Enderle alert
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Mar 12, 2007 3:10 PM EDT |
Do not read until your anti-nausea pills are within reach. |
| bigg Mar 12, 2007 3:29 PM EDT |
He really burst my bubble. I had assumed that because a piece of software was open source, I could blindly trust that it was flawless. Maybe that's why there bug fixes. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. |
| theboomboomcars Mar 12, 2007 3:50 PM EDT |
One of the major difference in open source software like linux and the wikipedia, is that anyone can make up info and pass it off as legit. If I submitted code to the Linux kernel it would not be included because I cannot write a program. Whereas if I put up some info on wikipedia it would be there for all the world to see, and if nobody contested it, removed it, etc. It would stay. It may not be accurate or true in any matter, but until someone did something about it people would learn and embrace my fabrications. Where as in a program that I submit, the person who is incharge of checking submissions would throw it out because it wouldn't do anything. Or if someone who could program submitted something to be included into the kernel that was malicious in some way, Linus and the crew would determine if they want the kernel to have that feature, which I am guessing they wouldn't, if not they throw it out. ETA: I have read many published materials with large inaccuracies in them. So what does that mean about proprietary software? At least with the wiki you can fix inaccuracies, but with a published work the only thing you can do is bring the inaccuracy to the copyright holders attention and hope that they fix it. Then even if Linus like the malicious code and included it, and the debian guys didn't like it so much, they could take it out of their distribution. But I guess it is expecting a lot from Enderle to actually have a reasonable argument and not just spouting off random bits of letters that seem to sound okay when read. |
| jimf Mar 12, 2007 4:16 PM EDT |
I try not to read too much of Enderle. Now I remember why. It's like the computing technical commentator from Fox News just walked into the room... Ann Coulter anyone? |
| dcparris Mar 12, 2007 4:23 PM EDT |
What I would be interested in knowing is whether the self-described religion professor's material was accurate/correct? He would be wrong to present himself as legitimate if he weren't, but the material he edited could still be accurate and legitimate. But Enderle's assumptions are definitely off-base on the grounds already noted above. (a) There are differences between FOSS and Wikipedia (b) He confuses the trust issue, since 'proprietary' publications also contain errors (how do you correct that at all in the case of a printed publication?) (c) FOSS patches usually are tested to ensure they don't break the program (d) At least one study has shown that the Linux kernel contains fewer errors per lines of code than the Windows kernel /me runs to temple of the porcelain gods... |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 4:28 PM EDT |
Enderle was in the anti-open source camp even before the SCO fiasco. He's got a lot of prestige (such as it is) and pride invested in its failure. He'll do anything he can to advance that cause rather than lose face. |
| dcparris Mar 12, 2007 4:39 PM EDT |
Well, the problem is, he's lost his face - probably somewhere in the swamplands. |
| bigg Mar 12, 2007 4:40 PM EDT |
> he's lost his face His whole head. Or at least his brain. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 5:25 PM EDT |
> Ann Coulter anyone? Nah. Ann Coulter is at least funny. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM EDT |
> Well, the problem is, he's lost his face... You and I both think so, DC, but the mainstream tech press still seems to think he's some type of authority. |
| kozmcrae Mar 12, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
I'm fresh out of anti-nausea pills from his last article, so I'll have to pass on this one. Truthfully I don't read his stuff anymore, life's too short. |
| dcparris Mar 12, 2007 5:43 PM EDT |
> ...but the mainstream tech press still seems to think he's some type of authority. Well, he is *some type* of authority. ;-) Actually, I kind of envy him. He probably gets paid to write that drivel. [note to self] (original tags didn't work) Look into writing drivel for money. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 6:09 PM EDT |
> Look into writing drivel for money. I'd rather write porn. It's a more honest living, and probably pays equally well. |
| pat Mar 12, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
Enderle would sell his soul for money if he could. |
| Libervis Mar 12, 2007 6:45 PM EDT |
Meh, Enderle talks like a true shill. First of all, yes wikipedia is not the same thing as FOSS, but that doesn't make it any less of a success. Had someone asked Enderle in 90ties if thousands of people online could build a *useful encyclopedia* that is free, I wonder what would he say. Despite this probably way less than 10% inaccuracies in wikipedia, it is still an incredibly useful resource to many people. It is a great starting point for any research and it is credible enough as such. So sure we should question everything on wikipedia, but wasn't one of the golden rules to question everything in general anyway?? This bad talking wikipedia that is going on recently is just stupid spoiled whining. People would berate the whole thing based on a minority of accidents rather than accept that overall, as a whole wikipedia is a success greater than anyone could have dreamed of. Second, it's incredible how Enderle almost sounds exciting about the fact that there are only 3 to 4 major corporate powers holding the technology market and that they are actually partnering between themselves (essentially, in this picture, creating a conglomerate). And this is supposed to be a good thing? Aren't we supposed to have diversity and competition instead of an empire of empires to "rule them all". I mean go to hell Enderle! |
| dinotrac Mar 12, 2007 6:45 PM EDT |
Sometimes Enderle says something smart. Sometimes he goes out of his way to twist the truth. This is one of those twisting times, and the evidence lies within one of the links that he provides. The story of the Wikipedia entry implicating John Seigenthaler Sr. in the Kennedy assassination focuses on the anonymity of the editors. So far as anybody at Wikipedia would admit, you can't find the editors no way no how. Think of how different a major free software project is. You might submit a patch to people who don't know you, but you can't get it applied. Somebody will check it out for wholesomeness. Over time, people become known and they become trusted. They can get more stuff in with less supervision. Some more differences: The scope of a software project is, well, the software project. Compare that to Wikipedia, whose scope is -- gosh, I don't know. I think it's everything. Much harder to audit methinks. Finally, software has to work. |
| jimf Mar 12, 2007 7:22 PM EDT |
Gee, Wikipedia's at least as accurate as Fox News... |
| bigg Mar 12, 2007 7:29 PM EDT |
Jim, You wouldn't be in the mood to push the buttons of some of our conservative friends, would you? |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 8:34 PM EDT |
>> Gee, Wikipedia's at least as accurate as Fox News... > You wouldn't be in the mood to push the buttons of some of our conservative friends, would you? >>> Despite this probably way less than 10% inaccuracies in wikipedia... If Fox News is only 10% inaccurate, that's a significant compliment, considering the accuracy of most news sources. :) |
| jimf Mar 12, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
> considering the accuracy of most news sources. :) Yeah, on second thought, Wikipedia's probably 'far more' accurate. > You wouldn't be in the mood to push the buttons of some of our conservative friends, would you? All the time, but, In deference to our conservative friends, I won't even try to put a percentage on that. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
jimf - Don't worry, you just help to point out how incredibly biased to the left most of the press is. After all, nobody would even notice a difference in Fox if the New York Times, network news, etc, weren't still busy mourning the decline of communism. |
| purplewizard Mar 13, 2007 3:18 AM EDT |
Dilemma I want to read the article so I can join in deriding it but I don't want to click and give the Enderle hits counter another click that probably helps making a living off it. So tipping the balance by not wanting to risk money flowing that way I think I'll leave it. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 3:40 AM EDT |
> After all, nobody would even notice a difference in Fox if the New York Times, network news, etc, weren't still busy mourning the decline of communism. The Times is a lying rag anyway.... come to think, so is the whole news media. Don't look for truth in any of that, it's just bad drama. Fox is just particularly abrasive in that respect. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 4:16 AM EDT |
>Fox is just particularly abrasive in that respect. In my view, Fox is the most reputable of the news organizations for the very reasons that the Moveon.org nitwit crowd gets apoplectic over it: The organization really does start from a conservative point of view and doesn't hide the fact. So many "news" organizations would swear upon a stack of poltiically correct philosophical and moral advice books that they are neutral and objective. Fox breaks the monopoly, and that's a good thing. Now, if the other organizations would simply look themselves in the mirror and make an honest assessment of who they really are, we'd all be better off. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 13, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
Hannity is an ass ... as is O'Reilly ... I watched Hannity interview one of the re-elected Dems right after the November elections - his tactics were no better than "Yes or No, Congressman, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Actually the question was "It's a simple question, Congressman, will you go on record as saying you won't raise taxes?" Of course, the congressman in question refused to rise to the bait and wouldn't answer the question until Hannity provided the evidence of WMD's and denounced the actions by the Marines in Haditha. It says a lot that Hannity refused. And yet he got all indignant when the tables were turned. Says a lot about the character of Sean Hannity. There's more I could say about O'Reilly along the same vein. It is because these two are typical of the quality of reporting on Fox, as opposed to being atypical, that I don't watch Fox News regularly and when I do, I always look for a second source like from the Daily Show. But that is getting off-track to what LXer is about. So let me close by saying that I feel LXer is to Enderle as CNN is to Fox. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
> Fox is the most reputable of the news organizations 'Different' does not necessarily equate to 'better', and 'fair and unbiased' is just laughable. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
>Different' does not necessarily equate to 'better', and 'fair and unbiased' is just laughable. I didn't say different, I said better. I agree with you on fair and unbiased, which is why Fox is better. Everybody knows where they're coming from. Other organizations pretend to be neutral, but are not nearly so. Let us not forget that the esteemed CBS News gave us Rather-gate. The New York Times's embarrassments are well-known, and it was the Boston Globe that spent 5 years trying to make an issue of Bush's National Guard service instead of dealing with things that matter. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 9:48 AM EDT |
