Another one bites the dust
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Aug 19, 2008 1:56 AM EDT |
Hail America for killing yet another new form of media. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 19, 2008 2:14 AM EDT |
You can thank the RIAA more specifically.. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 19, 2008 2:53 AM EDT |
Don't forget the US Government and DoJ (antitrust) for letting RIAA and SoundExchange getting away with it. It's the entire system, not just the RIAA. |
| jdixon Aug 19, 2008 9:16 AM EDT |
> It's the entire system, not just the RIAA. Namely the entire "make a donation to my campaign fund and get special consideration" system. I swear we'd be better off with our legislature randomly picked from the phone book every year. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 19, 2008 10:47 AM EDT |
I can't understand why that's not illegal in the States. Such donations are outlawed throughout most of Europe. And while I don't think that the Dutch political system is the be-all-end-all, it sure is a whole lot more sane and democratic than the US system. |
| azerthoth Aug 19, 2008 11:10 AM EDT |
jdixon that mirrors my opinion that I've held for years. As well as a bar from the political profession for anyone who actively pursues an office. Sure as heck can't be worse than what we get now (U.S.). |
| tuxchick Aug 19, 2008 2:14 PM EDT |
As I recall, limits on US political donations have been shot down by two things: one, making it a free speech issue (I am not making that up), and two, clever runarounds like you can't give more than $foo to a candidate, but you can fund "issue ads" all you want to. Then there are supposedly unaffiliated support groups, which so far have escape any kind of regulation. I don't believe that money is speech. A sack of burning dog doo on a congresscritter's porch- now that is definitely a communication. |
| jdixon Aug 19, 2008 3:40 PM EDT |
> A sack of burning dog doo on a congresscritter's porch- now that is definitely a communication. That would probably be considered a terrorist act now. Given that politicians are a lower life form, I propose a simple hunting season on them to keep the herd healthy and stable. Licenses would be required, of course, and the hunting season strictly enforced. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 19, 2008 5:48 PM EDT |
Quoting: Yes, that's much less likely to be viewed as terrorist activity. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 19, 2008 5:53 PM EDT |
Of course. The NRA will send a horde of lawyers to argue how hunting is not a terrorist activity. |
| jdixon Aug 19, 2008 9:55 PM EDT |
> The RNA will send a horde of lawyers to argue how hunting is not a terrorist activity. I assume that's supposed to be NRA. :) |
| dumper4311 Aug 19, 2008 10:04 PM EDT |
>"a horde of lawyers to argue how hunting is not a terrorist activity." Depends entirely on what you're hunting. Lawyers and politicians? Doesn't sound like terrorism to me, more like pest control. It's a public health issue. :) |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 20, 2008 12:24 AM EDT |
Terrorists? I think that is a little strong for this conversation.. hunting Lawyers and Politicians? Lets rethink the words we are using please. |
| dumper4311 Aug 20, 2008 1:10 AM EDT |
Didn't have to think about the words at all, Shakespeare's idea and all . . . Still, I'll try to be less offensive. If I have to. I guess. :) |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2008 8:18 AM EDT |
> Lets rethink the words we are using please. Sorry Scott. You're correct, this isn't a political forum. I apologize to anyone i might have offended. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 20, 2008 1:56 PM EDT |
I don't think you offended anyone. With all due respect, Scott, I think you are overreacting, nothing was intended to be taken seriously in any of this. However, I also understand if "talking" politics violates the TOS. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 20, 2008 3:14 PM EDT |
I was not offended, its that the conversation was right on the edge of a TOS violation. That is why I said what I did. I do not always agree with the TOS but it does not change the fact I have to defend it. It is one of my main responsibilities as E-i-C and regardless of how I feel I have to do what is right for LXer. If I can't do that, I am not the right person for the job. ;-) |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 20, 2008 3:19 PM EDT |
Understood, you're right on the money. |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2008 5:55 PM EDT |
> ...its that the conversation was right on the edge of a TOS violation. It's an unfortunate aspect of our society that politics and FOSS are intersecting more and more frequently these days. This makes a blanket TOS policy extremely difficult to enforce fairly. :( Speaking as one that's been known to cross the line on occasion: As far as I can tell, you've done a good job so far. |
| NoDough Aug 20, 2008 8:14 PM EDT |
