Why do people keep bringing up this "men with guns" thing? The whole point is: the IP address doesn't even point to my house (because of the router), only to a neighborhood. It is not probable cause to raid my home. (As a court recently ruled.)
The IP address of the router points to your account name at the ISP. All the traffic that goes through that router to/from the ISP looks like "your" traffic to anyone doing a casual (pre-warrant/raid) investigation. The "men with guns" is a reference to the exact scenario where a guy with open wifi got a swat team in his house with a literal boot to the face because his neighbor did something naughty. The police later said "let this be a lesson to others who leave their wifi open".
Sure, you'll probably (98.9%) be found innocent... after the swat raid, the destruction of property, loss of peace of mind, the man handling, the lack of your property while it sits in evidence even after you're found innocent (because it's evidence for the real perp's trial). And maybe you'll make a little money from the civil suit with the city/state/FBI, but there are easier ways to make money.
It's been more than a decade, and they're just now getting around to it. The FCC must be planning something really shifty if they're pulling their public relations Ace from their sleeve.
I remember who Tim (Timmay! as sibling posted) is if I see his name, but if someone asks me point blank: "Who created Hypertext Transfer Protocol?", I'm at a loss unless I start thinking a lot or just google it. Whereas, if someone asked me "Who invented Morse code?" I'm on it like a jackrabbit. If Tim had called it "Berners-Lee Hypertext Transfer Protocol" then I'd remember his name, but I'd be annoyed having to type blhttp://
you really think it's likely the US government is going to want to shoot protesters?
They have. They will again. An armed populace makes it less likely, not more.
In any case, I'm arguing for less guns - If we don't allow our governments to have lots of guns, how are they going to suppress us?
With the guns they weren't "allowed" to have, but got anyway. How do you prevent [a corrupt] government from getting guns? By voting the leaders out of office in 4 years? How does a legitimate government prevent an invading force from conquering them without guns (the prior example stated a universal ban on guns by all world governments, as if that could happen)?
Infantry are easy to kill for a modern military force. They are only useful for crowd control (the situation you are so afraid of above) not military conquest.
Really? Ground troops are only crowd control? And they don't use guns? A corrupt government isn't going to send in "lightly armed police" into a protest rally.
And that's what the right to bear arms is about: allowing a populace to defend itself from a corrupt government. Sure, if the US sends in tanks and helicopters against its own people, the protesters are screwed at that moment, but when the fighting escalates, it can't always be tanks and choppers; at some point, traitorous military would have to be outside of a vehicle, and guns will do more than sharp pointy sticks, even if they're wearing body armor. You're trying to think of a great balancing act where all parties involved are benevolent (well, the state anyway; if the people were benevolent, then you'd not have a problem with them owning guns), but the framers were concerned with a(n all too real) worst case scenario. It was fairly recent for them, and we've seen examples in modernity.
Finally, this point:
Seatbelts, fire extinguishers and flotation devices are all designed to save lives, and do. Anyone who wants to decrease their chances of dying does need them. I'm sorry you think they're wasted if they aren't 100% effective. Guns are made for killing people (the opposite.) When used correctly they are extremely effective. Very few people need them.
Every able bodied person of sound mind needs one. Maybe two. And proper training in their use both in home defense, and in defense of nation. I know people who defended themselves with their firearms, and I'm glad they were able to do so, but I'm even more glad that their ownership of firearms is threatening to some in the government. That's what the framers intended. Ballot, Jury, Cartridge.
Hilarious! Are you a middle east dictator by any chance? Seriously though:
1) Why do you want to shoot protesters?
Since this question is so ridiculous I assume you're either a troll or a non-English speaker. Please re-read my comment a few more times.
2) Have you considered that nobody (with a few exceptions) needs to have guns? In such a scenario, protest is all that is necessary to effect change and prevent tyranny.
Nobody with a few exceptions need seat belts, airplane seat cushions that can act as floatation devices, or fire extinguishers. Guns, with regards to the right to bear arms, serve the same purpose: to help prevent or correct tyranny.
3) Guns are a mostly outdated piece of military technology that could easily be removed if a few countries agree to stop making them and start destroying them.
What's the new military tech carried by infantry? Lasers? Blasters? Phasers? Disruptors? Anti-Tachyon triple phase pulsed rifles?
if Samuel Morse had patented not only the telegraph machine (his particular device design) but also the Morse Code protocol and sued anybody using that alphabet to send messages. Do you think telegraphy would have progressed as quickly if that had been the case?
Or that his name would still be so well known? Just imagine if what's-his-name - you know, the web guy - had attached his name to HTTP. I'd remember who he is without having to look it up via the web.
