I keep water around to do that instead. Plus, it's something I picked up from doing all-nighters in school; drinking lots of caffeinated things like diet sodas made me feel sick, but drinking lots of water kept me awake if for no other reason than I had to get up and piss every thirty minutes.
Well put. This "90% from America" BS is a blatant attempt at outright deception.
I mean, really. Why would a Mexican drug lord who wanted arms for his minions go through all of the trouble of getting them in the US, when he has so many better options? Obtaining firearms from the US civilian market requires either:
(a) finding someone with a clean record who is willing to commit a felony by "straw purchasing" a gun, most likely from a gun shop where the transaction is recorded and background checks performed, paying inflated costs plus tax and outrageous ammunition prices, illegally transferring the gun to someone else, and then smuggling it across the border, or
(b) finding someone willing to risk his life or freedom by stealing the gun from a gun shop or private owner, and smuggling it across the border. I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the guns actually traceable to the US were stolen.
Either choice essentially limits you to semiautomatic and bolt-action guns in common calibers. Trying to legally purchase a machine gun, for example, requires finding someone willing to go through a class III federal and state background check (which can take months) under false pretenses, paying several thousand dollars for the gun itself (the supply has dried up, so prices for existing registered and transferable machine guns can run from $3-4k at the low end, to $20k for an M16, to well over $50k or more for something like an M2.50), and then smuggling that across the border. Buying things like rocket launchers and grenades might be cheaper, but the process is even more involved..50cal rifles don't require special checks, but they also cost thousands of dollars, and ammunition for them is about $4 per individual round. They're also fairly rare; finding one for sale will be hard unless you're willing to wait months or more for them.
By contrast, there are several easier and cheaper ways to get fully-automatic firearms, rocket launchers, grenades, mines, and other military weaponry in Mexico. You can:
(a) Buy from/hire soldiers who deserted the army with their weapons, or police who did the same (b) Pay a corrupt cop, soldier, or government official to "lose" armament belonging to their employer (c) Buy them cheaply on the black market in South America or Africa, which for decades were flooded with military arms by both the US and the USSR to carry on guerrilla warfare (d) Buy them directly from China, who certainly wouldn't have qualms about selling and shipping them
As opposed to obtaining them from the US, the above options are much cheaper, involve less trouble, have fewer opportunities to be caught, and do not involve crossing the most secured border Mexico has (well, secured is a relative term...).
So: lots of trouble, limited selection, and high prices? Or much less trouble, wider selection, and much cheaper prices? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Like another poster pointed out, Mexico doesn't bother with sending most of the guns to the US for tracing because they obviously weren't purchased here. And I suspect the government also doesn't want anyone seeing just how many of them have "Propiedad del Gobierno Mexicano" stamped on the receiver...
Bah. I'll take a bunker, thankyouverymuch. Now if only I could convince the wife to let me build one...
Think about it: protection from storms and high wind, won't burn down, harder to break into, better insulated, and less disruptive to the local landscape after construction. What's not to like, besides the fact that you can't build one close to sea level?
Adding to #2, tornadoes happen everywhere. They're most common in "tornado alley", but happen quite often in the southeast, too, and also happen up the east coast and in other areas. They're also often spawned by hurricanes when they come ashore...
Sorry for those who I'm de-modding, I had to respond.
some ad-hoc class of rarely-used weapons
I hope by "rarely-used" you mean "rarely used for crime", as they make up around 1% (yes, one percent) of the guns used in the commission of violent crimes. But rarely used for lawful purposes by law-abiding people? Not so much. The AR-15, for example, is now the rifle of choice for varmint hunting and many categories of shooting matches. It is also increasingly popular for hunting other game (deer and hogs) and for defense of the home (a very good case can be made that the AR is more suitable than a shotgun or handgun). Over fifty (50) companies now produce complete AR-15/AR-10 rifles, or parts for them, including some pecifically intended for hunting. I would guess that this is also the best-selling firearm in the US right now; virtually all of these manufacturers have backlogs stretching from several months out to two years. Many of them have gone to second or third shifts to meet demand. I know of one family-owned company in North Carolina that currently has 30,000 rifle orders on the books; it will take them until at least December to fill those orders even with their new equipment and new staff--and hundreds of new orders roll in every day. The vast majority of people buying these rifles are not "gun nuts"--they're ordinary people like doctors, teachers, engineers, mechanics, etc. Many of them are even first-time gun owners just looking to protect themselves and their families from a home invasion.
You are correct in that the term "assault weapon" is arbitrary. It is traditionally intended to apply to semiautomatic versions of modern military rifles like the M16 and AK families, but most of the definitions proposed spread far larger. The Ruger 10/22, for example, a very popular (as in millions of them) rimfire rifle for small-game hunting, target shooting, and as a "first gun", is also included.