Hmmm. Guns and lawyers. This seems apropos. [humor] 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 |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 21, 2008 1:54 AM EDT |
You think that's bad? Just wait until you read about the dangers of Dihydromonixide! http://www.dhmo.org/ |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 21, 2008 2:39 AM EDT |
Dihydrogen Monoxide, I have to tell you, is quite possibly the most dangerous substance in the known universe.. sorta.. maybe.. and at about 40F in a tall glass, is very refreshing as well... |
| tracyanne Aug 21, 2008 4:44 AM EDT |
quote]* 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.[/quote] It's not the accidents I'm worried about, shit happens sometimes. It's the deliberate gun deaths I'm more worried about, got any stats on those? |
| jdixon Aug 21, 2008 7:15 AM EDT |
> It's the deliberate gun deaths I'm more worried about, got any stats on those? Tracyanne, while I don't have the figures to back this up, I can assure you that a significant majority of the deliberate gun deaths in the US are criminal against criminal, mostly related to the drug trade. I'm sure the figures are readily available, but I don't have time to research the matter right now (minor matters of earning my paycheck and such). |
| tracyanne Aug 21, 2008 9:47 AM EDT |
This factQuoting:* 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. and this assurance Quoting:I can assure you that a significant majority of the deliberate gun deaths in the US are criminal against criminal, mostly related to the drug trade. are both supporting arguments for gun control of the type we have in Australia. Obviously if the majority of gun related deaths are criminal to criminal, then ordinary citizens do not need access to guns. Not having access to guns, except for sanctioned usage (gun clubs, farmers for the removal of vermin and the like, as we have in Australia), would reduce the number and percentage of accidental deaths to almost nil. In addition with ordinary citizens not having access to guns, gun related deaths due to crimes of passion would also be reduced to almost nil. In addition with fewer guns being available, as the retail trade in guns would be seriously curtailed, due to the fact that most people would have no legal reason to own one, guns would be more difficult for the criminals to obtain them, as is the case in Australia. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 21, 2008 10:38 AM EDT |
Hey J, Where those six and nine year olds packing the heat, when they caught one in a street side criminal confrontation? And what about those incidents with babies in cribs catching a mis-directed trajectory? Or is it, when they grew up they too would have been criminals, just clearing a few out a bit early? If so you are the philosopher (guru) that holds a proper place in Candide. This is truly the best of all Worlds. Txt. |
| NoDough Aug 21, 2008 11:48 AM EDT |
Tracyanne, I think you missed the [humor] tag. |
| gus3 Aug 21, 2008 12:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not having access to guns, except for sanctioned usage (gun clubs, farmers for the removal of vermin and the like, as we have in Australia), would reduce the number and percentage of accidental deaths to almost nil.By that logic, not having access to doctors should save lots of lives every year as well. |
| dumper4311 Aug 21, 2008 12:51 PM EDT |
@tracyanne: >"Obviously if the majority of gun related deaths are criminal to criminal, then ordinary citizens do not need access to guns." From someone generally so reasonable, I can't even believe you came up with that. >"would reduce the number and percentage of accidental deaths to almost nil" That's already where those #'s are. Pay attention. More people are killed by cars accidentally in a WEEK than accidentally by guns in any given year. Should we ban those infernal autos? >"gun related deaths due to crimes of passion would also be reduced to almost nil." Yep, that argument makes perfect sense, it's not just as easy to poison, stab, strangle, or bludgeon someone to death or anything. Please. >"guns would be more difficult for the criminals to obtain them" Yep, that's worked really well in the war on drugs, hasn't it. And we all know, criminals don't break the law to get what they want, do they? In countries where "criminals don't have guns", it's because they don't need them to accomplish the same ends - because the populace can't defend themselves effectively. The strong will always take advantage of the weak, my friend, being able to arm oneself for protection just levels the playing field a bit. I'm surprised the liberal fringe isn't all for that, given how much of my money they tend to want to take away and "redistribute" to those more deserving - for the same argument. @TxtEdMacs: Are you paying attention? The six and nine year olds you're wrecking your mental health over are EXACTLY the almost nil statistically mentioned accidental deaths NoDough and jdixon mentioned. Yes it's tragic, but the fact is the leading cause of death is life - sometimes things happen. Your mindless emotion would be much better directed at causes like illicit drug use - including alcohol and tobacco - or automobiles, or those dang freak lightning strikes that mame so many each year. All of which are substantially more dangerous than truly accidental firearms accidents. As for the other firearms related deaths - which most activists are more than happy to falsely classify as "accidents" - how about we try actually ENFORCING THE LAW and PUNISHING CRIMINALS for a change? |
