Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 2:41pm
Re: Blah blah blah
Er.. WHAT????? My original point, which was not responding to you, is that the statistics suggest otherwise than "millions of gunowners daily prove..." and my the point of my response to you was that, like most other things, proper education and training usually work better than banning things but that trying to dismiss any link between the amount of guns in the US and the problems they cause so cavalierly is not supported by such evidence as exists.
Your ranting and completely mis-paraphrasing notwithstanding, I do not believe that there is any direct link between the amount of gun ownership and the amount of, say, homicide but I also don't think it helps anything to try and pretend there is no link at all.
If you want to reply again, you might try relating it to what I actually said rather than your chosen talking points.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 12:54pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and if you ban cars there will be fewer deaths by car accident.
True as far as it goes, but I in no way suggested guns (or cars) should be banned. I just said that logic suggests something wrong with the US approach. In fact mostly the car example supports my point. Look at traffic deaths globally. Note especially the statistics per 100,000 vehicles - i.e. those somewhat normalised - that suggest that countries with stronger traffic enforcement and/or better mandated driver training tend to have less traffic deaths rather than those with less cars.
The point is that there are similar rates of violent crime. Getting rid of guns doesn't do much, if anything at all, to save lives.
Again, you're the one saying "ban guns", not me. I do think there are sensible things that could be mandated short of banning that might make sense... locked, safe storage, storing ammunition separately etc... nothing that stops you owning a weapon just mandating some basic common sense about how they are kept.
As for "similar rates of violent crime", well possibly. This table doesn't include the US for some reason but a bit of poking around suggests the US is somewhere around 6th on that list, ie somewhere around the Ukraine for murder rates. Not necessarily or even probably related directly to guns, but it hardly supports your point either.
It does, however, help the government if they decide they want to abuse their power and ignore the popular will.
The US government is visibly doing that almost every day so when are you going to start using all those guns then? What's the magic "abuse"? Again, I'm not against gun ownership at all, but this has to be the lamest justification for it I've seen.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 11:14am
Re:
Any sane person will...
Great, now all that needs to happen is for some sane people to be involved in any relevant decision... holding of breath is not recommended since the US government is involved.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:43am
Re: Re: Re:
Tackling real problems takes real effort and money.
Well yes, but in many cases not nearly as much as is urinated up the wall in stupid stunts to "do something about" whatever it is instead of actually fixing it.
The problem is not money, and it's not really effort either. The problem is that actually fixing thigs usually falls into either or both of the following categories:
1/ Most ways to actually fix something are usually unpopular with and/or negatively financially impact a significant part of the population. Since most people ultimately only hear the soundbites, this is tantamount to political suicide and therefore not usually popular among politicians.
2/ Most of the rest of the ways to actually fix things will negatively impact some major industry and said industry will make sure it has "contributed" to enough political campaigns. Given that's it's all but impossible to get elected without significant chunks of money, going against a major industry's wishes is also typically tantamount to political suicide and in fact worse career suicide as then they don't even get a cushy job in industry after political life. This is even less popular than option 1.
Of course many of the best real solutions hit both of the above and you therefore have a better chance of winning the lottery 3 straight weeks than seeing one happen...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Jan 2013 @ 10:28am
Re:
Remind me again of why it's so bad that a website dedicated to infringement, [snip]should have its [snip]
Well I have no idea what site you're referring to, but I'm guessing Mike's problem with it is the same as mine and is the bit that you missed out, probably deliberately.
Unless you're speaking of a prosecution I haven't heard about, you missed out the word allegedly. You know? That pesky thing that's supposed to be the basis of most western law called "innocent until proven guilty"?
I don't have any problem with infringing websites being taken down, and judging by the way he writes neither does Mike, but I do have a problem with a business being destroyed on an accusation.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 1:21pm
And so on...
The laws are so broad, and written in such a way that makes so little sense, it's quite easy for a prosecutor who wants to bring someone down to figure out a way to make them look like a felon
It's not just computer laws... look around the west... terrorism, libel in the UK, copyright of course, obsenity laws, "racially motivated voilence" laws, and of course the US ever popular RICO and patriot acts... basically:
Western Government: "You are guilty, but we magnanimously decide not to prosecute unless you annoy us... erm... do something really bad."
But the author is talking about the way laws work versus how real life workss and the dichotomy of too much visibility of people's day-to-day lives. It is firmly illegal to expose yourself in public, whether you are taking a leak or not and yet, as he and I pointed out, it is unlikely that even the most conservative person would complain on seeing it.
Consider these scenarios:
1/ Guy goes behind tree in park at night, whips his tackle out and takes a leak. Person passing by sees him taking a leak.
2/ Guy goes behind tree in park at night, whips his tackle out then steps out as person passes by. No threats, just stands there exposing himself.
In both cases by the law the same crime is committed: indecent exposure. Now assume the person who happens to see in each case is a police officer. In case 1 there's a good chance that nothing more happens - the police officer carries on their way, or maybe "cautions" the guy to be more careful where he relieves himself.
In case 2, the chances of the guy not being arrested are slim.
