- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Pandora can't make money, may pull the plug
|
|
|
Comments (53)
33 earlier comments in the full thread.
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?
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?
From the article
"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?
Quoting: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?
@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.
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.
So....getting back on topic.Are Lawyers and Politicians in season or not?
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...
> 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.
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.
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?"
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?"
> ...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?
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?
@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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
OK, I said my piece too.
>> "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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
@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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
Usually, MS and their ilk will contribute to both campaigns. That way no matter who wins MS can go to them for "favors."
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Good question. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-tota...