| jdixon Aug 21, 2008 1:08 PM EDT |
> Obviously if the majority of gun related deaths are criminal to criminal, then ordinary citizens do not need access to guns. The majority of gun use by ordinary citizens does not result in deaths. Most gun use by ordinary citizens is for hunting. The majority of the rest is for target shooting or self defense. Even the last normally only results in a wounded or fleeing criminal, not a death. Thus, the legitimate use of firearms largely falls outside these statistics. From that, it should be obvious that your argument does not follow. > Not having access to guns, except for sanctioned usage (gun clubs, farmers for the removal of vermin and the like, as we have in Australia), would reduce the number and percentage of accidental deaths to almost nil. As the statistics quoted above show, they're pretty close to nil right now. > ...gun related deaths due to crimes of passion would also be reduced to almost nil. Gun related deaths, yes. Deaths, no. Unless you want to outlaw knives, baseball bats, crowbars, most household toxic chemicals, lighter fluid, gasoline, etc. > Where those six and nine year olds packing the heat, when they caught one in a street side criminal confrontation?And what about those incidents with babies in cribs catching a mis-directed trajectory? What part of significant majority did you not understand? The key philosophical question wrt gun control is this: What right does anyone have to deny another person the ability to defend themselves? Except for this last comment above, I've tried my best to keep my comments completely factual in nature. This is veering from a factual set of questions and answers about gun usage to a philosophical debate, which I've was doing my best to avoid, as I think everyone knows my position on the matter, and such a discussion would definitely run afoul of the TOS. For that reason, I'll drop the matter. |
| NoDough Aug 21, 2008 1:09 PM EDT |
Ummm. The whole thing was a joke! Can we drop it now, please? |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 21, 2008 4:46 PM EDT |
Dupmper ...Quoting: ... mindless emotion Your presumptions are amiss. Moreover, I suspect you are inventing the statistics. For example, let's say you went on a little trip in a car with some buddies to teach the neighboring gang the meaning of respect for your commercial territory. Let's say with homicidal intentions. So you are a lousy shot and you tend to pull triggers rather than squeezing off your rounds, so you miss your intended target (attempted murder) or you happen to him them (murder in the first degree) if you get lucky. So you just happen to wipe a kid out in the street shoot out instead of your intended victims in a capital crime spree. Now you say that is now counted as an accident? More like murder in the second degree, which the way it is counted if you kill someone (unintentionally) while committing a robbery. Where did you see killings like that counted that way? Can you documented that assertion? During a lynch mob killing maybe, otherwise it does not ring true. Making up facts may be good comedy, but poor analysis. But let's look at it in a different light, let's say that is how it is counted. Then your citation of that bogus statistic is worse than invalid. Those are not accidental deaths. Txt. |
| tracyanne Aug 21, 2008 5:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:The key philosophical question wrt gun control is this: What right does anyone have to deny another person the ability to defend themselves? The question then is how come US citizens need guns to defend themselves and Australians don't? What is it about the US that people need to have guns to defend themselves? |
| NoDough Aug 21, 2008 5:25 PM EDT |
OK, Tracyanne. You forced my hand.Quoting:The question then is how come US citizens need guns to defend themselves and Australians don't? Good question. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-tota... |
| number6x Aug 21, 2008 5:35 PM EDT |
Boy, the US has a long way to go. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-cri... Its not even in the top 10. We in Chicago are doing our part by killing lots of innocent children in gang crossfire. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-teen-deaths-mas... Why won't the rest of my compatriots do their part and help America go for the proverbial Gold? |
| tracyanne Aug 21, 2008 5:36 PM EDT |
