"4) A company or individual cannot just sit on a patent and wait until it is in wide spread use. If a company or individual sues after a patent is in widespread use, then said company's patent is transferred to company or companies that developed a product using the patent in question without paying the original patent holder."
Terrible idea. The patent is transferred into the public domain instead. It does no harm to the company actually making the product in question, but doesn't give them an undeserved advantage either. Much better that way.
"Why do you think it didn't pass before the August recess? Because a boatload of Democratic Congresspersons realized that they would lose corporate sponsorship if they voted for the bill as it was."
People who have reason to believe that they will want to both take pictures AND be somewhere that cannot obtain GPS data at the same time. Like inside of a cave, or a large reinforced concrete building (such as those in which many photo studios are located).
I'm pretty sure that covers virtually everyone, and I'm also pretty sure that the timekeeping chip from a $10 digital wristwatch would pretty well do the trick.
You are half right, but also half wrong. Software can be both copyrighted AND patented, and frequently is. So far as I can tell, the former is used primarily for entire pieces of usable software, while the latter is used for software functions or procedures. I believe that this is possible because there is no universal consensus on whether software is a machine, a written work or an elaborate math problem... all of which are, in fact, reasonably accurate labels, but fall under very different rules about IP.
It's easy enough to say that the system is flawed and needs to be destroyed so that something suitable can be made to replace it, but I don't think that's entirely fair. At the time that these systems were conceived and developed, and when they became part of our core social infrastructure, the current situation could hardly have been imagined, let alone anticipated well enough to establish sane rules to govern it.
QFT. You are not anonymous because you're so smart, you're anonymous because nobody cares enough to track you down. Be very careful not to change that.
Rush Limbaugh. It was endorsed by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck. It's the current campaign platform for the entire Republican party, now that they've realized "endless war is not only a tragic waste of human life, but outrageously expensive to boot... YIPPEE!!!" just isn't a viable slogan.
I've never had the urge to load a bunch of personal data onto a flash drive, then bring it to work with me where it will simply sit in my pocket, waiting for me to go home and plug the drive back in. I seriously doubt that anyone would do that, mainly because it would be a pointless waste of time.
Even if that sounds right up your alley, though, you just might consider not doing so if you are aware that the policy on having a thumb drive at work is something like "shoot on sight". Provided that you are adequately compensated for the concession of leaving your thumb drive in the glove compartment rather than bringing it into work (that's gotta be worth, what, like $100 a month?) this is only a problem for the chronically uncooperative.
Good point, that should probably be worked into the install scripts so that, as smoothly as can be managed, the appropriate adjustments are made to deprioritize performance in favor of power consumption so as to better suit mobile machines.
Heck, while we're at it, there could be a "Green" build option that will always seek to draw the minimum possible power, and could maybe even install and configure some power use monitoring stuff to let you see just how much power you're using, in actual SI units, at all times. Even better, it could offer similar functions for any USB/Firewire devices hooked to it (ie. printers). Maybe there could even be functionality built in for special hardware that sits between wall outlets and various electrical devices, allowing you to manage power for everything on your desk, or even your entire home. Hell, if the stuff is somehow networked, you could remotely view and manage power consumption across an arbitrary number of physical locations.
I'll bet that would be popular with the niche of people living off the grid, and maybe even with the niche of people who don't like wasting electricity because they'd prefer to pay lower utility bills.
"Monopoly or oligopoly abuses almost always have a government source."
And government abuses almost always has a monopoly or oligarchy source. That's a two-way street.
You mentioned antitrust, but somehow you seemed to miss that antitrust is a non-market attempt at correcting an abuse situation where no other resolution appears viable. It doesn't matter if antitrust is a consumer tool or a competitor tool, it is a tool that doesn't actually come from the markets intended to do something that the market simply can't.