Frankly, the ban just doesn't make any sense. They try to justify it by claiming or implying that "assault weapons" are:
machine guns--which they aren't, and would be tightly regulated under the 1934 NFA.
more powerful or "armor-piercing"--most common hunting rifles are more powerful than an AR or AK, and most police armor is designed to stop handgun bullets... just about any rifle will pierce it.
"evil features" like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. are all "dangerous"--pistol grips just change the angle of your hand, no more. They certainly don't let you "spray fire from the hip" (as claimed by the Brady campaign) any more accurately (that is, with no accuracy at all) than any other grip. Collapsible stocks don't make the gun "easy to conceal", as anyone who has ever actually handled one of these rifles would attest; even collapsed or folded, the rifle still must meet the minimum 26" overall length requirement of the NFA. Such adjustments are so people of different sizes can comfortably use the rifle, not for concealment. Bayonet lugs are just little (1/4") pieces of metal sticking off the bottom of the barrel. And I can think of exactly one crime where someone was injured by an attached bayonet--the victim was treated for minor cuts and released. Flash hiders don't make the gun invisible by any means. Their most valuable role is generally protecting the "crown", or exit of the barrel, from being damaged (which can affect accuracy) or plugged (which can cause the gun to explode).
That's nothing; I must go through at least a gallon of water at work every day... I keep a quart-size insulated travel mug at my desk, and fill it up at least 4-5 times/day.
It's one thing for an individual to skip expected social functions. Nothing much comes of it. It's quite another for a diplomat or political leader (and, by extension, the entire country he/she represents) to snub a diplomatic event. You can get away with that if your country is either (a) so powerful nobody can do anything about it, or (b) has no political, military, or economic connections with the others.
Like press conferences, speeches, public appearances, etc., these events are just part of the job description; gifts, niceties, and state dinners are just matters of protocol, much like one would dress up for an interview, wear a suit to court, play golf with an important supplier or customer, etc.
In particular, the gift-giving probably goes way back in the history of human civilization. It probably served a real purpose long ago, where giving rare, important, or special gifts was a demonstration of peaceful intent or goodwill.
What concerns me about this is not the gifts themselves--they're just protocol, like I said above--but rather that they were almost an afterthought. It seems to have completely slipped the mind of the White House diplomatic staff, and I get the impression they made a quick panic run to Wal-mart. I'm probably being cynical, but given that Obama has very little experience with these matters, he either did a very bad job picking his advisors and staff (little or no experience, and therefore couldn't advise him), or he ignored the advice of his staff and made the choices himself. Not sure which one bothers me more.
I don't even understand the controversy. 25 DVD's is a pretty damn good gift. Maybe the Brits don't understand that, in the U.S., giving exquisite gifts to politicians is a MAJOR no-no (unless you're Ted Stevens, of course). I'm surprised they even gave him that much. A U.S. politician couldn't accept anything in excess of $335 in value as a gift from a foreign leader.
It's pretty much standard here that diplomatic gifts aren't kept by the President; they're accepted on behalf of, and given over to, the American people. I'd imagine that it's pretty much the same in the UK; "suitcases full of cash and rare art" would be state-to-state gifts that just happen to be presented by/to individuals acting as representatives to their people.
Diplomatic gifts aren't really supposed to be personal anyways. The pen and case aren't for Obama to take home and use for paying his bills; they'll most likely be displayed for a little while, possibly used to sign some kind of treaty or trade agreement with the UK, and eventually filed away in a box somewhere. It might eventually go on display at whatever Presidential library Obama builds, but would remain the property of the United States and just be loaned to said library.
It's not the gifts themselves that are the issue... it's the symbolism, if you will.
See, diplomacy is a game, of sorts, and it's heavily dependent on symbolism. Things like gift exchanges, summit meetings, state dinners, and all that are mostly useless from a practical standpoint... but it's part of the game. They're the rules; to be taken seriously you have to at least play along with them and pretend that you care. It's like Christmastime at the office; you go to the parties and you buy little gifts for each other, not because you really care about everyone or want to hang out with them, but because it smooths things over and is just part of office politics.
Obama's not playing by the rules. And while the gifts and all that aren't really a big deal, he's committing a diplomatic faux pas--toward his country's closest ally, no less. What makes this (and similar small diplomatic blunders) ironic, and what the European press is starting to make noise about, is that everyone thought Obama would be better at international relations than Bush. True, he has yet to start any wars; but flubbing even the basic, petty, easy stuff like state dinners and symbolic gift exchanges with your closest allies and your historical and powerful military/economic rivals (China and Russia) certainly isn't getting off on the right foot.