From the articleQuoting:DEFINITION: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." Which pretty much sums up my experience, I don't know anyone who wouldn't report a crime, whether they are the victim or not. But when you don't have ready access to a gun, even when you legally own one, I suppose you don't have much choice but to rely on the police to do their job. So the question is still there, what is it about the US that makes it necessary that US citizens own guns for protection when Australians don't need them? |
| dumper4311 Aug 21, 2008 5:40 PM EDT |
@txt: quoted from: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209 Anti-gun activists exaggerate the number of firearm-related deaths among children more than 500%, by counting deaths among persons under the age of 20 as deaths of "children."5 To these activists a 19-year-old gangster who is shot by police during a convenience store robbery is a "child." In some instances, they even have pretended that persons under the age of 25 were "children," and Handgun Control, Inc., on at least one occasion, pretended that anyone under the age of 35 was a "child."6 Check the footnotes for sources. Also on this page, search for Australia - specifically Fable XIII. Maybe tracyanne would care to reevaluate her position? Other material you may want to peruse, as the numbers tell a much more honest story than your rant: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120 http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=4... @NoDough: Not a joke to everyone, I guess. But I did think that was funny the first time I saw it. Still, it's obvious there's not much room for rational debate on the subject, so I'll drop it as well. |
| alc Aug 21, 2008 7:30 PM EDT |
So....getting back on topic.Are Lawyers and Politicians in season or not? |
| NoDough Aug 21, 2008 7:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:So the question is still there, what is it about the US that makes it necessary that US citizens own guns for protection when Australians don't need them? Ooh! Here's another one. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra... |
| jdixon Aug 21, 2008 9:42 PM EDT |
> What is it about the US that people need to have guns to defend themselves? Ok, a simple factual question, which I'll do my best to answer in like manner. The US is widely recognized as having a more violent culture than most of the rest of the world. As some European newspapers pointed out, Timothy McVeigh would have been unlikely to exist in any other culture. There are obviously both benefits and drawbacks to such a culture. From a historical perspective, when the US was founded and for over a century thereafter there were constant skirmishes with the Indians, and guns were also needed for both hunting and protection from predators (mountain lion, bear, and wolf). So for much of our history guns have been a necessity for a significant portion of the population. There's also the fact that, like it or not (and many people don't), our government does not have the authority to ban gun ownership. That's explicitly stated in our Constitution and was just recently reaffirmed by our highest court. The fact that it's the second listed limitation on our government (after freedom of speech and religion) should give you some idea of it's relative importance to the population at the time. |
| tracyanne Aug 21, 2008 11:21 PM EDT |
Fable 8 is not a fable it's a true and accurate statement. The question still remains "what is it about the US that makes it necessary that US citizens own guns for protection when Australians don't need them?" |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2008 12:45 AM EDT |
> ...what is it about the US that makes it necessary that US citizens own guns for protection when Australians don't need them?" Well, the assumption that Australians don't need them is just that, an assumption. It's up to you to demonstrate the validity of that assumption before you can expect to convince someone. To give you an example of just how hard doing so may be, the charts at http://www.halls.md/chart/height-weight.htm indicate that the average white male at age 40 is about 5 inches taller than average white female and outweighs her by 40 lbs. Given that, do you really think the average woman can defend herself against the average male without a gun? |
| gus3 Aug 22, 2008 12:55 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: Because our nation was born in revolt against the Crown. Such a revolt may need to happen again someday. Two hundred thirty-two years ago, some of the criminals wore red uniforms. Today, some of them wear blue, with badges. @jdixon: As a follow-on to what you said, consider upon which bodies the First and Second Amendments are binding: First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..." However, an individual may negotiate on First Amendment rights with other parties, particularly private parties (individuals or corporations). Think about an NDA in this context. Second Amendment: "...shall not be infringed," with no governmental body named. Period, full stop, end of sentence. As worded, it is binding upon all civil authority. Ain't it interesting how so many people consider Free Speech to be inviolable, but not self-defense? |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 22, 2008 1:44 AM EDT |