This ranks up there with, "I like the feel and smell of paper," as one of the most ridiculous reasons to avoid ebooks.
And this ranks up there with "I like the taste and feel of real steak" as a very good reason to avoid tofu. Using unread books (or fake spines) like the Great Gatsby for interior decorating is dumb, yes, but liking paper is an excellent reason to... use paper.
Are trees a new form of algea or something? I thought most co2 was used by algea. Also, humans grow a lot of trees for lumber, lacing the lumber with arsenic to prevent it from decaying and releasing the carbon. I especially like how humans are the only o2 breathers in your example.
preventing the populace from defending itself from a totalitarian regime. History is replete with kings and warlords making weapons illegal for the populace (hence why many weapons are derived from farming tools). Just be glad you're not in GB where knives are on the chopping block.
My 6 year old niece. She owns more books than I do (and quite a few I read as a child). Until ruggedized ereaders are super cheap, paper books with have a market for toddlers and young children, clumsy people, hikers, people who actually read manuals/documentation, and people who learned to like physical books as children. The biggest problem is that books don't last very long any more (at least not paper backs).
The perversion of language is the first step on the dark road to authoritarianism. Doublethink your way out of this one commi's. Orwell would be proud to see your life imitate his art.
No, Orwell would be proud to have his art prevent such imitation.
Slashdot Mirror
You learned patriarchical gender roles in college? Must have been a private college...
Why do people keep bringing up this "men with guns" thing? The whole point is: the IP address doesn't even point to my house (because of the router), only to a neighborhood. It is not probable cause to raid my home. (As a court recently ruled.)
The IP address of the router points to your account name at the ISP. All the traffic that goes through that router to/from the ISP looks like "your" traffic to anyone doing a casual (pre-warrant/raid) investigation. The "men with guns" is a reference to the exact scenario where a guy with open wifi got a swat team in his house with a literal boot to the face because his neighbor did something naughty. The police later said "let this be a lesson to others who leave their wifi open".
Sure, you'll probably (98.9%) be found innocent... after the swat raid, the destruction of property, loss of peace of mind, the man handling, the lack of your property while it sits in evidence even after you're found innocent (because it's evidence for the real perp's trial). And maybe you'll make a little money from the civil suit with the city/state/FBI, but there are easier ways to make money.
How was it random? They didn't shutdown the datacenter, just a couple of racks. What exactly do you expect them to do?
there can easily be 20-40 servers in a rack. Not all colos keep a "one user per rack" policy. Maybe they should take just the servers in question?
But it will still take more than a day for them to agree to arrest you.
extradite, yes. Arrest? This is the Internet age; people communicate fast. There were probably several polycom meetings in a couple hours.
It's been more than a decade, and they're just now getting around to it. The FCC must be planning something really shifty if they're pulling their public relations Ace from their sleeve.
I remember who Tim (Timmay! as sibling posted) is if I see his name, but if someone asks me point blank: "Who created Hypertext Transfer Protocol?", I'm at a loss unless I start thinking a lot or just google it. Whereas, if someone asked me "Who invented Morse code?" I'm on it like a jackrabbit. If Tim had called it "Berners-Lee Hypertext Transfer Protocol" then I'd remember his name, but I'd be annoyed having to type blhttp://
You sir, win an Internet.
Shoot them from the air.
Only if they're wolves.
you really think it's likely the US government is going to want to shoot protesters?
They have. They will again. An armed populace makes it less likely, not more.
In any case, I'm arguing for less guns - If we don't allow our governments to have lots of guns, how are they going to suppress us?
With the guns they weren't "allowed" to have, but got anyway. How do you prevent [a corrupt] government from getting guns? By voting the leaders out of office in 4 years? How does a legitimate government prevent an invading force from conquering them without guns (the prior example stated a universal ban on guns by all world governments, as if that could happen)?
Infantry are easy to kill for a modern military force. They are only useful for crowd control (the situation you are so afraid of above) not military conquest.
Really? Ground troops are only crowd control? And they don't use guns? A corrupt government isn't going to send in "lightly armed police" into a protest rally.
And that's what the right to bear arms is about: allowing a populace to defend itself from a corrupt government. Sure, if the US sends in tanks and helicopters against its own people, the protesters are screwed at that moment, but when the fighting escalates, it can't always be tanks and choppers; at some point, traitorous military would have to be outside of a vehicle, and guns will do more than sharp pointy sticks, even if they're wearing body armor. You're trying to think of a great balancing act where all parties involved are benevolent (well, the state anyway; if the people were benevolent, then you'd not have a problem with them owning guns), but the framers were concerned with a(n all too real) worst case scenario. It was fairly recent for them, and we've seen examples in modernity.