It's like the new guy showing up at the office Christmas party with PBR and dollar store gag gifts for the exchange when everyone else brought drinkable wine or liquor and a $15 gift... then cutting loose a giant fart and laughing loudly about it. Sure, it doesn't really affect business operations, it's just a stupid little party. But now everyone's looking at him kinda funny and thinking "hey, we thought he was cool, but this guy's a bit of an ass." In other words, it may not be harmful, but he certainly isn't doing us any favors.
I think it's indicative of Obama's naivete and complete lack of experience with regard to foreign policy. IIRC, he also blew off an official state dinner with Brown saying he was "too busy", and dismissed the US-UK relationship as "nothing special", and sent back the bust of Churchill that had been at the White House for quite a long time. Oh, and the DVDs came with a couple of Marine One helicopter toys, too.
Stop calling it "piracy"! Installing software you haven't licensed is breach of contract, or something like that.
Piracy, on the other hand, isn't some little look-the-other-way offense that gets you in trouble with the BSA and sends you to court. It's a brutal, nasty, bloody, violent, and sometimes deadly crime committed against a vessel (aircraft or ship) and the people and property on board People get hurt from piracy. People die from piracy.
And you know what the punishment for piracy traditionally was?
Death, usually by hanging.
It's not something that's just a storybook tale made for Disney movies. Piracy still happens, only now the pirates operate from fast boats, use radar and GPS to track their prey, and arm themselves with rocket launchers and machine guns. They still hold ships for ransom, steal the valuable cargo, and sometimes mutilate or kill their victims.
Piracy and copying software aren't even on the same level.
We collect a smaller percentage of the income of the wealthiest people in comparison to the poorest. That's a decrease in socialism and an increase in capitalism. That's been the trend for a decade.
So you're arguing that the effective income tax rates decrease as income goes up? Check your tax tables again, bud.
That just made the problem worse and delayed the crash, it didn't cause the problem. The wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer as a trend.
"The poor getting poorer"? How do you figure? The disparity between "rich" and "poor" may have grown, but overall even the poor are better off here than they were. Shit, just about everybody owns a color TV and a cellphone. Averaged over time, everyone is improving. The notion of trying to "close the gap" smacks of egalitarianism, or even communism.
A democracy's job is to do the will of the people, so yeah it sort of is the government's job.
I'm going to say this loud and clear: THE US IS NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY! A democracy is pure rule by majority. Mob rule, in other words. Democracy says that, if the majority of the people approve, you do it--even if it violates the rights of someone else. A majority vote to kill all of insert_group_here and take their stuff would be perfectly legitimate under a democracy.
Democracies are very dangerous things, because people (as a whole) are fickle, ignorant, easily swayed, and irrational. The use of force wielded simply by the will of the majority is a terrifying thought--and the tyranny of many is just as bad as the tyranny of one. This is precisely why most elected governments have layers of abstraction and various checks on the will of the people.
Yet again, in the face of a disparity of assets, income, ability, or anything else, the call is to "take it away from those that have it!" Income disparity? Tax them more! Take it away from them! Don't find a way to lift the poor up, drag the rich down! Some kid smarter than another? Teach them all at the lowest level! Don't let anyone excel, because that's bad... someone else won't, and that's not fair! We will decide how much you can have, and if we want what's yours, we'll just take it!
You can make a case for some form of "progressive" (oh dear lord how I hate that word... but that's another rant) tax rate, to an extent, by reason that those with more income and assets benefit more from certain government programs. But the rate increase should be gradual and reasonable, not punitive. You can argue that some kind of estate tax is necessary to keep money in circulation, rather than being taken out and stored--I don't necessarily agree, but at least there's more reason behind that than "waah, he has stuff, and it's not fair!" Communism and overt socialism eventually fail every time, because of one simple fact: people don't like busting their asses for nothing. Nobody's going to work tens of hours of overtime every week to get a promotion, or take on a harder, nastier, or more challenging job if they get nothing for their efforts. Nobody will put in the extra effort to do something if there will be no benefit from it. Nobody will want to take on more responsibility, more work, more difficulty, if all of their extra effort will simply be given away to someone else. You can make a case for a good initial education for everyone, or a little assistance when someone stumbles... but overt "here's your check" handouts to somebody who doesn't work, doesn't try to do anything positive for the community, doesn't do anything but contribute shit, piss, and carbon dioxide to society? Fuck that. If you take an opportunity, give an honest effort, and fail, that's one thing. To spit in the face of that opportunity, to spurn it and demand that someone else provide that which you refused to get for yourself, is immoral, unjust, and parasitic.
You jest, but a lot of people truly did. They really expected that, if they just voted for Obama and had enough "hope", things would magically "change", government would save their bank accounts and take care of all their problems, and everyone would be nice to us again.
for simple image tasks like futzing with brightness or mocking up a UI for work, my app of choice is PaintShop Pro 7. it launches instantly and is very lightweight yet has layers, a UI that does the job and gets out of the way, etc.