@Dino You're just arguing who's crap smells sweeter :) |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
>You're just arguing who's crap smells sweeter :) Nah. I'm just more likely to trust somebody who admits going to the bathroon. |
| swbrown Mar 13, 2007 10:30 AM EDT |
> I didn't say different, I said better. I agree with you on fair and unbiased, which is why Fox is better. Everybody knows where they're coming from. Other organizations pretend to be neutral, but are not nearly so. So it's better to have people intentionally trying to mislead you than people trying to get it right but not always managing to? That would mean Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is better than Wikipedia. Good luck with that. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
>So it's better to have people intentionally trying to mislead you than people trying to get it right but not always managing to? Absolutely not. That's why Fox is so much better than the others. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 10:58 AM EDT |
swbrown - In fairness, I have to give big props today to the New York Times. They've got an article in their science section that dares not to lick Al Gore's boots -- going so far as to mention that the, ahem, science in his movie might not be exactly as represented: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=133... Too bad they didn't tackle some real questions like the appropriate role of science and scientists. Is it, as James Hansen would have us believe, to tell little white lies if it sells a good big picture? Still, for a lefty rag, this is good stuff. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 11:01 AM EDT |
> somebody who admits going to the bathroon. I'm more than a little concerned when that 'somebody' insists on leaving it in the bowl and continually pointing to it... |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
>I'm more than a little concerned when that 'somebody' insists on leaving it in the bowl and continually pointing to it... Better than the floor... |
| swbrown Mar 13, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
> Absolutely not. That's why Fox is so much better than the others. Ah yes, I'm so glad they didn't try to mislead me about anything like which party Mark Foley belonged to. Repeatedly. For days. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 11:21 AM EDT |
> Better than the floor... Either way, they forgot to flush :) And why are we arguing which news is 'least' reliable? Stupid, cause it all is.... Do you have some sort of a 'thing' going on with Ann Coulter Dino??? Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't with Bill O'Reilly.... ;-) |
| Abe Mar 13, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:doesn't hide the factNo they don't, but they twist the hell out of it. The no spin zone is the ultimate of spinning. Hay, this is just my opinion!!! |
| richo123 Mar 13, 2007 12:54 PM EDT |
Sounds like this thread has also gone off a cliff like the other one on the M$ shill. Started with Enderle and ended with turds. Hmmm..... |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
>Started with Enderle and ended with turds. Hmmm..... Hey...That just proves we can stay on topic no matter how much we meander. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 1:00 PM EDT |
>The no spin zone is the ultimate of spinning. Unlike, say, "Hard Ball with Chris Matthews". I have no problem with commentary shows. Commentary is commentary is the appropriate place to go spouting off opinions. What I object to, for example, is all the airheads spitting and messing themselves over Fox's admittedly conservative stance, but having no problem with ABC News hiring former Clinton advisor and long-time Democratic party hack George Stephanopoulos to "moderate" "This Morning" and show up elsewhere in the news. Apparently, bias only counts when you don't like the direction it takes. |
| richo123 Mar 13, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
Yeah Dino but I bet you would be screaming blue murder if ABC decided to staff itself exclusively with Democrats. Fox is almost overwhelmingly right wing Republican. What other network is like that? Even NYT has Brooks who is a genuine heavyweight neocon. |
| swbrown Mar 13, 2007 1:15 PM EDT |
> Apparently, bias only counts when you don't like the direction it takes. It's wrong regardless who does it, and that somebody else also does it _is no excuse_ to do it. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
>It's wrong regardless who does it, and that somebody else also does it _is no excuse_ to do it It's clear that you don't have much idea of what bias is. Bias is a matter of being human and having lived a life. Everybody is biased. It's unavoidable. Bias is not dishonest. It is simply a fact of life. As such, it can't be wrong or right. When I have watched the Fox Sunday morning political roundtable (what the heck is it called?), I have most often seen not one, but two representatives from NPR. That sounds like they're trying for a little diversity there. Re ABC and George Stephanopoulos -- ="This Morning" also has the inestimable George Will, so that's a good thing, too. In this thread or another, I mentioned a piece in the New York Times pointing out that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" manages to stretch the truth. The article is much too kind -- clearly influenced by the Times's Dem-fawning tilt, but it is an honest effort that I appreciate. I can't expect the Times to be Fox any more than I can expect Fox to be the Times. That is completely OK now that the information monopoly has been broken. We can more easily check out multiple sources today than at any time in history. I regularly check a couple of different English sites, the Times, Drudge, even the english language editions of Al-Jazeera. |
| dcparris Mar 13, 2007 2:36 PM EDT |
> Bias is not dishonest. It is simply a fact of life. As such, it can't be wrong or right. Well, I've never pretended to be unbiased about FOSS. ;-) |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
>Well, I've never pretended to be unbiased about FOSS. ;-) Me neither. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 2:59 PM EDT |
Bias is fine if you're fully aware of that bias. If not, it's just blindly following some other idiot's manual. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 6:28 PM EDT |
richo123: > Yeah Dino but I bet you would be screaming blue murder if ABC decided to staff itself exclusively with Democrats. You've obviously never seen the statistics on the percentages of journalists who are Democrats, have you? Here's a link you may fnd interesting: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp This statistic should suffice as a good summary: 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976. Obviously, a properly funded and unbiased study of the matter is unlikely, and all such studies have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, the finding of reporters being 70 % + Democrats is fairly standard among the studies I could find. The studies disclaiming liberal bias usually argue that reporters are capable of providing unbiased coverage in spite of their political views. While that is undoubtedly true for some, experience indicates that it's highly unlikely for the majority. So, if ABC is representative of the sample, around 80% of their reporters will be Democrats, including those making the decisions on what stories to cover and how to cover them. That will give you almost the same effect as the entire staff being Democrats. A Google search on the term media bias will give you more information than you'll probably want on the matter. FWIW, I'll grant that the folks at ABC, CBS, and NBC are usually doing their best to provide unbiased coverage. It's just that being human, they're incapable of doing so. I'll make an exception for the Rather story, where the political motivations were obvious to all and all pretense at unbiased review was abandoned. I'll also exclude PBS, as their bias is too obvious to be ignored. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 7:27 PM EDT |
jdixon - There is, however, hope. I believe that some percentage of journalists actually care about the ethics of their profession and the service they can provide to the country. I have seen rumblings from my local paper , the Chicago Tribune, and even the New York Times that some within those organzations are beginning to understand the negative implications of a near-monolithic world view in corps of reporters and editors. Time will tell. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 7:36 PM EDT |
> some percentage of journalists actually care about the ethics of their profession and the service they can provide to the country. Some percentage huh? Say like 1-2%... Naw, that's probably optimistic. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 2:28 AM EDT |
>Some percentage huh? Say like 1-2%... Naw, that's probably optimistic. Now you're being overly pessimistec. I'll bet it's at least 3-4%! |
| hkwint Mar 14, 2007 8:15 AM EDT |
Oh, so it's all about percentages? Bear with me, while I unfold my masterplan for running for president: More than 35% of the people in the US vote for the democrats, more than 35% will vote for the conservatives. The people who vote for some other party don't seem to be important in the US, at least not to outsiders like me, so we can neglect them. The conservative voters think the democrats are wrong. The democrat voters think the conservatives are wrong. I think they are both wrong, and therefore I will get 35%+35%=70% of the votes. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 8:34 AM EDT |
>The people who vote for some other party don't seem to be important in the US, at least not to outsiders like me, so we can neglect them. That misperception was proven false in the 1992 election, but nobody has really come forward to learn that year's lesson. That was the year Ross Perot garnered 19% of the popular vote, allowing Bill Clinton to win the Presidency with only 43% of the votes cast. Perot was associated with a few well-defined issues, with deficit reduction being at the fore. Clinton was smart enough to realize that his base was unlikely ever to vote for Republicans, but that the 19% were up for grabs. After getting his butt handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections, he warmed up to things like welfare reform and deficit reduction. At times, exasperated Republicans complained that he was taking over their issues. Before that, the civil rights movement got a lot of mileage by assembling a reliable 10% voting block. Coalition politics in the US aren't as easy to see as in Europe, where vibrant multi-party politics is the norm, but it is real and it can be tapped to do important things. |
| hkwint Mar 14, 2007 4:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:Coalition politics in the US aren't as easy to see as in Europe Wish it was, since it seems the Democrats and Republicans are covering each others backs lots of times, in cases where they both blunder. Then, a third independent party is needed to make things public, and show both parties screwed up. However, to me it seems like all US media is either or Democrat or Republican, but no US media seems to be independent. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 4:35 PM EDT |
Hey, LXer is fully independent. Sorry, but we _are_ a US media. :-p |