This is exactly what is referred to as a "benign breaking of the law" and the point being made is this:In scenario 1, it is the police officer's discretion that no arrest occurs, though a crime has been committed.
Now scale that up and imagine that there is documented proof of everyone who ever took a leak in public or went skinny dipping in college, or smoked a joint just to see what it was like, or brought in an extra bottle of alchohol duty free through customs. Now everyone can be prosecuted and locked up at the whims of law enforcement for doing nothing that society does not consider benign.
Imagine that you were suspected of, let's say, an assault. There's no proof, you are just the prime suspect. Now, if they want, they can "get you off the streets to protect decent people" any time they like for the myriad tiny laws you've broken - they don't need proof of what you're supposed to be locked up for, because they have the proof of all that other stuff. That's what it's talking about. To say that "benign lawbreaking" doesn't exist, or to think that excessive surveillance isn't a problem is seriously ignoring reality.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 12:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It can't be. I never said it could be. I never addressed the question of prostitution.
OK, so when you said:
The fatal error that the author makes is that there can be a "benign" violation of law or taboo. This is false.
What you meant was:
"There's no such thing as a 'benign' violation of law or taboo of the laws and taboos I'm now going to cherrypick to support my sweeping and binary-state assertion."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 12:07pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The harm never existed. They were never valid laws. What was considered is irrelevant.
Except such an argument completely ignores the very good points Ninja made above and is a ludicrously narrow and binary view of "lawful" and "unlawful".
Explain the "harm", and therefore by your argument validity, in taking a leak behind a bush in public. That would get you arrested for public indecency if seen by an officer of the law, but probably no more than a disaproving "tut" if even the most conservative old lady were to see you.
Explain how "harm", and therefore validity, can be geographic. Prostitution is as I understand it, legal in a few states in the US but not in most. How does harm happen by driving 10 miles?
In the UK people have been arrested for calling someone the "N" word... and yet in some black areas it can almost become a term of endearment.
Laws have the context of life and are never, ever, black and white no matter how much you or law enforcement may try and pretend they are.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Jan 2013 @ 10:58am
Re:
this is also what happens when stupid old farts that are more concerned with appearing to do 'good' than actually 'doing good' are let loose on technology that they dont and dont want to understand.
To paraphrase:
This is what happens when Politicians. (Note: Not "when politicians do" anything in particular, just "when Politicians"...)
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Jan 2013 @ 4:27pm
Re:
to vote and vote for something that means something
Hmm I seem to remember reading somewhere that a certain Mr Obama campaigned on, among other things, transparency for government. So it would seem that perhaps people did "vote for something that means something" to them, it just turned out that their votes didn't really mean anything at all...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Jan 2013 @ 4:01pm
Re: Re:
Or, the cold war would end 20 years later
But you still wouldn't be allowed to use the terms "atom bomb", "nuclear bomb", "bikini" or "mushroom cloud" or make any films with those things in 'til 2037....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Jan 2013 @ 3:53pm
Can't resist
Disney suddenly running into issues over the possibility that patents might block it from doing something it wants to do.
I know it's really shallow and everything, but considering this is disney somehow the urge is just irresistable...
Ha ha hahahaha hahhaaaaaa hahaa haha hahaahahahahahahahahaha haaaaaa ha ha haaaaaaaaa
Oh please, if there is any kind of justice in the universe, pleeeease let this come to pass that we do not have to suffer "Pinocchio 3D: Revenge of the Nose"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Jan 2013 @ 11:51am
Re: Cockpit Electronics
I got my private pilot's license way back in 1984.. since then, we've had available to us in the cockpit many of the EXACT SAME forbidden devices.
Yeah.... but everyone knows that the manufacturers of private aircraft spend a fortune on EMP-shielding all thecontrols against electronic interference compared to a large airliner costing 10's of millions..... right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Jan 2013 @ 2:58pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright
Isn't part of the argument that there are not enough creative elements to make it copyrightable?
Given the number of re-makes, re-hashes, "based-on"'s and sequels coming out of hollywood, I'm struggling to see the difference there between porn and mainstream cinema...
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Blah blah blah
Your ranting and completely mis-paraphrasing notwithstanding, I do not believe that there is any direct link between the amount of gun ownership and the amount of, say, homicide but I also don't think it helps anything to try and pretend there is no link at all.
If you want to reply again, you might try relating it to what I actually said rather than your chosen talking points.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, you're the one saying "ban guns", not me. I do think there are sensible things that could be mandated short of banning that might make sense... locked, safe storage, storing ammunition separately etc... nothing that stops you owning a weapon just mandating some basic common sense about how they are kept.
As for "similar rates of violent crime", well possibly. This table doesn't include the US for some reason but a bit of poking around suggests the US is somewhere around 6th on that list, ie somewhere around the Ukraine for murder rates. Not necessarily or even probably related directly to guns, but it hardly supports your point either.