Cathector here speaks the truth.
I use version 6 myself; best simple graphics program ever. No, if you're doing professional- or art-quality stuff, it might not be suitable, but it's good for the lightweight everyday stuff. A few nice advanced features, but enough simplicity for basic things too. Think of the simplicity of MSPaint with layers and some image manipulation stuff as well.
The best part? Drawing a circle is as easy as clicking the circle tool and the color you want. None of this "select an area, do something else, then do something else". Want a line? Just draw a line like you would in paint. No dicking around with all this other stuff.
We do have schools in which the student is allowed to drive an overpowered clunker into unsafe conditions for the purpose of practicing recovery, but they are very expensive and geared towards racers, stunt-drivers, and law enforcement. They're not for teaching teenagers how to avoid crashes.
My wife took one of those classes a while back. It saved her life three years ago in bad weather... the car was still a loss, but she was able to keep control long enough to make it away from other traffic and to a "softer" impact.
Speaking of headlights... I love the guys that drive gray or earth-tone cars in rainy weather without lights. They're fucking camouflaged, and assume "well, if I can see you, you can see me!"
Man, if I were a cop, I'd pull people over for shit like that, or for improper lane change, rather than speeding-over-an-arbitrary-limit.
Is that your reaction time from normal cruising down the highway to "oh shit DEER!", or is that your "I'm waiting on one specific thing to happen, watching it intently, and reacting as soon as I see it" ?
since the word has become a synonym for "a right is something that allows me to do whatever I please, others be damned!".
Or just as much, "a right is something I deserve to be given simply for existing, without any responsibility". Things like a job, a house, internet service, entertainment, money... The "right" to things like this necessarily implies that you have the right to make others give them to you--and I don't hold to that.
The problem is that cities are repeatedly caught shortening the time the yellow light is displayed, to the point that it's physically impossible for someone close to the intersection to stop at the light in a safe manner--they either continue on through the intersection and get ticketed, or slam the brakes on in a panic stop and possibly trigger an accident that way. In other words, they put cameras up in the name of safety, but then they deliberately institute unsafe practices in order to maintain revenue flow!
Remember, when you see a light change to yellow, your brain can take a second or more to recongnize that the light has changed, decide whether you can stop safely at the intersection in the distance remaining, and begin braking. The car then decelerates to a stop.
Now, if your yellow light only lasts two seconds, that leaves you about a second and change to go from 40 to 0. That probably ain't happening even on dry pavement with good brakes and tires.
You really want safety? Lengthen yellow times (a good way to get those times would be "time it takes an old person traveling on wet roads at 10 over the limit to react to a stop signal and bring the car to a full stop with average braking effort" plus a margin of 1-2 sec). Install crosswalk signs that count down to the yellow light. Add a delay between one side getting a red, and crossing traffic getting a green.
In short, the opposite of "shorten yellow light times for revenue".
As a general rule, cities should not collect money they generate through traffic (or other) fines, because sooner or later they will abuse that power. Your residents want the government to do things? Fine, they can pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
We are apparently continuing fast down the Bush road to a completely independent, unaccountable, all-powerful presidency.
Another knee-jerk "bad thing? Bush's fault!" reaction.
Please.
Let's see... presidents pushing federal policy that is directly in opposition to the Constitution and increases government or executive power? That goes at least as far back as, oh, John Adams.
Now, I'm not a Bush supporter, or even a Republican; his administration did a lot of things that I very strongly disagreed with. But this disingenious "blame Bush for everything bad, whether it's actually his fault or not" thing is getting real old.
Securing the border isn't a good idea because it's impossible.
No. It is not impossible. It may be hard, and it would certainly be expensive... but it is not impossible. Many people just don't like the idea, they think it's mean... I say it's just common sense. We spend so much trouble and effort to search everything coming in by airplane, to secure our ports and stuff, but leave our physical borders (which we know for certain are known transit points for drugs and criminal gangs) almost entirely undefended. It's like securing your house against burglary by barricading your front and back door with three deadbolts and an alarm system, but then leaving your garage and its inside connecting door wide open. I have nothing at all against immigration; all of my great-grandparents were immigrants. But you don't just let anyone come in at any time, just like you don't let random people off the street just walk into your house.
That doesn't change the fact that American guns are regularly used in Mexico.
See the other posts on the matter for better explanations, but the vast majority of those guns in Mexico don't actually come from the US--most are stolen from the Mexican government or purchased on the black market in South America. It is illegal to own them at all in Mexico, it's illegal in the US to purchase them under false pretenses and to export them. Making more laws in the US will not solve Mexico's problems, and will have a tiny effect at best on violence down there.
I'd like someone to explain why active sonar is necessary, being that subs are most effective when their location is not known, and active sonar instantly gives away your location.