| swbrown Mar 14, 2007 8:56 PM EDT |
> It's clear that you don't have much idea of what bias is. Neither do you, if you think what Fox News does is just bias. There's a line that gets crossed when attempting to /mislead/. It's as if newsmax somehow figured out how to get inside my TV. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 9:17 PM EDT |
>if you think what Fox News does is just bias. So ...what is it, exactly, that they do? I hear lefties vent, I never hear what it is that they vent about. What has Fox done, for example, that compares to RatherGate? How about the Fox equivalent of Jayson Blair at the New York Times? You don't like the fact that Fox is run by people who view the world differently. You don't like their conservative commentators. But that's about it. There's nothing that Fox News -- and, by that, I mean the news operation, not the commentators -- does that you disapprove of. You hate where they're coming from and are simply too dishonest to admit. You can't stand consevatives. You hate us and the very air we breathe. Bummer for you. |
| tuxchick Mar 14, 2007 9:43 PM EDT |
The faces of conservatism are Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Dobson, Pat Robertson, and other foamy zealots who spend more time making personal attacks and refusing to listen to anyone else than actually promoting any sort of ideas or policies, or engaging in any kind of real discussion. The only people who listen to these dorks are the ones who want their hates and fears fed. I don't consider them to be real conservatives anyway, just cynical hypocrites who have found an easy, dishonorable way to make a good living. Meanwhile the father of the modern scorched-earth politics who got eaten alive by his own proteges, Newt Gingrich, thinks he's going to make a run for President. Just what we need, a President who ditches his wives when they develop health problems and can't even keep a seat in the House. Not that he has a chance anyway. And you wonder why conservatives get a bad rap. Maybe it's time for the real conservatives to reclaim the name. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 9:56 PM EDT |
> Maybe it's time for the real conservatives to reclaim the name. Do you mean like George Bush and his father? Or Richard Nixon? The simple fact is that of recent presidents, only Ronald Reagan has been a true conservative. The problem is essentially that there are two Republican parties: The Reagan Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans. The Rockefeller group has usually been the ones in control, but they lost control to the charismatic Ronald Reagan in 1980, only to regain it under George Bush in 1988, and they have held firm control ever since. The only candidate I know of who doesn't fit their mold is Ron Paul, which is why he has no chance of winning the nomination. If you want any true conservatives in office, you almost certainly won't get them by voting for Republicans. |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 14, 2007 10:15 PM EDT |
This is very similar to what my Father, Brother and I were talking about last night, just what is a real Conservative or Liberal? I have some very Conservative viewpoints and opinions but at the same time I have some very Liberal viewpoints and opinions too. Where do I fit in? There is no place for me in the Democratic or Republican parties and supporting the Independent, Libertarian or other parties is a waste of time if you want to vote for someone who might actually get elected and make a difference. My Brother expressed my frustration best by saying, "I want more than just an either or choice" I am frustrated that I do not have the ability to choose something other than voting for someone because I despise one person less than the other. Almost all of the votes I have ever cast have been more against the other person running than for the person I was voting for. I believe that many people do not vote because they feel there is no one to vote for, and many people who vote this way because otherwise they would not vote at all. When we are left with deciding who pisses us off the least we and up with a situation like we have now. Who cares who is best for the job when the only motivation for voting is trying to decide who we think will screw us the least. Which ends up backfiring every time anyway. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 10:16 PM EDT |
Gosh, you guys are running right over my past. I've already said I view myself as a moderate conservative. Truth is, I used to enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. His attacks on the Clinton administration were pretty comical. Being the young former Jarhead who believed in voting Republican, Mom and Apple Pie, I actually considered Rush a conservative commentator. Then I moved to Charlotte. I hit a financial iceberg. Sinking, I moved into the 'hood' to cut my overhead. That's where I met Jerry. Jerry got me to help him with a project that actually attacked the Republicans the way Limbaugh did the Democrats. He paid me to work on it - which was the only way I was doing it. But as we did it, we talked long and hard about politics. He showed me that Rush was really not a serious commentator, but an entertainer. You can't take these folks seriously because they are primarily entertainers. One may as well listen to John Boy and Billy. At the same time, Gingrich's Contract With America had been breached by the authors. A local firebrand conservative was exposed as cheating on his wife right before the city council elections. I was experiencing Southern Racism for the first time, via the news and actually witnessing various situations - frequently firsthand. I am still ultimately a moderate conservative. Still, these various events drove me to drop my Republican party affiliation and to remain unafilliated. There was no way I could stomach the Democrats, either. I agree with TC, especially about Gingrich. He ought to check himself into detox - he's got to be hooked on something pretty powerful. TC has also hit something of a nerve, vis a vis, the real conservatives reclaiming the name. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 3:12 AM EDT |
> just what is a real Conservative or Liberal? Well, I hate to throw names around that could be considered insults, but the nature of the Democratic party has changed so much over the past 70 years that the definition of liberal (as determined by those who call themselves such) has changed also. The current self-defined Liberal is, in effect, a Socialist. He/she wants a large, active government which combats poverty and other "social ills". The current self-defined conservative is in no better shape, as most appear to also want a large, active government. In this case, it's to ensure our national security, control crime, and promote business growth and development. The closest term I can think of to describe this position would be a Nationalist. The concept of a small, extremely limited federal government upon which this country was founded (and which Reagan, and to a much lesser extent Carter, supported) is nowhere to be found in either major party. That concept, which allows for maximum individual freedom and responsibility, was the contained in the original definition of Liberal. The only option limited government people seem to have is to vote third party. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 4:19 AM EDT |
> The only option limited government people seem to have is to vote third party. And there you have the crux of it. With the exception of the Perot debacle, the US has been pretty much a two party system for as long as you and I have been alive. It's become increasingly polarized, disconnected, and misused by people unnamed who would obviously not want you to have a real choice. The whole system continues to disenfranchise the Citizen. Politicians, Business, and Media all exploit this polarity for power & money. People who buy into it isolate themselves from any kind of discussion and compromise. The whole thing is a mess, and one we may never be able to recover from. > "I want more than just an either or choice" Your brother's got it right Scott. I don't know anyone who fully believes in either Parties Platform, but, that's all we have to choose from. A 'truly' (more than 3) multiparty system might not offer exactly what you want, but it has to do a lot better than the current two party all or nothing insanity. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 15, 2007 4:34 AM EDT |
I for one an quite happy with the multiparty/coalition-style politics here in Holland, although it too has it's drawbacks. For example, the true big winners of the last election (SP) aren't in the government right now because three other parties managed to form a majority coalition without them. That sucks, but it beats the two-party US system. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 4:39 AM EDT |
The faces of conservatism are Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Dobson, Pat Robertson, and other foamy zealots >who spend more time making pers So then, I guess, the faces of liberalism are Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Maureen Dowd, and other assorted whack jobs? Strange that you leave out people like William F. Buckley and George Will, conservatives who could both think and argue circles around either one of us. Zealots are zealots no matter where their politics lie. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 4:44 AM EDT |
>Perot debacle, Perot was not a debacle. Perot was a man who had never been elect to office, yet managed to garner 19% of the vote. That 19% encouraged Bill Clinton to pursue welfare reform and deficit reduction after he got spanked in the 1994 midterm elections. Ask folks who worked the civil rights movements years ago. It's nice to win the office, but you can win your issues by putting officeholders in your debt. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 4:48 AM EDT |
> Perot was not a debacle. If it had gone beond one election cycle, I might agree. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 4:52 AM EDT |
>If it had gone beond one election cycle, I might agree. Your standard for debacle is shamefully low, then. It is unfortunate that Perot was not able to nurture and sustain an ongoing movement. Wrong man for that job, frankly. Plus, Bill Clinton gets some credit for killing off much of the impetus by incorporating many of the issues while where a less prickly face than Ross's. Disappointment, yes. Debacle, no. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 6:17 AM EDT |
> So then, I guess, the faces of liberalism are Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Maureen Dowd, and other assorted whack jobs? Unfortunately, yes. And their influence is responsible for taking the party ever farther from its historical base. A perfect example of this is gun control. Guns empower the individual. They enable a person to defend themselves and their property from attack. And, in significant areas of the country, they put food on the table. A party which was actually for "the little man" would be opposed to gun control, but every major Democrat is unabashedly pro gun control, and the only reason it's not the official party position is that the party knows doing so would lose them independent and swing voters. |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 6:29 AM EDT |