You also ignore the reality of finite resources and initial investment as real barriers to entry... it's fairly easy to say that more olive presses will be made when the cost of oil rises high enough, what is less clear is what olives they will press (since the vast majority of olive production would, inevitably, be controlled by the first oil merchant), how the press will be obtained (surely there are a finite number of people with the skill to build them, and the established producer almost certainly has deeper pockets and greater purchasing power than the startup with which to outbid for these items), what the newcomer can do to prevent their much larger competitor from dramatically lowering prices as the new product hits market (even to the point of taking a loss and temporarily surviving on cash reserves), or why the new company would actually *want* to sell at a lower price, when they could just as easily sell at the same price and turn a higher profit.
Again, I've seen no credible, satisfying fix to this problem, and saying "it's all government's fault" or pretending that the only barriers to entry are arbitrary and artificial are both patently false arguments. Besides, even if both of those were true, it would appear that the individuals most able to benefit from, create and enforce the circumstances are, in fact, the monopolists and oligarchs who ostensibly support free markets.
Oddly no, swiping a credit card in order to pay for 20 minutes of parking doesn't feel the least bit like formally segregated ethnic neighborhoods. Weird, huh?
What he and 24 other men do with some chick is really none of my business. It's also none of my business what the 15-20 men who can't possibly find something to do with her, or likely even touch her, are doing in that group.
And I think that some people don't care what their cell phone manufacturer/carrier think is best for them or why they think that, don't want to settle for "usually good enough", and are excited about the idea of simply running whatever the hell they want without any artificial restrictions on language or scope. It's not a matter of Python or JavaScript not being the best options for certain things, it's a matter of having options beyond those for the things they aren't very good at.
"And yet both semi-trucks and sportscars somehow share the exact same freeway."
Why should the pavement care what sits atop your tires? And don't forget about all those tractors, go-carts and even bicycles that people use to get around on the small dirt roads and paths they sometimes need to take to make it the rest of the way.
"(BTW, which one is Javascript?)"
Neither. Both. Whatever. It's just an analogy, and if the Slashdot Analogy Rules didn't require it to be car-related, I would have stuck with hand tools (Q:"Is Javascript a hammer or a screwdriver?" A:"Neither, it's a pair of needle nose pliers.") instead, since frankly I think that would have been more appropriate.
"I never made the claim that Javascript was appropriate for all apps- you came up with that little gem. But that doesn't change my point: an app made with Javascript is as "real" as an app made with anything else."
You certainly implied it. Suffice it to say there are just as many reasons not to code your web-page in C as there are not to code your kernel in CSS. I'm sure that you could find a way to do either if you really tried hard enough, but ultimately it just won't work very well because you're using the wrong tools.
I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?
This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).
"What's the difference between, Javascript as the language and HTML/CSS as the GUI, or using Python as the language and XML to do the GUI? And yet the first is "not a real distro", while the second is. Why?"
What's the difference between a semi-truck and a sportscar? That's what your question boils down to. Both can get you from point A to point B, but getting them there is going to be quite different. It's not that you couldn't move freight with a sportscar, it's just that a tractor trailer is much better at it... but if you're just going to the store and want the trip to go quickly and want to look cool en route, that sportscar is probably gonna be your best bet.
"Yes, but the real question is, "since when is being compiled a requirement?""
Since people started using languages that need to be compiled before they aren't just cryptic plaintext? If the best tool for the job is a language that needs to be compiled, then you'll have to compile or deal with a sub-optimal tool.
"I suspect you're a language snob who dislikes Javascript for no rational reason."
I suspect that you're a script kiddie who is under the mistaken impression that Javascript is the best thing ever because... um... it just is ok! There are things Javascript does very well, but that isn't the same as doing all things well.
Yeah, they turned it off and back on, but they forgot to blow out the cartridge! It's like they just don't know how these things work, didn't they learn ANYTHING in college?
Not to knock Douglas Adams, or discredit him as a geek humorist... but he was hardly the first author to write humor for geeks, not even the first relatively mainstream one. that is, of course, unless you define "geek" according to a set of interests and social values that didn't actually exist prior to Adams catering to them.
Why the hell would you hit somebody with a bat for attempting to steal a car? Did this man not have use of his vocal chords? Did he not know his own car's make, model, color and plate number? I can think of a half dozen perfectly reasonable solutions to that problem, none of which involve potentially killing somebody over a car. He would be facing neither jail nor lawsuit if, rather than resort to violence like barbarian, he had followed the rules we have established for the maintenance of a civilized society. Sounds like a good example of precisely what I was talking about.
