Well, I'd be with you if the government was poking around on the users' computers, but they weren't. The users were hosting the files on a public peer-to-peer network where you essentially advertise to the world you've downloaded the file and are making it available to the world. Since both those acts are illegal, you don't really have an expectation of privacy once you've told *everyone* you've done it. While the broadcasting of the file's availability doesn't prove you have criminal intent, it's certainly probable cause for further investigation.
These guys got off on a narrow technicality. Of course technicalities do matter; a government that isn't restrained by laws is inherently despotic. The agents simply misunderstood the law; they weren't violating anyone's privacy.
Compare that to some of the ST:TNG props that I've seen that look fine on screen, but when examined closely look like someone gave a 5-year old a couple of shots of vodka and turned them loose with a paintbrush.
There's a certain wonder to that too.
I had the same reaction when I saw the ST:TNG props in person. You wouldn't buy a toy that looked that cheesy. The wonder of it is that the prop makers knew this piece of crap would look great onscreen. That's professional skill at work. Amateurs lavish loving care on stuff and overbuild them. Pros make them good enough, and put the extra effort into stuff that matters more.
These kinds of responses are conditioned on certain assumptions that may not hold for all users.
For example, let's assume that you have no need whatsoever to prevent other users from using your gun. Then any complication you add to the firearm will necessarily make it less suitable, no matter how reliable that addition is. An example of someone on this end of the spectrum might be a big game hunter who carries a backup handgun.
On the other hand suppose you have need of a firearm, but there is so much concern that someone else might use it without authorization that you reasonably decide to do without. In that opposite situation you might well tolerate quite a high failure rate in such a device because it makes it possible to carry a gun. An example of someone on this end of the spectrum might be a prison guard -- prison guards do not carry handguns because of precisely this concern.
This isn't rocket science. It's all subject to a straightforward probabilistic analysis *of a particular scenario*. People who say that guns *always* must have a such a device are only considering one set of scenarios. People who say that guns must *never* have such a device are only considering a different set of scenarios. It's entirely possible that for such a device there are some where it is useful and others where it is not.
No one said you couldn't. But no one has previous printed such a large piece, so precise, and so fast. Its an engineering milestone, not the discovery of radioactivity.
If todays geeks were alive to see the first model t the'd be bitching about how much better other cars were, and how it was nothing new. The new-ness is how it was made and how cheaply it was made.
If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, those 14000-19000 nonfatal injuries and the hundreds of fatal injuries from accidental shootings would be reduced by at least an order of magnitude - lives would be saved.
The number of firearms accidents is statistical noise. Anyone making a great hue and cry about them is clearly not actually concerned with gun accidents, but is trying to use them to veil a prohibitionist agenda.
If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, the 60,000 to 2,500,000 annual incidents of firearms self-defense (yes, huge error bars) would be reduced -- more people would be murdered, raped, and robbed from. Lives would be lost.
Also, of course, enforcing a prohibition law ipso facto means locking people in cages for acts that do not credibly threaten the rights of others. Liberty would be lost.
Here in the civilised world...murder rates and prison populations are proportionally tiny compared to the USA.
Folks in Mexico, Philippines, and Brazil might take exception to being called "uncivilized".
Yes, we have more violence than other wealthy nations. We also have more of a problem with an unaddressed legacy of slavery and segregation, ongoing racism, ongoing economic injustice, and lack of access to useful mental health care than those nations do. Those factors have far more to do with our violence problem than access to firearms does.
> Too many kids show up with nothing, or nothing of any nutritional value, because the parent can't or won't prepare a lunch..
In a school district like that, there's so many kids on the dole that they are all getting a free lunch anyways. It's easier on the school district that way.
> My point is, if atheism is a valid belief/religion, then stealing should be an ethically (but not legally) okay profession. That is, atheism supports the path of the sociopath.
This is the problem with Xianity in particular. It believes that all people are fundementally evil (original sin) and that people need religion and the promise of severe retribution as a crutch. It doesn't allow for the possibility that people could develop or mature morally.
It's kind of "anti-StarTrek" if you think about it.
Plus you have the modern fundie movement that thinks that you have to be a blithering mindless moron vulnerable to the next cult leader to come down the line.
This is VERY "anti-StarTrek" if you think about it.
Europe has had 2000 years of that kind of indoctrination. It's a wonder the entire continent isn't a backwards idiot ridden Sodom and Gamorrah.
> A religious person says: I believe in God.
>
> An atheist says: You shouldn't because you can't prove it
No. You're projecting. You're trying to conflate what YOU would do with what some "other" would do. You are engaging in a common fundie tactic of pretending your own fault is that of your "enemy".
You assume that atheists "give a fuck". They generally don't. They really only have an interest when some theocrat jackass wants to impose their beliefs on everyone around them.
> What about non-religious people forcing their views onto you or other people?
This only manifests in preventing theocrats from running around like members of ISIS forcing their views on everyone else. We have certain laws and founding ideals that are contrary to the theocrat mentality.
> really? to me it seems more that the athiests are trying to prove something to the others on how superior they are.
In truth, it is Tea Baggers that do most of that. They are the most numerous and most visible of any of this kind of thing. They insist on pushing their beliefs on everyone (including other Xians).
An atheist or two pointing out that you are breaking your own rules is not nearly as obnoxious as you make it out to be.
According to CDC's WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S.
And according to that same source, for 2012, there were 8,974,762 non-fatal accidental injuries from falls. Floors are dangerous. 2,145,927 from cutting or piercing objects, 972,923 from poisoning, 423,138 from fire, 357,629 from dog bites...
Heck, there were 58,363 from "nature/environment", which includes "exposure to adverse natural and environmental conditions (such as severe heat, severe cold, lightning, sunstroke, large storms, and natural disasters) as well as lack of food or water." Nature will hurt you with more probability than guns will.
But yours is a common mistake people make when talking about guns, because they just don't know (or care) about the actual numbers.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Numbers are meaningless without context for comparison. By any rational comparison with other things that can hurt you, firearms accidents are rare.
Evolutionary selection pressures never stop.
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any long-term evolutionary advantage for a species. Horseshoe crabs have been rocking along on tiny brains for about three orders of magnitude longer than Homo sapiens has been around.
technology is merely a tool.
Wow sounds like you have actually read 1984. Big brother is an unseen but omnipresent demigod who will strap a live rat to your face if he sees you doing something he doesn't like. 'Animal Farm' is a more accurate criticism of the modern democratic state that arises from the revolutionary ashes of such demigods..
Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!