> every major Democrat is unabashedly pro gun control You must have a different definition of "major Democrat" from me. If supporting any restrictions at all on gun ownership is what you mean, I'd say 99.9% of Republicans are also pro gun control. There are just too many views on every issue. I can agree with Howard Dean on the war and gun control. Absolutely disagree with him on abortion. I agree with James Dobson on abortion, but not the death penalty. And so on. I'm a combination of Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell. Even across states, the comparisons are tough. I grew up in North Dakota, which votes Republican in every presidential election, but reelected Kent Conrad in a landslide despite being anti-war and the leading opposition to the President's budget. Go figure. North Dakota Democrats have little in common with New York Democrats, and Georgia Republicans have little in common with Kansas Republicans. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 7:15 AM EDT |
> You must have a different definition of "major Democrat" from me. If supporting any restrictions at all on gun ownership is what you mean, I'd say 99.9% of Republicans are also pro gun control. You gotta be living in a different country..... Most 'people' around here regardles of Party affiliation are against gun control. |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
> Most 'people' around here regardles of Party affiliation are against gun control. But I don't know many people who are against restrictions on terrorists buying guns. There are a lot of "major Democrats" who don't support complete elimination of gun ownership, including Howard Dean, who got high marks from the NRA when he was governor. |
| number6x Mar 15, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
dcparris, You should move to Illinois. The democrats and republicans in office here are exactly the same. Mayor Daley is always pushing privatization of government services, and harping on how dysfunctional the federal government is. The republicans were masters of party politics controlling vast hordes of Toll way workers and state employees who guaranteed the republican dominance of state government for decades. There is almost no real idealogical difference between the members of the two parties here, and all pretense to that effect has been abandoned. The major issue at election time? Essentially, each party asks you to vote for their candidate because theirs is not as corrupt as the other's. In all reality, they are just as corrupt. Abe Lincoln would not be happy. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 8:38 AM EDT |
>Abe Lincoln would not be happy. I think he'd be busy pointing out that he was born in Kentucky and ended his life in DC, with some time in the middle spent elsewhere. |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
I almost forgot about Illinois Tollway workers. That's a mighty powerful constituency manning the Tri-State. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
>I almost forgot about Illinois Tollway workers. That's a mighty powerful constituency manning the Tri-State. I remain amazed that the I-Pass was ever implemented, given that it takes gobs of cash money away from the hands of toll-takers. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
> But I don't know many people who are against restrictions on terrorists buying guns. And again lame FUD and you know it bigg. I do believe that it's already illegal for terrorists to buy guns... to say nothing of all the laws against using them. How about enforcing existing laws before we go running roughshod over our rights? It's sad to see government moving to curb Citizen's rights in the name of the 'patriot act'. Sadder still to see how eager people are to hand over more of those rights every time the word 'terrorist' is mentioned. > You should move to Illinois No thanks number6x. I got out of Chicago years ago... |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
...I thought box cutters were the problem. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
>...I thought box cutters were the problem. When you criminalize box cutters, only criminals will be able recycle. |
| Abe Mar 15, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think it is time for LXer.com to get a chat line going.That is what my wife said when watched me reading your posts. |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
Dino: That begs the question: Is re-sharpening your box cutter blade the same as reloading your own shells? |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
> And again lame FUD and you know it bigg. Gee, Jim, I was responding to jdixon's statement that "every major Democrat is unabashedly pro gun control". The only way that can be true is to say that supporting any restriction on gun ownership makes you pro gun control. He may be quoting a line from Ann Coulter or something, but it certainly isn't true. Just skimming through the NRA ratings, I see three Democrats with A+ ratings, and a lot with A, A- and B ratings. That's hardly unabashedly pro gun control. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 12:22 PM EDT |
> Gee, Jim, I was responding to jdixon's statement that "every major Democrat is unabashedly pro gun control". I will grant that it's probably an overstatement on my part, but I don't think it's by as much as you're making it out to be. I do know that, IMO, if the Democratic leadership could do as they want, private ownership of handguns would be banned tomorrow, and shotguns and rifles would follow within ten years. |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
> I do know that, IMO, if the Democratic leadership could do as they want, private ownership of handguns would be banned tomorrow, and shotguns and rifles would follow within ten years. But I could also say that if the Republican leadership had their way, we'd all be in a Southern Baptist church every Sunday morning and the poor would be banned from using hospitals. I've heard a lot of Republicans say exactly what you are saying, "this is their true intention" but I don't think it's fair to either party to go beyond what they've said and done. Some Democrats would support that, some wouldn't. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
> But I could also say that if the Republican leadership had their way, we'd all be in a Southern Baptist church every Sunday morning and the poor would be banned from using hospitals. Nonsense. Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, and half a dozen others would also be acceptable. Heck, they might even be generous and allow for Roman Catholics. And the poor would be perfectly welcome to use the hospital restrooms and cafeteria. Why must you leftist always go exaggerating things in this way. :) |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 12:42 PM EDT |
>That begs the question: Is re-sharpening your box cutter blade the same as reloading your own shells? Only if you're going to shoot it at somebody. |
| azerthoth Mar 15, 2007 2:04 PM EDT |
I'm of the firm opinion that if guns kill people then I should be able to blame my spelling mistakes on my keyboard. (or the box cutter I used in opening the box the keyboard came in) Seriously though there are probably more people who take a more midline approach to the idiots we elect to office. Even if my vote falls into the category of "useless protest vote" when I dont vote for either party (where I live anything other than republican is a protest vote) I can go to sleep that night knowing I cast my vote for my opinions and not the party line. |
| tracyanne Mar 15, 2007 10:21 PM EDT |
Personally I'd rather someone attack me with a Box cutter than a Gun. It's easier to get out of the way of a box cutter. |
| dinotrac Mar 16, 2007 4:18 AM EDT |
>Personally I'd rather someone attack me with a Box cutter than a Gun. On the other hand, if someone were to threaten me, my wife, or my children, I'd rather have a gun than a box cutter. As it turns out, a whole lot of the people who would threaten you don't want you to have a gun. Places that have passed concealed-carry laws with permit and training requirements tend to see a reduction in violent crimes and in home invasions. Criminals may not be rocket scientists, but many of them are smart enough to know they don't want to get shot. |
| tracyanne Mar 16, 2007 4:23 AM EDT |
Interestingly enough, in countries, like Australia, where Guns are banned, there is a lot less violent crime than we see in Countries where Guns are legal. Drive by shootings are very rare, and are big news when they happen, and other forms of violent crime are much less also. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 16, 2007 4:33 AM EDT |
tracyanne; The same is true here in The Netherlands. |
| dinotrac Mar 16, 2007 6:00 AM EDT |
> there is a lot less violent crime than we see in Countries where Guns are legal. Is that actually true, or are you being selective? How much violent crime is there in Switzerland? Canada? Guns are legal in both countries. How about Brazil? High crime, tough gun laws. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 16, 2007 6:20 AM EDT |
@dino, if it's not that, then are you trying to say that Americans are a bunch of shot-fused gunslingers? And that's why there are so many incidents in the US but not in Canada or Switzerland? If so, all the more reason to get guns off the streets. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 16, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
No, we don't want to get guns off the streets - not when you have immigrants importing the Mexican cottage industry of kidnapping into this country. http://www.tampabays10.com/news/specials/popular/article.asp... |
| NoDough Mar 16, 2007 6:29 AM EDT |
>"One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime, but an increase in property crime."< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry |
| dinotrac Mar 16, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
>If so, all the more reason to get guns off the streets. The problem is that gun laws don't get guns off the streets. The way to get guns off the streets is to go into every building and search them out. Go to every person, every vehicle and search them out. Eliminate the manufacture of guns. Tighten down the borders completely and effectively -- inspecting everything that comes into the country. Even if it were actually possible to do all of that, the folks most eagerly wishing to ban guns would object to the measures needed to make those bans effective. In effect, those who favor guns really favor disarming law abiding citizens while assuring criminals that their prey will be unarmed. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. |
| Abe Mar 16, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:If so, all the more reason to get guns off the streets As they say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns don't have to be removed, people who kill people should be removed. It is impossible to remove guns from people especially the bad ones. Bad people will always get guns some how. To effectively remove bad people, create tough precise laws, enforce and make examples of them to the extent of the law. End of story. |
| jdixon Mar 16, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