FBI statistics. Look it up. I support the 2nd Amendment as a means of deterring tyranny and allowing people to retain rights there is no reason to take away... but I personally have no need or desire to own a firearm, and the only credible sources I have found actually support the conclusion that, "feeling" safer aside, gun ownership actually puts you in greater danger.
I don't live my life in fear of burglars and rapists because, well... forget it, no sense talking to delusional paranoids about crime statistics or pointing out that the only criminals who typically stand and fight against even the most feeble unarmed victim are the tiny minority who are unlikely to actually let anyone fight back by using extreme force from the get-go. I'll humor you and point out that I'm perfectly capable of using a knife, or my bare hands, and that in any situation where those options are not feasible, neither is a firearm, and that unlike a gun the proper safety precautions for melee weapons and hands don't require keeping the weapon at least partially dismantled (good luck getting the gun from your desk and the bullets from your closet out from under the burglar or rapist) and scattered about the home in locked safes ("stop hitting me with that bat, I keep missing L46!").
Try not to shoot yourself cleaning the barrel, and make sure to keep your kid(s) from doing anything stupid as children are wont to do.
Probably not. I suppose that if they really levied some absurdly, comically high taxes that might happen, but if nobody told you that your hotel room went from $150/night to $155/per night because of a new tax, you most likely wouldn't notice, let alone care.
The part I think is stupid is that they specifically levied it against internet buyers, but I suspect that this is more to prevent people from not paying the taxes they are already supposed to pay by purchasing online than some bizarre attempt to penalize people for using the internet.
If the statement clearly and definitively stated that ODF does not infringe their patent that would mean something, but such a statement is extremely unlikely to be made in any event, and would almost certainly accompanied by an aneurysm for i4i's chief legal counsel. Much more likely is a statement that ODF doesn't appear to infringe, or that they are not aware of any infringement in ODF, or that there is no plan to sue regarding infringement in ODF. The latter versions could sound an awful lot like "ODF doesn't infringe", but, as with so many things, the devil is in the details.
That only holds true if nothing changes in the intervening time... you most certainly CAN sue someone for trespassing into your bedroom after inviting them into your living room, and if ODF (or OO's implementation of it)changes in any significant way that can easily invalidate any prior statements.
You also have to watch for wiggle words allowing future investigation or research to change the situation... if he said that ODF clearly does not violate i4i's patent upon thorough inspection it would severely limit their ability to take action later on, but if he said that he is not aware of any violation in ODF, or that he does not believe there to be any violation in ODF, an argument can be made that this statement was based on an incomplete assessment of the situation or was merely an indication that no suit was pending at the time. I very seriously doubt that he put any statement like that into concrete terms, or avoided using any terms of uncertainty that would render his statements little more than a speedbump to future litigation.
Not even close. I wouldn't try that at all, and you should really stop recommending it to people lest somebody else suffer for your stupidity.
In EVERY state of the Union, assault with a deadly weapon is a very serious felony, and "brandishing" is considered a threat constituting assault in virtually every state.
Not to mention that once you bring a gun into a fight, you'd better be damned ready to use it, because it is nearly impossible (and incredibly unlikely) for a person to escalate force past that point... which means that if your threat is too effective they are under no obligation to avoid lethal force themselves.
This is a civilized country with civilized rules, and while it may play to your machismo and Freudian phallic obsessions to whip out your gun at every perceived opportunity, you can get into a LOT of trouble that way. Better really to go through the established and rather effective system whenever possible, and just keep your guns put away until that one wet dream about waking up to Rambo threatening your future children with a blood-soaked machete, against all statistical probability and criminological understanding, actually manages to come true.
Oh, and in case you weren't aware, any weapon you have is several times more likely to be used AGAINST you in a crime than BY you to prevent one. Good luck, and happy hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
"4) A company or individual cannot just sit on a patent and wait until it is in wide spread use. If a company or individual sues after a patent is in widespread use, then said company's patent is transferred to company or companies that developed a product using the patent in question without paying the original patent holder."