Err, active sonar isn't just the domain of submarines. Subs very rarely use it, but sub-hunting aircraft like the SH-60, P-3, Il-18, etc. use combinations of active and passive sonobuoys, as well as dipping sonars (for the helicopters) which have active and passive modes. Surface ships like destroyers will also use active sonar on occasion. Many modern submarines are quiet enough that they can't be heard at all on a passive set, particularly when operating in littoral areas or areas of mixed or disturbed water. If you're the side with the helicopters and destroyers trying to find that submarine, you might have no choice but to blast away on active.
One-way fiberoptic cable? That is, have the net card on the critical system only able to transmit, with no receive equipment fitted.
Hmm, I'll have to look at the salt. I thought I ate enough, but actually thinking about it, I don't think anything I've eaten lately has a significant amount of salt in it. Hmm, maybe for lunch I'll have that ramen I keep stashed away in the desk in case I forget my regular lunch...
Most of the water I drink at work comes from the big Culligan cooler bottles, because (a) it's cold, (b) it's free, and (c) the tap water in our building comes out a little brown. The pipes are ancient and I think they leech iron into the water, making it taste funny.
I certainly don't have trouble keeping weight on, though. Started losing a little recently, but I'm attributing it to the exercise program I started about the same time.
I think one of the reasons I drink the water is that it's a mindless activity my hands and mouth do in reaction to stress... some people mindlessly eat stuff like chips or candy if it's there; I keep water around to do that instead. Plus, it's something I picked up from doing all-nighters in school; drinking lots of caffeinated things like diet sodas made me feel sick, but drinking lots of water kept me awake if for no other reason than I had to get up and piss every thirty minutes.
Well put. This "90% from America" BS is a blatant attempt at outright deception.
I mean, really. Why would a Mexican drug lord who wanted arms for his minions go through all of the trouble of getting them in the US, when he has so many better options? Obtaining firearms from the US civilian market requires either:
(a) finding someone with a clean record who is willing to commit a felony by "straw purchasing" a gun, most likely from a gun shop where the transaction is recorded and background checks performed, paying inflated costs plus tax and outrageous ammunition prices, illegally transferring the gun to someone else, and then smuggling it across the border, or
(b) finding someone willing to risk his life or freedom by stealing the gun from a gun shop or private owner, and smuggling it across the border. I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of the guns actually traceable to the US were stolen.
Either choice essentially limits you to semiautomatic and bolt-action guns in common calibers. Trying to legally purchase a machine gun, for example, requires finding someone willing to go through a class III federal and state background check (which can take months) under false pretenses, paying several thousand dollars for the gun itself (the supply has dried up, so prices for existing registered and transferable machine guns can run from $3-4k at the low end, to $20k for an M16, to well over $50k or more for something like an M2 .50), and then smuggling that across the border. Buying things like rocket launchers and grenades might be cheaper, but the process is even more involved. .50cal rifles don't require special checks, but they also cost thousands of dollars, and ammunition for them is about $4 per individual round. They're also fairly rare; finding one for sale will be hard unless you're willing to wait months or more for them.
By contrast, there are several easier and cheaper ways to get fully-automatic firearms, rocket launchers, grenades, mines, and other military weaponry in Mexico. You can:
(a) Buy from/hire soldiers who deserted the army with their weapons, or police who did the same
(b) Pay a corrupt cop, soldier, or government official to "lose" armament belonging to their employer
(c) Buy them cheaply on the black market in South America or Africa, which for decades were flooded with military arms by both the US and the USSR to carry on guerrilla warfare
(d) Buy them directly from China, who certainly wouldn't have qualms about selling and shipping them
As opposed to obtaining them from the US, the above options are much cheaper, involve less trouble, have fewer opportunities to be caught, and do not involve crossing the most secured border Mexico has (well, secured is a relative term...).
So: lots of trouble, limited selection, and high prices? Or much less trouble, wider selection, and much cheaper prices? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Like another poster pointed out, Mexico doesn't bother with sending most of the guns to the US for tracing because they obviously weren't purchased here. And I suspect the government also doesn't want anyone seeing just how many of them have "Propiedad del Gobierno Mexicano" stamped on the receiver...
Bah. I'll take a bunker, thankyouverymuch. Now if only I could convince the wife to let me build one...
Think about it: protection from storms and high wind, won't burn down, harder to break into, better insulated, and less disruptive to the local landscape after construction. What's not to like, besides the fact that you can't build one close to sea level?
Adding to #2, tornadoes happen everywhere. They're most common in "tornado alley", but happen quite often in the southeast, too, and also happen up the east coast and in other areas. They're also often spawned by hurricanes when they come ashore...