> Interestingly enough, in countries, like Australia, where Guns are banned, there is a lot less violent crime than we see in Countries where Guns are legal. You're confusing cause and effect. Those countries already had less violent crime before guns were banned. The causes of violence are complex and debatable, but the availability of guns only affects the type of violence, not its degree. > are you trying to say that Americans are a bunch of shot-fused gunslingers... Essentially, yes, though (as noted above) the violence will still be there even if the guns are removed. And removing the guns means those of limited physical abilities (children, women, the elderly, and the disabled, for example) cannot defend themselves from that violence. > If so, all the more reason to get guns off the streets. An impossible task, as already noted by Dino. We can't stop drugs being smuggled into the country. How much harder do you think it would be to smuggle guns? And you can make a gun in any good machine shop. With a good metal lathe, you could probably make a single shot rifle or pistol at home. Besides, do you want to outlaw cars because someone can run you over with one? Or more to the point here, DVD burners because they can be used to illegally copy music and movies? We are talking *piracy* after all. :) The defensive benefits of gun ownership far outweigh their drawbacks, as the NRA will be happy to explain to you if you give them the time. It should also be noted that there are significant, ahem, ethnic and regional variations in the prevalence of gun violence. West Virginia has one of the higher gun ownership rates in the country, yet one of the lowest crime rates. |
| dcparris Mar 16, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
I concur with dino and jdixon. Pa is a retired minister. He taught me most of what I know about guns and took me hunting from the time I was about 8 years old. Harrison County, WV had a required gun safety course that all of us took in the 8th Grade. Boy or girl, you had to take it. The Marines only taught me about different guns, but the lessons in safety and usage were the same. When I first came to Charlotte, I moved into one of the most violent neighborhoods in the city - the Belmont community. A house on one corner, directly across from my duplex, was the drug dealers' place. Interestingly, I was only messed with a few times when I first moved in, but most folks just left me alone. Meanwhile, I saw shoot-outs on that corner from my window, though I really could have gone out on the front porch with a bag of popcorn and a soda - it was like watching the A-Team. Noone ever actually shot each other, just the ground. Oh, they'd curse a lot, but otherwise, not much really happened. I never carried a gun. I didn't need to, really, because I never participated in the criminal lifestyle. I never hung out with the dealers, though I spoke to them like I do anyone else. I learned a lot, namely that, although I know full well how to use a gun, I can handle myself pretty well without one. I also learned that, by keeping to myself, and not 'acting the fool', I could survive quite well in that neighborhood. I even walked through the darkest most dangerous parts of that neighborhood after Midnight - without any kind of weapon - without incident. Now I'm married, have a house in a relatively quiet neighborhood. 'Mr. Weatherby' is handy, should anyone decide to visit at 3:00 AM. Boy, will they be surprised! Even if I wind up in jail, I'll be o.k., as long as I know my wife and daughter are still alive. And like the old bumper sticker says, they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. |
| tracyanne Mar 16, 2007 6:57 PM EDT |
quote:: The problem is that gun laws don't get guns off the streets. ::quote Works pretty damn well in Australia and New Zealand. For the majority of criminals it works out as too much bother. |
| dinotrac Mar 16, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
>Works pretty damn well in Australia and New Zealand Guess we should all move to Australia and New Zealand, then. |
| richo123 Mar 16, 2007 7:29 PM EDT |
Yes dino you should. Much nicer place all round. |
| dinotrac Mar 17, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
>Much nicer place all round. Though it was a snotty remark on my part, moving to Australia has long been a secret wish of mine. Not to slight New Zealand. ;0) |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 17, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
"Works pretty damn well in Australia and New Zealand." Not according to the statisticians. Violent crimes with guns have gone up in every country that has tried banning them. The problem being that, once banned, it is only those people who obey the law who comply. That leaves the thugs as the only ones armed, a situation only a madman would enjoy. But look at the crime rates in those same countries _prior_ to firearms prohibition, and see that the US has always been more violent (although murder is comparable to more "civilized" countries _in_those_places_ where private arms are _legal_ in the US). Now don't get me wrong, I have no love for the NRA who would rather see every one of the 20,000+ gun laws on the books "enforced" than discuss repealing even a single one of them. If those laws were repealed, they wouldn't have reason to send all those weeping "send us money!" letters. Whores is too nice a word. Lawful firearms ownership is also one of the most positive of "free rider" situations, since safety increases from simply changing the law to make ownership "less illegal", without anyone actually having to go out and buy one for themselves. The perception of armed "good guys" puts the "bad guys" on guard. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Cesar Beccaria |
| purplewizard Mar 17, 2007 4:00 PM EDT |
According to "World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002" figures for 1999 show that the UK has a death rate by guns that is about 1/40 of the USA. Guns are not legal in the USA. In fact more people died that year in the USA (per 100000 population) from accidents with guns than died in the UK as an act of homicide (done with a gun). The figures are similar for most European nations which don't allow guns. The report and UK figures on violent crime certainly don't suggest that gun crime is worse here having banned them or worse than the USA because of a ban. In fact across all gun deaths you are about 50 times more likely to die in the USA from a gun than you are in the UK. |
| purplewizard Mar 17, 2007 4:10 PM EDT |
Another item of interest on gun crime is that masacres committed with guns are globally almost exclusively done with legally owned firearms. Which sort of suggest truth in the idea that criminals more often shoot each other or police than innocent bystanders. |
| tracyanne Mar 17, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
quote:: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Cesar Beccaria ::quote He is quite simply wrong, in my experience. I don't own or carry a gun, and am not likely to ever do so. If I have a gun pointed at my head I am more likely to comply immediately, indeed as I am a considerably smaller threat to the criminal than I would be in a country where I might be carrying a gun, the criminal is far less likely to do anything rash. On the other hand I've spent a good deal of time in Sydney and Brisbane, alone at night and never been attacked. |
| dinotrac Mar 17, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
>He is quite simply wrong, in my experience Gosh, we should just throw out studies and stats. What more could we need than your experience? |
| azerthoth Mar 17, 2007 6:50 PM EDT |
To paraphrase tracyanne "I have never been attacked so I have no need of defense because I never will." perfect "Cant fix the roof when its raining, and when its not raining it dont leak so it dont need fixing" logic. So I pose this question to you, how likely would you to be attacked if your potential assailant thought you had the ability to shoot back? |
| dinotrac Mar 17, 2007 9:08 PM EDT |
> azerthoth You are too unkind. Tracyanne has offered us an excellent way out of significant problems that affect the comparison of international crime studies, such as the differential rates of reporting crimes, differences in definitions of crimes, etc. Serious researchers really waste far too much time worrying about such things. From now on, they can wear a little wristband with the initials "WWTD" (What would Tracyanne do?). |
| tracyanne Mar 17, 2007 11:24 PM EDT |
My experience is all I need to inform me that a study done in a place like America will not necessarily translate well to a Country like Australia. The Australian experience is that we do have far less gun related crime than the US, simply because the majority of the populace is unarmed, and illegal weapons are much harder to source. The illegal weapons that are on the streets are imported not stolen, this in itself makes the street price of illegal weapons very high. I think we in Australia will be keeping our current ban on Guns. The ready availability of guns is one Americanism we simply won't be adopting, thankfully. The turning point for Australians was the Port Arthur Massacre, where a nutter, who was able to legally build up an arsenal of Assault Rifles and other weapons holed up at the historic Port Arthur convict barracks and he shot anyone and anything that moved. The majority of Australians realised the stupidity of having guns available to just anyone, and finally recognised that most people simply have no need for one, and voted overwhelmingly for a total gun ban. The fact is gun related crime took a steep nosedive and has stayed down. Most Australians still agree that this, like the abolition of Capital Punishment in the early 1970s, was a smart move. |
| dinotrac Mar 18, 2007 1:54 AM EDT |
>The fact is gun related crime took a steep nosedive and has stayed down. There's little question that gun-related crime will be related to the number of guns in circulation. In Australia, the the vast majority of crimes are perpetrated by Australians. The US has nearly no Australian-related crime. Perhaps Australia should ban Australians. Or, perhaps beer. At least one international crime researcher has drawn a link between heavy beer consumption and crime. BTW - in most of America, people feel just as safe walking about as you do. Oddly, some of the most dangerous places also have the strictest gun laws. |
| purplewizard Mar 18, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
Seems to me that the people who believe and or want to carry guns want to deny the facts that say places without guns strangely have less gun crime. Additionally the same WHO worked showed that gun massacres are almost totally an even done with legal weapons. Making it seem like criminals just shoot each other where as whackos with (legal) weapons wipe out anyone. As for banning Australians to reduce Australian gun crime, can't you see the common factor between Australian gun crime and USA gun crime is not Australians but in fact guns. Your own logic therefore says ban the guns as they are the thing shown to be essential in all cases. |
| purplewizard Mar 18, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
Just to add to banning things, there are a couple of places where politicians (Sweden and UK national parks) have suggested that banning motorcycles would cut motorcycle deaths. They don't seem to follow their own logic which would demonstrate that all road traffic accidents could be stopped by banning all vehicles. |
| dinotrac Mar 18, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
>Seems to me that the people who believe and or want to carry guns want to deny the facts that say places without guns strangely have less gun crime. Well, that's ok. People who want to ban guns want to deny the fact that total crime is more relevant than gun crime. They are more concerned about the instrumentality than the crime. I wonder if anyone has done "survivor" statistics? By that, I mean something that accounts for people who defend themselves against criminals? I hear anecdotal stories, for example, of women who scare of muggers and rapists and bears, oh my, with their guns. It would be interesting to have an unbiased study of such things. Unfortunately, I don't know of anybody who might do such a study who is unbiased. |