Terrible idea. The patent is transferred into the public domain instead. It does no harm to the company actually making the product in question, but doesn't give them an undeserved advantage either. Much better that way.
"Why do you think it didn't pass before the August recess? Because a boatload of Democratic Congresspersons realized that they would lose corporate sponsorship if they voted for the bill as it was."
FTFY
People who have reason to believe that they will want to both take pictures AND be somewhere that cannot obtain GPS data at the same time. Like inside of a cave, or a large reinforced concrete building (such as those in which many photo studios are located).
I'm pretty sure that covers virtually everyone, and I'm also pretty sure that the timekeeping chip from a $10 digital wristwatch would pretty well do the trick.
You are half right, but also half wrong. Software can be both copyrighted AND patented, and frequently is. So far as I can tell, the former is used primarily for entire pieces of usable software, while the latter is used for software functions or procedures. I believe that this is possible because there is no universal consensus on whether software is a machine, a written work or an elaborate math problem... all of which are, in fact, reasonably accurate labels, but fall under very different rules about IP.
It's easy enough to say that the system is flawed and needs to be destroyed so that something suitable can be made to replace it, but I don't think that's entirely fair. At the time that these systems were conceived and developed, and when they became part of our core social infrastructure, the current situation could hardly have been imagined, let alone anticipated well enough to establish sane rules to govern it.
"Spartacus!"
Speaking, how can I help you?
"it won't make untrackable but nothing really is"
QFT. You are not anonymous because you're so smart, you're anonymous because nobody cares enough to track you down. Be very careful not to change that.
Rush Limbaugh. It was endorsed by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck. It's the current campaign platform for the entire Republican party, now that they've realized "endless war is not only a tragic waste of human life, but outrageously expensive to boot... YIPPEE!!!" just isn't a viable slogan.
I've never had the urge to load a bunch of personal data onto a flash drive, then bring it to work with me where it will simply sit in my pocket, waiting for me to go home and plug the drive back in. I seriously doubt that anyone would do that, mainly because it would be a pointless waste of time.
Even if that sounds right up your alley, though, you just might consider not doing so if you are aware that the policy on having a thumb drive at work is something like "shoot on sight". Provided that you are adequately compensated for the concession of leaving your thumb drive in the glove compartment rather than bringing it into work (that's gotta be worth, what, like $100 a month?) this is only a problem for the chronically uncooperative.
Good point, that should probably be worked into the install scripts so that, as smoothly as can be managed, the appropriate adjustments are made to deprioritize performance in favor of power consumption so as to better suit mobile machines.
Heck, while we're at it, there could be a "Green" build option that will always seek to draw the minimum possible power, and could maybe even install and configure some power use monitoring stuff to let you see just how much power you're using, in actual SI units, at all times. Even better, it could offer similar functions for any USB/Firewire devices hooked to it (ie. printers). Maybe there could even be functionality built in for special hardware that sits between wall outlets and various electrical devices, allowing you to manage power for everything on your desk, or even your entire home. Hell, if the stuff is somehow networked, you could remotely view and manage power consumption across an arbitrary number of physical locations.
I'll bet that would be popular with the niche of people living off the grid, and maybe even with the niche of people who don't like wasting electricity because they'd prefer to pay lower utility bills.
Thanks for the idea!
So Apple's new mantra vis a vis version numbers is "if it's good enough for Square"? Final Fantasy X 2... those fuckers.
"Monopoly or oligopoly abuses almost always have a government source."
And government abuses almost always has a monopoly or oligarchy source. That's a two-way street.
You mentioned antitrust, but somehow you seemed to miss that antitrust is a non-market attempt at correcting an abuse situation where no other resolution appears viable. It doesn't matter if antitrust is a consumer tool or a competitor tool, it is a tool that doesn't actually come from the markets intended to do something that the market simply can't.