The US government is visibly doing that almost every day so when are you going to start using all those guns then? What's the magic "abuse"? Again, I'm not against gun ownership at all, but this has to be the lamest justification for it I've seen.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Limits Bradley Manning's Ability To Use Whistleblower Defense
Re:
On the post: Another Legislator Hops On Board The 'Violent Video Game' Bandwagon; Introduces Redundant Labeling Bill
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is not money, and it's not really effort either. The problem is that actually fixing thigs usually falls into either or both of the following categories:
1/ Most ways to actually fix something are usually unpopular with and/or negatively financially impact a significant part of the population. Since most people ultimately only hear the soundbites, this is tantamount to political suicide and therefore not usually popular among politicians.
2/ Most of the rest of the ways to actually fix things will negatively impact some major industry and said industry will make sure it has "contributed" to enough political campaigns. Given that's it's all but impossible to get elected without significant chunks of money, going against a major industry's wishes is also typically tantamount to political suicide and in fact worse career suicide as then they don't even get a cushy job in industry after political life. This is even less popular than option 1.
Of course many of the best real solutions hit both of the above and you therefore have a better chance of winning the lottery 3 straight weeks than seeing one happen...
On the post: On This Internet Freedom Day, Download A Free Book: On Internet Freedom
Re:
Unless you're speaking of a prosecution I haven't heard about, you missed out the word allegedly. You know? That pesky thing that's supposed to be the basis of most western law called "innocent until proven guilty"?
I don't have any problem with infringing websites being taken down, and judging by the way he writes neither does Mike, but I do have a problem with a business being destroyed on an accusation.
On the post: Law Professor James Grimmelmann Explains How He Probably Violated The Same Laws As Aaron Swartz
And so on...
Western Government: "You are guilty, but we magnanimously decide not to prosecute unless you annoy us... erm... do something really bad."
On the post: Time Warner's 'Conversation' Website Ditches All Comments; The Conversation Is Just Them To You
Re: Sorry, couldn't resist
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider these scenarios:
1/ Guy goes behind tree in park at night, whips his tackle out and takes a leak. Person passing by sees him taking a leak.
2/ Guy goes behind tree in park at night, whips his tackle out then steps out as person passes by. No threats, just stands there exposing himself.
In both cases by the law the same crime is committed: indecent exposure. Now assume the person who happens to see in each case is a police officer. In case 1 there's a good chance that nothing more happens - the police officer carries on their way, or maybe "cautions" the guy to be more careful where he relieves himself.
In case 2, the chances of the guy not being arrested are slim.
This is exactly what is referred to as a "benign breaking of the law" and the point being made is this:In scenario 1, it is the police officer's discretion that no arrest occurs, though a crime has been committed.
Now scale that up and imagine that there is documented proof of everyone who ever took a leak in public or went skinny dipping in college, or smoked a joint just to see what it was like, or brought in an extra bottle of alchohol duty free through customs. Now everyone can be prosecuted and locked up at the whims of law enforcement for doing nothing that society does not consider benign.
Imagine that you were suspected of, let's say, an assault. There's no proof, you are just the prime suspect. Now, if they want, they can "get you off the streets to protect decent people" any time they like for the myriad tiny laws you've broken - they don't need proof of what you're supposed to be locked up for, because they have the proof of all that other stuff. That's what it's talking about. To say that "benign lawbreaking" doesn't exist, or to think that excessive surveillance isn't a problem is seriously ignoring reality.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There's no such thing as a 'benign' violation of law or taboo of the laws and taboos I'm now going to cherrypick to support my sweeping and binary-state assertion."
Got it....
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain the "harm", and therefore by your argument validity, in taking a leak behind a bush in public. That would get you arrested for public indecency if seen by an officer of the law, but probably no more than a disaproving "tut" if even the most conservative old lady were to see you.
Explain how "harm", and therefore validity, can be geographic. Prostitution is as I understand it, legal in a few states in the US but not in most. How does harm happen by driving 10 miles?
In the UK people have been arrested for calling someone the "N" word... and yet in some black areas it can almost become a term of endearment.
Laws have the context of life and are never, ever, black and white no matter how much you or law enforcement may try and pretend they are.
On the post: Thank Joe Lieberman For YouTube Accidentally Censoring Key Syrian Watchdog's YouTube Channel
Re:
This is what happens when Politicians. (Note: Not "when politicians do" anything in particular, just "when Politicians"...)
On the post: UK Interim Guidelines And Consultation On Prosecuting Cases Involving Social Networks
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt 2012: The Numbers.
Typo?
On the post: The CIA's 'Hollywood Myth' Debunking Doesn't Stand Up To Even The Slightest Scrutiny
Re:
On the post: Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies
Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies
Can't resist
Ha ha hahahaha hahhaaaaaa hahaa haha hahaahahahahahahahahaha haaaaaa ha ha haaaaaaaaa
Oh please, if there is any kind of justice in the universe, pleeeease let this come to pass that we do not have to suffer "Pinocchio 3D: Revenge of the Nose"
On the post: UK Interim Guidelines And Consultation On Prosecuting Cases Involving Social Networks
Re:
I generally have a pretty broad definition of free speech myself, but to suggest that "anything" is OK is almost as scary as over-limiting it.
On the post: FAA Facing More Pressure To Change Its Rules On Electronic Device Usage
Re: Cockpit Electronics
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Claims Judge 'Abhors' Copyright Holders After Judge Becomes Curious About Who Alan Cooper Really Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright
Next >>