| purplewizard Mar 18, 2007 6:45 AM EDT |
"Well, that's ok. People who want to ban guns want to deny the fact that total crime is more relevant than gun crime. They are more concerned about the instrumentality than the crime." That just is not true. |
| dinotrac Mar 18, 2007 7:46 AM EDT |
>That just is not true. Based on what? Every time I hear anti-gun sentiments, the discussion is all about gun-related crimes. You'd think getting raped at knife-point was nothing to worry about. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 18, 2007 7:53 AM EDT |
"They don't seem to follow their own logic which would demonstrate that all road traffic accidents could be stopped by banning all vehicles." Ah, but no one denies that if you were to eliminate firearms, that crimes committed with firearms would decrease. What is particular to this discussion is the fact that prohibition doesn't work. The prohibition on _legal_ firearms ownership has not impacted _illegal_ firearms ownership. After all, they were already illegal. The prohibition of alcohol, now drugs, also demonstrates the absurdity of prohibition. Neither impacted the availability of the things prohibitted, and created such an environment of high profits and violence that related crimes increased dramatically. The touted "safety" that was used by the politicians and bureaucrats to rationalize the law further restricting peoples liberty, "the ends justifying the means", turn out to be empty lies. Police powers must be increased in a "prohibition" environment, because in order to enforce a law prohibiting the mere possession of an object, the police must be empowered to find that object in the possession of individuals who have committed no other crime. The little old lady who has a pistol in the drawer of her nightstand in case someone breaks into her house becomes just as much a target of police investigation as the un-caught multiple murderer, simply because the two of them both are committing the same crime by being in possession of a prohibitted item. Keep in mind that what is not under discussion is any element of violence or harm to others. This is purely a discussion of _prohibition_. Were I to commit a violent crime with my fingernails, it would be no less a violent crime just because I used something that wasn't prohibitted. In exactly the same way, possession of a prohibitted item is no real crime at all, because mere possession harms _no one_. |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 6:46 AM EDT |
You know, this discussion reminds me of the story I read in school about the chinese guy who demonstrated a flying machine to his emperor. The Emperor had him executed and his flying machine destroyed since what could be used for good could also be used for evil. |
| bigg Mar 19, 2007 6:59 AM EDT |
On a related note, it seems that prohibitions in the ToS against off topic posts have led to an increase in off topic posts. Apparently prohibition doesn't work for LXer either. |
| NoDough Mar 19, 2007 7:13 AM EDT |
Murders with firearms are much more prevalent in the US than in NZ or AUS. #8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people #27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people #31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people If you consider overall murders, the gap narrows only slightly. #24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people #43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people #52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people A look at the crime of rape alters the balance significantly. #3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people #9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people #12 New Zealand: 0.213383 per 1,000 people Another violent crime: assault. #6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people #7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people #10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people Moving into property crimes: burglaries #1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people #6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people #17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people car thefts #1 Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people #4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people #9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people robberies #11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people #15 Australia: 1.16048 per 1,000 people #37 New Zealand: 0.439901 per 1,000 people Finally, a look at total crimes. #2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people #8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people Australia was not ranked on the total crimes chart. This may be because their numbers were too low to make the chart. However, it's probably because they did not report statistics in one or more of the categories required for the total crimes statistic. One of the site's 'factoids' mentioned that one in three Australians will be the victim of a crime, so presumably their number is somewhere around 333 per 1,000. My source for these numbers was http://www.nationmaster.com. For those interested, you can see state-by-state statistics at http://www.statemaster.com. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 19, 2007 7:13 AM EDT |
Where's that ToS? The one linked in teh page footer doesn't say much about off-topic posts, except banning pr0n, spam, etcetera. Anyway, my experience is that in a community of a certain size you cannot eliminate off-topic psoting unless you are willing to rule with an iron fist. Perhaps an off-topic forum would be an idea? Oh, and have off-topic topics filtered by default from the front page "latest discussion" box. Then give users a setting to add those topics back in if they so wish. |
| jimf Mar 19, 2007 7:15 AM EDT |
Having been a moderator on a number of forums, I can tell you that Don (not to mention Dave or Bob) is being 'very' lenient with all of us. It might be respectful and prudent to remember that once in a while... > doesn't say much about off-topic posts From TOS: "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." Is that clear enough sander? |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
:-) That's why we try to keep it sensible. But you're correct - it's OT. The funny thing is, I've been pondering prohibiting proprietary software. MS would have to release their software as FOSS, which would lead to greater security and stability for everyone, probably reduce malware issues, thus saving billions or even trillions of dollars in malware defense software. Or maybe we should simply ban Windows. That's the biggest problem. MS Office isn't horrible software - just costly and way overhyped. |
| bigg Mar 19, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
> I've been pondering prohibiting proprietary software. That would be a lot easier than prohibiting alcohol or guns. Just take over Microsoft's headquarters and when the PC phones home to get permission to keep running, tell it no. |
| jimf Mar 19, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
> pondering prohibiting proprietary software. Only if you buy into the RMS idea that proprietary=evil. Not all of us do. |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
> Where's that ToS? Bottom of the home page, along with Contact Us and Privacy Policy, among others. It's also at the bottom of this page. > I can tell you that Don (not to mention Dave or Bob) is being 'very' lenient with all of us. Since this discussion is overtly politically themed, yes. The actual topic of gun control, while outside the normal topics of this site, does not have to be a violation of the TOS. |
| bigg Mar 19, 2007 7:45 AM EDT |
The ToS says "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." (I assume that the 'religious' reference is religion related to God, not RMS and software freedom.) |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 7:48 AM EDT |
> Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature... Gun control debate does not have to be either political or religious in nature. It most often is, but it does not have to be. |
| bigg Mar 19, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
@jdixon: I was just providing the quote for anyone who didn't see it in the ToS. You're right. |
| Abe Mar 19, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:> Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature... What is important is that we all understand that this site is primarily available to us to discuss IT issues. Please, avoid sensitive subjects that are not related to IT. |
| jimf Mar 19, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
> Since this discussion is overtly politically themed, yes. That's not just the gun control discussion. We all tend to push the limits in this forum. That said, FOSS and Linux don't exist in a vacuum. The surrounding issues are very often politically charged and ethically related, sometimes to the extent it infringes on religion. The forum would be bland beyond belief if none of this was included in our discussions. I know that Don understands this, and, will give us a lot of rope. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't abuse the privilege, cause that's what it is. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 19, 2007 10:05 AM EDT |
As long as everyone understands that I'm right, there's no problem |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
Anyone who survived the great religious flame war of April '06 (or was it May?), will recall that we all seemed to reach some sort of consensus that it's best to avoid religious debates - but also the political ones. :-) That said, jimf is correct. Linux exists in the midst of politics, ethics, religion, and a slew of other issues. I just have to be cautious about allowing those related issues to become overheated or even the mainstay of this site. My policy is generally hands-off unless it seems to be going too far. It seems to work pretty well, for the most part. |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
> My policy is generally hands-off unless it seems to be going too far. And it probably needs to be stated, at least on occasion, that we appreciate it. Especially since I'm the one who brought up gun control on the thread. :) |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
> Anyone who survived the great religious flame war of April '06 (or was it May?) I thought that was the "intellectual dishonesty" flame war. :) |
| dinotrac Mar 19, 2007 11:13 AM EDT |
>I thought that was the "intellectual dishonesty" flame war. Hmmm. We seem to have some pretty twisted definitions here. Not about the TOS -- Rev's right about our bending it pretty badly sometimes. But... Since when were heated discussions "flame wars"? If you really and truly believe in free speech -- and I would hope visitors to a Linux forum do -- you have to realize that reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree substantially and engage in heated -- even very heated -- discourse within the bounds of free speech. That, in my view, is not a flame war. It is passionate discussion. Flame wars, on the other hand, are essentially games characterized by a lack of respect for the people you are engaging and a lack of respect for the truth as you perceive it. |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 11:32 AM EDT |