You also ignore the reality of finite resources and initial investment as real barriers to entry... it's fairly easy to say that more olive presses will be made when the cost of oil rises high enough, what is less clear is what olives they will press (since the vast majority of olive production would, inevitably, be controlled by the first oil merchant), how the press will be obtained (surely there are a finite number of people with the skill to build them, and the established producer almost certainly has deeper pockets and greater purchasing power than the startup with which to outbid for these items), what the newcomer can do to prevent their much larger competitor from dramatically lowering prices as the new product hits market (even to the point of taking a loss and temporarily surviving on cash reserves), or why the new company would actually *want* to sell at a lower price, when they could just as easily sell at the same price and turn a higher profit.
Again, I've seen no credible, satisfying fix to this problem, and saying "it's all government's fault" or pretending that the only barriers to entry are arbitrary and artificial are both patently false arguments. Besides, even if both of those were true, it would appear that the individuals most able to benefit from, create and enforce the circumstances are, in fact, the monopolists and oligarchs who ostensibly support free markets.
Oddly no, swiping a credit card in order to pay for 20 minutes of parking doesn't feel the least bit like formally segregated ethnic neighborhoods. Weird, huh?
What he and 24 other men do with some chick is really none of my business. It's also none of my business what the 15-20 men who can't possibly find something to do with her, or likely even touch her, are doing in that group.
And I think that some people don't care what their cell phone manufacturer/carrier think is best for them or why they think that, don't want to settle for "usually good enough", and are excited about the idea of simply running whatever the hell they want without any artificial restrictions on language or scope. It's not a matter of Python or JavaScript not being the best options for certain things, it's a matter of having options beyond those for the things they aren't very good at.
"And yet both semi-trucks and sportscars somehow share the exact same freeway."
Why should the pavement care what sits atop your tires? And don't forget about all those tractors, go-carts and even bicycles that people use to get around on the small dirt roads and paths they sometimes need to take to make it the rest of the way.
"(BTW, which one is Javascript?)"
Neither. Both. Whatever. It's just an analogy, and if the Slashdot Analogy Rules didn't require it to be car-related, I would have stuck with hand tools (Q:"Is Javascript a hammer or a screwdriver?" A:"Neither, it's a pair of needle nose pliers.") instead, since frankly I think that would have been more appropriate.
"I never made the claim that Javascript was appropriate for all apps- you came up with that little gem. But that doesn't change my point: an app made with Javascript is as "real" as an app made with anything else."
You certainly implied it. Suffice it to say there are just as many reasons not to code your web-page in C as there are not to code your kernel in CSS. I'm sure that you could find a way to do either if you really tried hard enough, but ultimately it just won't work very well because you're using the wrong tools.
But then what would they do?
I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?
This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).
"What's the difference between, Javascript as the language and HTML/CSS as the GUI, or using Python as the language and XML to do the GUI? And yet the first is "not a real distro", while the second is. Why?"
What's the difference between a semi-truck and a sportscar? That's what your question boils down to. Both can get you from point A to point B, but getting them there is going to be quite different. It's not that you couldn't move freight with a sportscar, it's just that a tractor trailer is much better at it... but if you're just going to the store and want the trip to go quickly and want to look cool en route, that sportscar is probably gonna be your best bet.
"Yes, but the real question is, "since when is being compiled a requirement?""
Since people started using languages that need to be compiled before they aren't just cryptic plaintext? If the best tool for the job is a language that needs to be compiled, then you'll have to compile or deal with a sub-optimal tool.
"I suspect you're a language snob who dislikes Javascript for no rational reason."
I suspect that you're a script kiddie who is under the mistaken impression that Javascript is the best thing ever because... um... it just is ok! There are things Javascript does very well, but that isn't the same as doing all things well.
Yeah, they turned it off and back on, but they forgot to blow out the cartridge! It's like they just don't know how these things work, didn't they learn ANYTHING in college?
Not to knock Douglas Adams, or discredit him as a geek humorist... but he was hardly the first author to write humor for geeks, not even the first relatively mainstream one. that is, of course, unless you define "geek" according to a set of interests and social values that didn't actually exist prior to Adams catering to them.