Wow, I'm Impressed, please stop.. ;-) Here's the thing, its not expressly for bidden in the TOS but for the better part of this thread now the subject has turned to Law, Gun Laws and such. LXer is about news relating to Open Source Software, not guns. Now I know that conversations are conversations but this thread isn't about anything relating to FOSS anymore. Anyway, I said my piece. |
| hkwint Aug 22, 2008 4:03 PM EDT |
Yeah, why are you folks discussing guns on a Linux news site? OK, I know the answer, because you just happen to like discussing guns on a Linux news site. But that's not what LXer is intended for. Do you know how many code / documentation / reviews you could have written while discussing guns? OK, I said my piece too. |
| NoDough Aug 22, 2008 4:18 PM EDT |
>> "Do you know how many code / documentation / reviews you could have written while discussing guns?" Maybe I'll give it a shot. Sorry for the bad pun. It really wasn't my aim. Dang it! I keep going off half cocked. I'll have to set my sites on something else. |
| number6x Aug 22, 2008 4:23 PM EDT |
in the 2004 US presidential elections there were many articles about the type of software candidates were using to host there web sites. In the current 2008 elections there seems to be much less coverage about this. I get the feeling that most people could care less, even if a few of us geeks think it is important. How do the folks here at LXer feel? Are you interested in learning more about the Internet infrastructure of various candidates, or do you think it is just a side issue? I think that Open Source and Free Software can play a large role for good in social organizations, but can it make a difference in big money political campaigns as well? |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 22, 2008 7:26 PM EDT |
number6x: I think it's a side issue server-wise. It's just back-end supplied by an external party anyway. If I were you I'd care more about what they use on the front side of the website. Start worrying if it's one big Silverlight add. Start clapping if they make extensive use of FOSS CMS systems, Ogg Vorbis/Theora and CC-licensed content showing that they really care. Anything in between is just implementation details from whomever their webdeveloper is. |
| dumper4311 Aug 22, 2008 7:39 PM EDT |
@sander: Do the campaigns have that much input into the tools used on the front side? I would have assumed (not having a clue myself about it) that they'd provide raw content - a "message" as it were - and the web dev would implement that in whatever tool they chose to use. Rather than what tools they use, I'd be interested to know if any of the campaign interests had actually given it (the specific technology used) some thought. |
| jdixon Aug 23, 2008 9:21 AM EDT |
> Do you know how many code / documentation / reviews you could have written while discussing guns? That assumes I competent to code/document/review, which is a debatable matter. :( > I'll have to set my sites on something else. For this particular usage, that should be sights. :) Let's see, how did we get on this tangent anyway. Oh, yes. Internet radio and it's being effectively shutdown by politics. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 24, 2008 7:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:Rather than what tools they use, I'd be interested to know if any of the campaign interests had actually given it (the specific technology used) some thought. Probably not, which is why I said that you only need to look at the extremes. If you see a campaign that is either a big MS/Silverlight ad or a campaign that puts FOSS/CC front-and-center then you can probably expect that the campaign interests to have thought about it. Anything else and you're probably looking at indifference and it was just left up to the web developers. |
| hkwint Aug 24, 2008 12:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Are you interested in learning more about the Internet infrastructure of various candidates, or do you think it is just a side issue? Rather find out how they think about ODF as mandatory for Defense or not. For example, for NATO ODF is now mandatory (because Dutch defense asked them. Dutch defense did something good, yay!) And of course, how much did Microsoft contribute to the elections? Are contributions public? Yeah, that would be interesting food. Almost everybody can #nmap -PN -vv -O, not? |
| NoDough Aug 24, 2008 4:22 PM EDT |
Yes, contributions are made public. But, I'm not sure where they are posted. Usually, MS and their ilk will contribute to both campaigns. That way no matter who wins MS can go to them for "favors." |
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!