> Since when were heated discussions "flame wars"? I agree that it depends on your definition. I've seen the term used both ways, so it's a debatable point. That said, I haven't seen a real high octane flame war here yet, so you're probably correct. The closest I've seen would probably be our discussions with a certain troll we could mention but won't. Unless you'd like to start a flame war over what is and isn't a flame war, of course, in which case we can probably work something up. :) |
| dinotrac Mar 19, 2007 11:56 AM EDT |
>The closest I've seen would probably be our discussions with a certain troll we could mention but won't. Probably wise, but why do I feel a sudden need to contribute to the Hindu Ski Fund? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 19, 2007 12:24 PM EDT |
TROLL!!! (this message is not directed at anyone in particular, but if you feel that it applies to you, then you can have my ration of Brussels Sprouts from Tuxchick.) |
| dinotrac Mar 19, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
Mmmm! Brussels sprouts. |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
You're correct, of course, dino. It really wasn't a flame war as much as a passionate debate. I was thinking some of those comments did drop to a lower level. Still, I was glad to see it end. Meanwhile, pass those brussels sprouts to this end of the table. But you can keep the green peas. ;-) |
| hkwint Mar 19, 2007 1:12 PM EDT |
Darnit, I would like to say something about guns also. So, offtopic: When talking about guns, I would like to say chances of a black male in Philadelphia between 25 and 39 years old (not whole sure about age) are more likely to being shot than US soldiers in Iraq (the same paper who told this, mentioned the first as the forgotten war in the US, the one US politicians don't speak about). Most of the ones shooting other ones in Philadelphia will say they bought that gun to protect themselves, from other gangs who have guns to defend themselves also (?). Also, gun accidents happen, which is a risk too. Talking about guns only as a means of protection doesn't seem realistic to me, but idealistic. It's simple: If you give up your right to defend yourself by allowing everybody to buy a gun, the chances you are being attacked with a gun also decrease. Therefore, fear decreases a bit, and people don't feel the need to defend themselves that much. Nonetheless, far too much people are stabbed to death in my country lately. Ontopic: No, I'm not going to say anything about Enderle in relation to guns, am I? |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 2:11 PM EDT |
Hans, The funny thing, as dino has pointed out, is that those gangs have guns where the gun laws are strictest. As far as safety goes, guns are both useful and dangerous. I grew up with them, but also with a real emphasis on safety, as have many people I know.Quoting:It's simple: If you give up your right to defend yourself by allowing everybody to buy a gun, the chances you are being attacked with a gun also decrease. It appears to me that something got lost in the translation here. The way it reads to me, it seems as if, by allowing everyone to buy a gun, you are giving up your right to defend yourself. Maybe you can clarify this? |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 3:19 PM EDT |
> Also, gun accidents happen, which is a risk too. Yes, but a minimal one. My family has had loaded guns in their homes for 5 generations now without an accident. Most gun "accidents" are nothing of the kind, any more than a drunk driver having a wreck is an auto "accident". > It's simple: If you give up your right to defend yourself by allowing everybody to buy a gun, the chances you are being attacked with a gun also decrease. As Don says, this isn't clear. I assume you mean for the two clauses to be linked and that you therefore also mean giving up the right of everyone to own a gun. I'm not an expert in the historical aspects of gun ownership, but I don't think it's ever been the case that everyone was allowed to own a gun in the US. At a minimum, slaves would have been prohibited. Normally felons, the mentally incompetent, etc., would have been denied the right to own guns. As I noted earlier, removing guns only decreases gun violence, not violence in general. So you may be reducing your chance of being attacked with a gun, but not your overall chance of being attacked, and you've given up what may have been your only hope of defending yourself from such attacks. Does that seem like a fair trade? There are other matters affecting the discussion, such as the pesky second amendment, and whether an armed populace prevents government tyranny, but those get into the political sphere and are best not discussed here. How about a computer equivalent. Would you want to give up your right to run Nessus because it can be misused? |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 19, 2007 3:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:So you may be reducing your chance of being attacked with a gun, but not your overall chance of being attacked, and you've given up what may have been your only hope of defending yourself from such attacks. Does that seem like a fair trade? Yes. I rather face someone with a knife if I only have my fists than face someone with a gun while having a gun myself as well. Also, I think most attacks happen on the streets. Do you always carry your gun with you? Quoting:...whether an armed populace prevents government tyranny Given the fact that the current government is still in power I'd say that's a resounding "NO" ;-) |
| dcparris Mar 19, 2007 4:05 PM EDT |
> Given the fact that the current government is still in power I'd say that's a resounding "NO" ;-) Actually, it means we're not dissatisfied enough to push things that far. I think it really does take a lot to push that particular button for us, but it can be pushed. Our militias and a few tragic moments have demonstrated that well enough. I know the military is powerful, but most of them would dread having to fight in places like the South Bronx, the South, the Northwest, and possibly even the Midwest. There are likely militias that no one even knows about. And then there are the white supremacists, who have long tried to recruit the militias. The latter generally aren't interested in going that far. Ruthless big city gang members don't care about the military - they'd be just another opponent to fight. My point is that, should enough people ever decide that our government has crossed the line of oppression, you would see some kind of action - probably a combination of civil and military efforts. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 19, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
Perhaps, but I doubt it. There's one very big difference between history and the present day: Big Media has successfully lulled a majority of the US populace into apathy and complacency. They just don't care enough anymore. Nipplegate gets more reaction out of them than the Iraq war and the spying/tapping scandals combined. It's sad, really. |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 6:42 PM EDT |
> Do you always carry your gun with you? I never carry a gun with me unless it's to take someplace for shooting practice. |
| jdixon Mar 19, 2007 6:55 PM EDT |
> Yes. I rather face someone with a knife if I only have my fists than face someone with a gun while having a gun myself as well. You're a male, probably comparatively young and in good shape. Would you say the same for a wife/girlfriend/sister? Or for an elderly parent/grandparent? Is it right for you (or anyone else) to deny them the option of a gun? |
| dinotrac Mar 19, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
>You're a male, probably comparatively young and in good shape As not-very-young out-of-shape male, I would much rather not be attacked in the first place. I've got very little chance in a knife fight with anybody. On the other hand, I've got a good chance of surviving an attack that never takes place. That makes me wish we had conceled carry where I live. |
| NoDough Mar 19, 2007 7:12 PM EDT |
And now it's time for the requisite humorous post... Doctors: * The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. * Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. * Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.) Now think about this: Guns: * The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million.) * The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. * The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188. (Statistics courtesy of FBI) So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember: "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!! Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention. |
| dinotrac Mar 19, 2007 7:18 PM EDT |
NoDough - Wow. Imagine the worst of all worlds: Doctors driving (30-40000 annual US traffic deaths) to work! |
| jimf Mar 19, 2007 7:45 PM EDT |
> Wow. Imagine the worst of all worlds: Doctors driving (30-40000 annual US traffic deaths) to work! No problem there as Doctors never make house calls. But, if you count their vacation mileage..... |
| hkwint Mar 20, 2007 5:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:So you may be reducing your chance of being attacked with a gun, but not your overall chance of being attacked, and you've given up what may have been your only hope of defending yourself from such attacks. Does that seem like a fair trade? Yes. Same as Sander's answer. Probably because that's the European answer. Quoting:...whether an armed populace prevents government tyrannyThat's a simple question, to which Sudan is a simple answer. Some of the armed populaces over there doesn't prevent tyranny, but start their own. The same is true for Philadelphia. Quoting:FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.Since I had at least 10 doctors the last few years, I should be happy to be alive. However, please note, doctors save far and far more lives than guns do. Ignoring that is just eehr.. ignorance. Quoting:> Yes. I rather face someone with a knife if I only have my fists than face someone with a gun while having a gun myself as well.Agree to that Quoting:You're a male, probably comparatively young and in good shape. Would you say the same for a wife/girlfriend/sister?Running for a knife is easier than running for a bullet. Stabbing someone requires more nerves than shooting someone. BTW I'm young, but not in a good shape. Probably, I wouldn't have a problem if people had a gun in their houses to defend themselves and their family in my country. But the problem is, from the moment people can take their guns with them on the street, I would be afraid to walk on the street. You could say I could also take my guns to the street, but than, I would scare other people in turn, which only makes the problem worse. Doctors driving to work with a gun, they are the real nightmares. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 20, 2007 5:58 AM EDT |