Why the hell would you hit somebody with a bat for attempting to steal a car? Did this man not have use of his vocal chords? Did he not know his own car's make, model, color and plate number? I can think of a half dozen perfectly reasonable solutions to that problem, none of which involve potentially killing somebody over a car. He would be facing neither jail nor lawsuit if, rather than resort to violence like barbarian, he had followed the rules we have established for the maintenance of a civilized society. Sounds like a good example of precisely what I was talking about.
FBI statistics. Look it up. I support the 2nd Amendment as a means of deterring tyranny and allowing people to retain rights there is no reason to take away... but I personally have no need or desire to own a firearm, and the only credible sources I have found actually support the conclusion that, "feeling" safer aside, gun ownership actually puts you in greater danger.
I don't live my life in fear of burglars and rapists because, well... forget it, no sense talking to delusional paranoids about crime statistics or pointing out that the only criminals who typically stand and fight against even the most feeble unarmed victim are the tiny minority who are unlikely to actually let anyone fight back by using extreme force from the get-go. I'll humor you and point out that I'm perfectly capable of using a knife, or my bare hands, and that in any situation where those options are not feasible, neither is a firearm, and that unlike a gun the proper safety precautions for melee weapons and hands don't require keeping the weapon at least partially dismantled (good luck getting the gun from your desk and the bullets from your closet out from under the burglar or rapist) and scattered about the home in locked safes ("stop hitting me with that bat, I keep missing L46!").
Try not to shoot yourself cleaning the barrel, and make sure to keep your kid(s) from doing anything stupid as children are wont to do.
Probably not. I suppose that if they really levied some absurdly, comically high taxes that might happen, but if nobody told you that your hotel room went from $150/night to $155/per night because of a new tax, you most likely wouldn't notice, let alone care.
The part I think is stupid is that they specifically levied it against internet buyers, but I suspect that this is more to prevent people from not paying the taxes they are already supposed to pay by purchasing online than some bizarre attempt to penalize people for using the internet.
If the statement clearly and definitively stated that ODF does not infringe their patent that would mean something, but such a statement is extremely unlikely to be made in any event, and would almost certainly accompanied by an aneurysm for i4i's chief legal counsel. Much more likely is a statement that ODF doesn't appear to infringe, or that they are not aware of any infringement in ODF, or that there is no plan to sue regarding infringement in ODF. The latter versions could sound an awful lot like "ODF doesn't infringe", but, as with so many things, the devil is in the details.
That only holds true if nothing changes in the intervening time... you most certainly CAN sue someone for trespassing into your bedroom after inviting them into your living room, and if ODF (or OO's implementation of it)changes in any significant way that can easily invalidate any prior statements.
You also have to watch for wiggle words allowing future investigation or research to change the situation... if he said that ODF clearly does not violate i4i's patent upon thorough inspection it would severely limit their ability to take action later on, but if he said that he is not aware of any violation in ODF, or that he does not believe there to be any violation in ODF, an argument can be made that this statement was based on an incomplete assessment of the situation or was merely an indication that no suit was pending at the time. I very seriously doubt that he put any statement like that into concrete terms, or avoided using any terms of uncertainty that would render his statements little more than a speedbump to future litigation.
Not even close. I wouldn't try that at all, and you should really stop recommending it to people lest somebody else suffer for your stupidity.
In EVERY state of the Union, assault with a deadly weapon is a very serious felony, and "brandishing" is considered a threat constituting assault in virtually every state.
Not to mention that once you bring a gun into a fight, you'd better be damned ready to use it, because it is nearly impossible (and incredibly unlikely) for a person to escalate force past that point... which means that if your threat is too effective they are under no obligation to avoid lethal force themselves.
This is a civilized country with civilized rules, and while it may play to your machismo and Freudian phallic obsessions to whip out your gun at every perceived opportunity, you can get into a LOT of trouble that way. Better really to go through the established and rather effective system whenever possible, and just keep your guns put away until that one wet dream about waking up to Rambo threatening your future children with a blood-soaked machete, against all statistical probability and criminological understanding, actually manages to come true.
Oh, and in case you weren't aware, any weapon you have is several times more likely to be used AGAINST you in a crime than BY you to prevent one. Good luck, and happy hunting.