Sorry for those who I'm de-modding, I had to respond.
some ad-hoc class of rarely-used weapons
I hope by "rarely-used" you mean "rarely used for crime", as they make up around 1% (yes, one percent) of the guns used in the commission of violent crimes. But rarely used for lawful purposes by law-abiding people? Not so much. The AR-15, for example, is now the rifle of choice for varmint hunting and many categories of shooting matches. It is also increasingly popular for hunting other game (deer and hogs) and for defense of the home (a very good case can be made that the AR is more suitable than a shotgun or handgun). Over fifty (50) companies now produce complete AR-15/AR-10 rifles, or parts for them, including some pecifically intended for hunting. I would guess that this is also the best-selling firearm in the US right now; virtually all of these manufacturers have backlogs stretching from several months out to two years. Many of them have gone to second or third shifts to meet demand. I know of one family-owned company in North Carolina that currently has 30,000 rifle orders on the books; it will take them until at least December to fill those orders even with their new equipment and new staff--and hundreds of new orders roll in every day. The vast majority of people buying these rifles are not "gun nuts"--they're ordinary people like doctors, teachers, engineers, mechanics, etc. Many of them are even first-time gun owners just looking to protect themselves and their families from a home invasion.
You are correct in that the term "assault weapon" is arbitrary. It is traditionally intended to apply to semiautomatic versions of modern military rifles like the M16 and AK families, but most of the definitions proposed spread far larger. The Ruger 10/22, for example, a very popular (as in millions of them) rimfire rifle for small-game hunting, target shooting, and as a "first gun", is also included.
Frankly, the ban just doesn't make any sense. They try to justify it by claiming or implying that "assault weapons" are:
machine guns--which they aren't, and would be tightly regulated under the 1934 NFA.
more powerful or "armor-piercing"--most common hunting rifles are more powerful than an AR or AK, and most police armor is designed to stop handgun bullets... just about any rifle will pierce it.
"evil features" like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. are all "dangerous"--pistol grips just change the angle of your hand, no more. They certainly don't let you "spray fire from the hip" (as claimed by the Brady campaign) any more accurately (that is, with no accuracy at all) than any other grip.
Collapsible stocks don't make the gun "easy to conceal", as anyone who has ever actually handled one of these rifles would attest; even collapsed or folded, the rifle still must meet the minimum 26" overall length requirement of the NFA. Such adjustments are so people of different sizes can comfortably use the rifle, not for concealment.
Bayonet lugs are just little (1/4") pieces of metal sticking off the bottom of the barrel. And I can think of exactly one crime where someone was injured by an attached bayonet--the victim was treated for minor cuts and released.
Flash hiders don't make the gun invisible by any means. Their most valuable role is generally protecting the "crown", or exit of the barrel, from being damaged (which can affect accuracy) or plugged (which can cause the gun to explode).
That's nothing; I must go through at least a gallon of water at work every day... I keep a quart-size insulated travel mug at my desk, and fill it up at least 4-5 times/day.
It's one thing for an individual to skip expected social functions. Nothing much comes of it. It's quite another for a diplomat or political leader (and, by extension, the entire country he/she represents) to snub a diplomatic event. You can get away with that if your country is either (a) so powerful nobody can do anything about it, or (b) has no political, military, or economic connections with the others.
Like press conferences, speeches, public appearances, etc., these events are just part of the job description; gifts, niceties, and state dinners are just matters of protocol, much like one would dress up for an interview, wear a suit to court, play golf with an important supplier or customer, etc.
In particular, the gift-giving probably goes way back in the history of human civilization. It probably served a real purpose long ago, where giving rare, important, or special gifts was a demonstration of peaceful intent or goodwill.
What concerns me about this is not the gifts themselves--they're just protocol, like I said above--but rather that they were almost an afterthought. It seems to have completely slipped the mind of the White House diplomatic staff, and I get the impression they made a quick panic run to Wal-mart. I'm probably being cynical, but given that Obama has very little experience with these matters, he either did a very bad job picking his advisors and staff (little or no experience, and therefore couldn't advise him), or he ignored the advice of his staff and made the choices himself. Not sure which one bothers me more.
I don't even understand the controversy. 25 DVD's is a pretty damn good gift. Maybe the Brits don't understand that, in the U.S., giving exquisite gifts to politicians is a MAJOR no-no (unless you're Ted Stevens, of course). I'm surprised they even gave him that much. A U.S. politician couldn't accept anything in excess of $335 in value as a gift from a foreign leader.
It's pretty much standard here that diplomatic gifts aren't kept by the President; they're accepted on behalf of, and given over to, the American people. I'd imagine that it's pretty much the same in the UK; "suitcases full of cash and rare art" would be state-to-state gifts that just happen to be presented by/to individuals acting as representatives to their people.