Finally, this point:
Seatbelts, fire extinguishers and flotation devices are all designed to save lives, and do. Anyone who wants to decrease their chances of dying does need them. I'm sorry you think they're wasted if they aren't 100% effective. Guns are made for killing people (the opposite.) When used correctly they are extremely effective. Very few people need them.
Every able bodied person of sound mind needs one. Maybe two. And proper training in their use both in home defense, and in defense of nation. I know people who defended themselves with their firearms, and I'm glad they were able to do so, but I'm even more glad that their ownership of firearms is threatening to some in the government. That's what the framers intended. Ballot, Jury, Cartridge.
Hilarious! Are you a middle east dictator by any chance? Seriously though: 1) Why do you want to shoot protesters?
Since this question is so ridiculous I assume you're either a troll or a non-English speaker. Please re-read my comment a few more times.
2) Have you considered that nobody (with a few exceptions) needs to have guns? In such a scenario, protest is all that is necessary to effect change and prevent tyranny.
Nobody with a few exceptions need seat belts, airplane seat cushions that can act as floatation devices, or fire extinguishers. Guns, with regards to the right to bear arms, serve the same purpose: to help prevent or correct tyranny.
3) Guns are a mostly outdated piece of military technology that could easily be removed if a few countries agree to stop making them and start destroying them.
What's the new military tech carried by infantry? Lasers? Blasters? Phasers? Disruptors? Anti-Tachyon triple phase pulsed rifles?
I thought that oz was a prison for thieves and prostitutes, not murderers. Weren't murderers usually hanged?
if Samuel Morse had patented not only the telegraph machine (his particular device design) but also the Morse Code protocol and sued anybody using that alphabet to send messages. Do you think telegraphy would have progressed as quickly if that had been the case?
Or that his name would still be so well known? Just imagine if what's-his-name - you know, the web guy - had attached his name to HTTP. I'd remember who he is without having to look it up via the web.
Why would it decay? acid free paper is rated for at least 500 years, not like the books you see from the 70s that are already yellowing.
Paperbacks are acid-free these days? No wonder I'm not getting the same high from eating them.
It's a lot more difficult with swords and spears. Try stabbing 100,000 protesters to death and see how you go.
Try shooting 100,000 protesters to death when they all have guns and see how you go. That's why we have a right to bear arms.
This ranks up there with, "I like the feel and smell of paper," as one of the most ridiculous reasons to avoid ebooks.
And this ranks up there with "I like the taste and feel of real steak" as a very good reason to avoid tofu. Using unread books (or fake spines) like the Great Gatsby for interior decorating is dumb, yes, but liking paper is an excellent reason to... use paper.
Was anyone else's immediate thought ERASING memories rather than preserving them?
Yes, in fact it was used on samzenpus: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/2058214/Researchers-Design-Memory-Strengthening-Implant
I'm suddenly glad about my CS major. No mathematician or computer scientist ever got threatened for proving an unpopular theorem. :P
Didn't the Unibomber target computer folk?
Are trees a new form of algea or something? I thought most co2 was used by algea. Also, humans grow a lot of trees for lumber, lacing the lumber with arsenic to prevent it from decaying and releasing the carbon. I especially like how humans are the only o2 breathers in your example.
You could at least answer his next question, unless the answer is "yes".
what is the purpose of banning guns.
preventing the populace from defending itself from a totalitarian regime. History is replete with kings and warlords making weapons illegal for the populace (hence why many weapons are derived from farming tools). Just be glad you're not in GB where knives are on the chopping block.
My 6 year old niece. She owns more books than I do (and quite a few I read as a child). Until ruggedized ereaders are super cheap, paper books with have a market for toddlers and young children, clumsy people, hikers, people who actually read manuals/documentation, and people who learned to like physical books as children. The biggest problem is that books don't last very long any more (at least not paper backs).
But what girls would like to meet a bunch of emo script kiddies?
"Nunchaku skills... bowhunting skills... computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills!"
I bet Hillary Clinton has provided Obama with a definition of "hostility" from the Clinton Family Dictionary.
Hilary: "The definition of 'hostility' is: "
Obama: "Wait right there, what's the definition of 'is'?"
Bill: "Good question."
The perversion of language is the first step on the dark road to authoritarianism. Doublethink your way out of this one commi's. Orwell would be proud to see your life imitate his art.
No, Orwell would be proud to have his art prevent such imitation.
Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).