> Do you always carry your gun with you? The North Carolina CCW regulations inform me I'm not allowed to answer that question. Really. I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of a firearm on my person, except when approached by a law enforcement officer at which time I must inform them of such a disposition. :^) Here's the thing, though. Even if I were carrying 100% of the time, no more crimes would be committed, because I do not commit crimes. My having or not having a gun is irrelevant to that statistic, which is why crime rates do not go down when private firearms are made more illegal. The only effect my having a gun has is that if a crime _is_ committed, I am better able to respond, like in the Pearl, Mississippi, school shooting, or any of the 4Million other defensive uses of a firearm each year in the US, if by having a gun I can prevent further criminal action. When someone uses a fire extinguisher as a club, blaming the fire extinguisher for the dead victim is absurd. Ignoring the beneficial effects of having a fire extinguisher just because a fire extinguisher can be used in a criminal act is absurd. The chair did not throw itself, Steve Balmer threw the chair. If the chair had not been there (chair control), Steve would have thrown something else. But the "gun control" argument is founded upon ignoring both the inanimate nature of a firearm, and the beneficial effects of firearms being available at those times when a firearm is in fact "the right tool for the job". That's why police carry them, and big flashlights. The only weapon is a sharp mind. All other things are merely tools. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2007 6:04 AM EDT |
> However, please note, doctors save far and far more lives than guns do. Ignoring that is just eehr.. ignorance. On a percentage, per usage basis, I'm not certain that's true. However, I doubt we'll see a unbiased study to actually determine the matter any time soon. |
| jimf Mar 20, 2007 6:14 AM EDT |
> > However, please note, doctors save far and far more lives than guns do. Ignoring that is just eehr.. ignorance. To be fair, Doctors are always trying to 'save' sick or dieing people. Not surprising that a few of them check out. Still, In this country, the Doctors are so much a part of the overall health care problem that it's hard to access what they save or not. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 20, 2007 6:38 AM EDT |
Bob: private gun ownership makes it easy for criminals to get guns. They get stolen, lost, etcetera. It also means that there are a *lot* of places selling firearms. It's an arms race. It took an entire cold war for people to figure out that more nukes is not the answer. It's the same for guns. Afterall, if I had a nuke I would not use it. It just gives me some security if the other guy has a nuke as well. Therefor me owning a nuke does no contribute to the problem. Now substitute "me" with "iran" or "north korea" in that last sentence. Here in Holland, regular criminals normally don't carry guns. It's very rare when you hear about a gunpoint robbery. The ones that do carry guns are the highly organised criminal organisations and they don't try to rob people on the streets. They have bigger fish to fry. |
| NoDough Mar 20, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
This discussion is nutty. I post a page of current, valid statistics and it's completely ignored. I post a joke, and everyone wants to debate its validity. Sheesh! |
| dinotrac Mar 20, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
NoDough - The problem with statistics, particularly international comparisons, is that they are hard to interpret out of context. I have no idea what the numbers you posted mean. If you go out into the literature, you'll fiind that researchers (as opposed to advocdates) hesitate to avoid international comparisons other than trends. The idea is this: crime defintions and reporting rates -- not to mention differences in urban/rural mix, culture, economics, etc. can vary widely across countries. However, trend comparisons...compare US today with USA ten years ago, Australia with Australia ten years ago, and then compare the trends, is less iffy. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
> . Now substitute "me" with "iran" or "north korea" in that last sentence. Sander, people are not states. The individual is not the collective. Your comparison is invalid. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 20, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
Why? You trust me that I won't use a nuke if I have one, but you don't trust a country not to use them when they have them? For the purpose of the arms race example it's perfectly valid. |
| dinotrac Mar 20, 2007 10:05 AM EDT |
>Afterall, if I had a nuke I would not use it. The biggest problem with that argument is that people do use guns every day in every nation. I hope that doesn't become true of nuclear weapons. So far, they are uniquely unusable. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2007 11:30 AM EDT |
> Why? A person is far more likely to die from a gunshot wound that a country to die from a single nuke, just for starters. |
| Abe Mar 20, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:I hope that doesn't become true of nuclear weapons Mau Tsi Tung once said "The Atomic bomb is a paper tiger". Let's hope it remains so. But, to be on the safe side and be sure, nuclear weapons should be totally dismantled and the countries with the largest stock pile should start first. An international watch dog committee should be in place to insure that hapens. It is the survival of humanity that is at stake. |
| jimf Mar 20, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
> the survival of humanity that is at stake When did that ever concern anyone? |
| dinotrac Mar 20, 2007 12:05 PM EDT |
>nuclear weapons should be totally dismantled and the countries with the largest stock pile should start first. You need to keep up with the times...or rather, with history. The countries with the largest stock piles have already started first. One of the Ronald Reagan's crowing achievements was a disarmament treaty with the old Soviet Union under which many nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been destroyed. |
| SFN Mar 20, 2007 12:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:One of the Ronald Reagan's crowing achievements was a disarmament treaty with the old Soviet Union under which many nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been destroyed.Another would be getting the rest of the country to call his wife "mommy" too. |
| jimf Mar 20, 2007 12:21 PM EDT |
> many nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been destroyed. Yup. To make way for the next generation of smaller, more efficent, and more tasked ones. |
| Abe Mar 20, 2007 12:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:You need to keep up with the times...or rather, with history. I do Dino, I do. Where is the treaty now? Reagan started but didn't include all the others while it it had momentum. Reagan wanted to replace nuclear with "Star wars" technology. The plan shouldn't be tied to individuals, it should be a constant effort by all who care and there are many who do. You just have to know how to approach them and deal with them the way it is best. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2007 12:28 PM EDT |
> But, to be on the safe side and be sure, nuclear weapons should be totally dismantled and the countries with the largest stock pile should start first. As Dino noted, they did start first, but as to them being totally dismantled, it ain't gonna happen. The trend is in the exact opposite direction with more and more countries gaining nuclear capability. If a dirt poor, non-technological country like North Korea can get nukes, any country can. In fact, a number of businesses probably could. And would you put it past Microsoft to build/buy a couple of nukes, just in case they got threatened by the DOJ again? :) |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 20, 2007 4:44 PM EDT |
Sander, you said, "private gun ownership makes it easy for criminals to get guns. They get stolen, lost, etcetera. It also means that there are a *lot* of places selling firearms." Since you enjoy international comparisons, let's look at Northern Ireland. A closed, controlled environment, with every port and every access under government control. No legal firearms manufacturing, and plenty of surveillance both public and private. Yet firearms were continually available. I can whole-heartedly suggest the book _Unintended Consequences_ by John Ross. See if you can scare up a copy, maybe through inter-library loan if they do that where you live. I cannot suggest it strongly enough with mere printed words. Read only the first half of it, and you will fully understand why people defend "gun rights". If you are interested in the scholarly efforts in this area, you could start with _The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy_, by David B. Kopel. He compares international gun control, which seems to be something you enjoy doing. But in reply to your assertion, it really goes back to what I and others said earlier in this thread: Holland and the US are different places. Even when there was no gun control at all in either country, the crime rates were very different. If you remove drug-related inner-city violence from the US statistics, you will find that the US compares very well even with Holland in terms of violent crime. But for that I blame the War On Some Drugs, not drugs, just as I don't blame guns for the uses people make of them. Jdixon, Microsoft doesn't have to buy any nukes, they can just buy the prosecutors and judges and politicians, just like they did last time. Much cheaper. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2007 6:36 PM EDT |
> Microsoft doesn't have to buy any nukes, they can just buy the prosecutors and judges and politicians, Bob: True, but you just know one of these days Ballmer is going to get tired of only throwing chairs. |
| jimf Mar 20, 2007 7:46 PM EDT |
> Microsoft doesn't have to buy any nukes, they can just buy the prosecutors and judges and politicians, I'm just afraid that one day we'll wake up to find they're supplying the software that run the nukes.... |
| techiem2 Mar 20, 2007 8:28 PM EDT |
Windows NE? (Nuclear Edition) |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 21, 2007 5:16 AM EDT |
jimf, I'll try to scare up the story about the navy ships being run by MS Windows. Oh, they decry, but we take really good care of it! Windows glitch puts Aegis Cruiser dead in the water: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea... http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/18007/18007.h... Bill Gates makes a lot of money investing in the Navy http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=490 It worked so well on the Aegis, let's put it on a nuclear aircraft carrier! http://www.gcn.com/print/vol19_no27/2868-1.html |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 21, 2007 5:18 AM EDT |
Just to follow up, the most interesting thing about the results of the Google search for "navy runs windows" is that all the results are older. None more recent than Win2K. Hmmm..... |
| jdixon Mar 21, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
> None more recent than Win2K. Bob, the last thing you want if for your weapons control system to suddenly go to "reduced functionality mode". Unless they can find a way around that, I don't see XP or Vista being used. |
| jimf Mar 21, 2007 8:33 AM EDT |
Pity the poor poor Brits on their new Windows powered cruiser :( |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 21, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
JD, _my_ weapons systems won't. :^) I also won't use an M-16, same reason. But to suggest that intelligence or experience drives government procurement is to demonstrate a profound lack of information about government procurement processes. Why did the Challenger blow up? Because politicians from Utah wanted the rockets built there, which means they couldn't be built in one piece, then they had to be linked back together in a cluster-puck that was eventually going to fail. It did, and that is simply one example of an endless list that goes back as far as government procurement. Two things you never want to watch being made: Sausage and legislation. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!