Diplomatic gifts aren't really supposed to be personal anyways. The pen and case aren't for Obama to take home and use for paying his bills; they'll most likely be displayed for a little while, possibly used to sign some kind of treaty or trade agreement with the UK, and eventually filed away in a box somewhere. It might eventually go on display at whatever Presidential library Obama builds, but would remain the property of the United States and just be loaned to said library.
It's not the gifts themselves that are the issue... it's the symbolism, if you will.
See, diplomacy is a game, of sorts, and it's heavily dependent on symbolism. Things like gift exchanges, summit meetings, state dinners, and all that are mostly useless from a practical standpoint... but it's part of the game. They're the rules; to be taken seriously you have to at least play along with them and pretend that you care. It's like Christmastime at the office; you go to the parties and you buy little gifts for each other, not because you really care about everyone or want to hang out with them, but because it smooths things over and is just part of office politics.
Obama's not playing by the rules. And while the gifts and all that aren't really a big deal, he's committing a diplomatic faux pas--toward his country's closest ally, no less. What makes this (and similar small diplomatic blunders) ironic, and what the European press is starting to make noise about, is that everyone thought Obama would be better at international relations than Bush. True, he has yet to start any wars; but flubbing even the basic, petty, easy stuff like state dinners and symbolic gift exchanges with your closest allies and your historical and powerful military/economic rivals (China and Russia) certainly isn't getting off on the right foot.
It's like the new guy showing up at the office Christmas party with PBR and dollar store gag gifts for the exchange when everyone else brought drinkable wine or liquor and a $15 gift... then cutting loose a giant fart and laughing loudly about it. Sure, it doesn't really affect business operations, it's just a stupid little party. But now everyone's looking at him kinda funny and thinking "hey, we thought he was cool, but this guy's a bit of an ass." In other words, it may not be harmful, but he certainly isn't doing us any favors.
I think it's indicative of Obama's naivete and complete lack of experience with regard to foreign policy. IIRC, he also blew off an official state dinner with Brown saying he was "too busy", and dismissed the US-UK relationship as "nothing special", and sent back the bust of Churchill that had been at the White House for quite a long time. Oh, and the DVDs came with a couple of Marine One helicopter toys, too.
I would hope they wouldn't sink to joking about this...
Stop calling it "piracy"! Installing software you haven't licensed is breach of contract, or something like that.
Piracy, on the other hand, isn't some little look-the-other-way offense that gets you in trouble with the BSA and sends you to court. It's a brutal, nasty, bloody, violent, and sometimes deadly crime committed against a vessel (aircraft or ship) and the people and property on board People get hurt from piracy. People die from piracy.
And you know what the punishment for piracy traditionally was?
Death, usually by hanging.
It's not something that's just a storybook tale made for Disney movies. Piracy still happens, only now the pirates operate from fast boats, use radar and GPS to track their prey, and arm themselves with rocket launchers and machine guns. They still hold ships for ransom, steal the valuable cargo, and sometimes mutilate or kill their victims.
Piracy and copying software aren't even on the same level.
We collect a smaller percentage of the income of the wealthiest people in comparison to the poorest. That's a decrease in socialism and an increase in capitalism. That's been the trend for a decade.
So you're arguing that the effective income tax rates decrease as income goes up? Check your tax tables again, bud.
That just made the problem worse and delayed the crash, it didn't cause the problem. The wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer as a trend.
"The poor getting poorer"? How do you figure? The disparity between "rich" and "poor" may have grown, but overall even the poor are better off here than they were. Shit, just about everybody owns a color TV and a cellphone. Averaged over time, everyone is improving. The notion of trying to "close the gap" smacks of egalitarianism, or even communism.
A democracy's job is to do the will of the people, so yeah it sort of is the government's job.
I'm going to say this loud and clear: THE US IS NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY! A democracy is pure rule by majority. Mob rule, in other words. Democracy says that, if the majority of the people approve, you do it--even if it violates the rights of someone else. A majority vote to kill all of insert_group_here and take their stuff would be perfectly legitimate under a democracy.
Democracies are very dangerous things, because people (as a whole) are fickle, ignorant, easily swayed, and irrational. The use of force wielded simply by the will of the majority is a terrifying thought--and the tyranny of many is just as bad as the tyranny of one. This is precisely why most elected governments have layers of abstraction and various checks on the will of the people.
Yet again, in the face of a disparity of assets, income, ability, or anything else, the call is to "take it away from those that have it!" Income disparity? Tax them more! Take it away from them! Don't find a way to lift the poor up, drag the rich down! Some kid smarter than another? Teach them all at the lowest level! Don't let anyone excel, because that's bad... someone else won't, and that's not fair! We will decide how much you can have, and if we want what's yours, we'll just take it!
You can make a case for some form of "progressive" (oh dear lord how I hate that word... but that's another rant) tax rate, to an extent, by reason that those with more income and assets benefit more from certain government programs. But the rate increase should be gradual and reasonable, not punitive. You can argue that some kind of estate tax is necessary to keep money in circulation, rather than being taken out and stored--I don't necessarily agree, but at least there's more reason behind that than "waah, he has stuff, and it's not fair!" Communism and overt socialism eventually fail every time, because of one simple fact: people don't like busting their asses for nothing. Nobody's going to work tens of hours of overtime every week to get a promotion, or take on a harder, nastier, or more challenging job if they get nothing for their efforts. Nobody will put in the extra effort to do something if there will be no benefit from it. Nobody will want to take on more responsibility, more work, more difficulty, if all of their extra effort will simply be given away to someone else. You can make a case for a good initial education for everyone, or a little assistance when someone stumbles... but overt "here's your check" handouts to somebody who doesn't work, doesn't try to do anything positive for the community, doesn't do anything but contribute shit, piss, and carbon dioxide to society? Fuck that. If you take an opportunity, give an honest effort, and fail, that's one thing. To spit in the face of that opportunity, to spurn it and demand that someone else provide that which you refused to get for yourself, is immoral, unjust, and parasitic.
Kurt Vonnegut once wrote a story
What were you expecting, free ponies?!
You jest, but a lot of people truly did. They really expected that, if they just voted for Obama and had enough "hope", things would magically "change", government would save their bank accounts and take care of all their problems, and everyone would be nice to us again.
Hey, I like my Win 3.1 buttons, you insensitive clod!
for simple image tasks like futzing with brightness or mocking up a UI for work, my app of choice is PaintShop Pro 7. it launches instantly and is very lightweight yet has layers, a UI that does the job and gets out of the way, etc.
Cathector here speaks the truth.
I use version 6 myself; best simple graphics program ever. No, if you're doing professional- or art-quality stuff, it might not be suitable, but it's good for the lightweight everyday stuff. A few nice advanced features, but enough simplicity for basic things too. Think of the simplicity of MSPaint with layers and some image manipulation stuff as well.
The best part? Drawing a circle is as easy as clicking the circle tool and the color you want. None of this "select an area, do something else, then do something else". Want a line? Just draw a line like you would in paint. No dicking around with all this other stuff.
Hell, my dad was able to figure it out.
We do have schools in which the student is allowed to drive an overpowered clunker into unsafe conditions for the purpose of practicing recovery, but they are very expensive and geared towards racers, stunt-drivers, and law enforcement. They're not for teaching teenagers how to avoid crashes.
My wife took one of those classes a while back. It saved her life three years ago in bad weather... the car was still a loss, but she was able to keep control long enough to make it away from other traffic and to a "softer" impact.
Speaking of headlights... I love the guys that drive gray or earth-tone cars in rainy weather without lights. They're fucking camouflaged, and assume "well, if I can see you, you can see me!"
Man, if I were a cop, I'd pull people over for shit like that, or for improper lane change, rather than speeding-over-an-arbitrary-limit.
Is that your reaction time from normal cruising down the highway to "oh shit DEER!", or is that your "I'm waiting on one specific thing to happen, watching it intently, and reacting as soon as I see it" ?
That will make a big difference.
since the word has become a synonym for "a right is something that allows me to do whatever I please, others be damned!".
Or just as much, "a right is something I deserve to be given simply for existing, without any responsibility". Things like a job, a house, internet service, entertainment, money... The "right" to things like this necessarily implies that you have the right to make others give them to you--and I don't hold to that.
The problem is that cities are repeatedly caught shortening the time the yellow light is displayed, to the point that it's physically impossible for someone close to the intersection to stop at the light in a safe manner--they either continue on through the intersection and get ticketed, or slam the brakes on in a panic stop and possibly trigger an accident that way. In other words, they put cameras up in the name of safety, but then they deliberately institute unsafe practices in order to maintain revenue flow!
Remember, when you see a light change to yellow, your brain can take a second or more to recongnize that the light has changed, decide whether you can stop safely at the intersection in the distance remaining, and begin braking. The car then decelerates to a stop.
Now, if your yellow light only lasts two seconds, that leaves you about a second and change to go from 40 to 0. That probably ain't happening even on dry pavement with good brakes and tires.
You really want safety? Lengthen yellow times (a good way to get those times would be "time it takes an old person traveling on wet roads at 10 over the limit to react to a stop signal and bring the car to a full stop with average braking effort" plus a margin of 1-2 sec). Install crosswalk signs that count down to the yellow light. Add a delay between one side getting a red, and crossing traffic getting a green.
In short, the opposite of "shorten yellow light times for revenue".
As a general rule, cities should not collect money they generate through traffic (or other) fines, because sooner or later they will abuse that power. Your residents want the government to do things? Fine, they can pay for it.