by Confused (34234)

>If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.

Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.

Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.

The second part is that burglars and petty thievery becomes much more serious, when they're caught with a weapon, as it then becomes armed delicts, which increases the jail time a lot. So many criminals decide not to risk that, plus the hassles of being caught with a weapon.

In addition to all of that, if weapons are banned, organising one becomes more difficult. So no more just whipping out the gun from grannies drawer when you want to teach someone a lesson, you need first to find a dealer you can trust, the stuff is more expensive, you risk legal trouble while buying the weapon and so on. Until one's done with all that, a lot of momentum is gone and most but the very dedicated won't bother with it.

But all of this is moot anyway, because handguns are a sacred cow in the USA and no amount of reasoning and real life experience in other parts of the world will change the mind of the public.

Clarification of Options by IorDMUX (870522)

One tab: I sat down with Slashdot in mind, and got right to work.

2-5 tabs: I'm doing normal-esque internet browsing.

6-10 tabs: Heavy internet browsing, with a mix of forums thrown in for good measure.

11-20 tabs: Outta' my way, I'm a man on a mission! (Likely either trying to fix code in an obscure language or learn scripting for a PC game, I'm hitting the forums hard.)

Over 20 tabs: Porn.

None, I don't use browsers: Uphill, both ways.

My browser doesn't support tabs, you insensitive clod: ASCII porn.

by blahplusplus (757119)

"But 'going without' seems to not be part of today's vocabulary...."

There is a fundamental, philosophical, problem with the traditional means of distribution: the product is abundant.

Cars are not abundant. It takes a significant expenditure of materials and effort to put one together. When I drive off in one, I cannot simply dupe it and give the dupe to my friend. The laws of physics dictate a level of scarcity to this good, and as such it makes perfect sense to expect to receive money from every person who obtains a car.

The world of "data" follows different laws of physics. Once I have the data in my hot little hands, I can dupe it and give it to my friends at zero direct cost to the producer. There is no deprivation of use nor loss of mineral resources nor expenditure of manpower nor anything of the sort on the part of the original developer when I dupe the game. None. And I can keep duplicating this ad infinitum, at the same cost (of zero). Furthermore, my friends can do the same thing with the copy I gave them...there is no quality loss. Once the good exists, it can instantly exist everywhere. It is "abundant."

So, since data follows these laws (rather than the laws of physics as they apply to physical goods) people feel like they are being cheated when they are asked to pretend like data follows the laws of physical matter. They feel like they are buying into a game of control that is unfounded in reality and ultimately to their detriment (since they have to pay money for something that doesn't cost anything to produce *at this point* (excluding initial development costs).

I think that is the crux of the issue. We all know the good is abundant, and we all feel like pretending it is not abundant is just silly, and harmful to us (our money is valuable and if we can get games for free then we have optimized our entertainment budget and have more money left over to spend on things like real cars or educations for our kids or what-have-you).

What about the potential sale that we are "stealing" by copying a game? We tend to respond to such a representation of the situation with great cynicism. We feel like the only reason you feel entitled to every single "potential sale" is because of your insistence in everyone pretending that an abundant good is not abundant. We also feel that the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism doesn't guarantee a ROI on any kind of development project, so when you pound your fist in frustration at your inability to monetize your efforts we just say, "so try something else...thats what every other entrepreneur in the world has had to do...what makes you special? If you can't make money making games, do something else, and stop whining." That is the same answer we get when we complain about being downsized, or having low-paying jobs, or what-have-you...so we are just responding in turn.

Lastly...the age-old mantra that if you can't get money for every copy of a game sold then nobody will produce games. I call BS. Piracy has been alive and well since before the computer games industry even existed...and since long before DRM existed...and the games industry thrived anyway. And it still thrives, despite the continued piracy. Enough people pay for the games (even though they don't have to) that the industry remains profitable. If that model suddenly stops working, alternative models will take its place (subscription-based games and so on). If that doesn't work, and we actually reach a state of utter cultural impoverishment where no games (or music or movies, for that matter) are being produced because nobody can figure out how to make a living doing it (and no hobbiests manage to churn out anything but crap)...which I maintain is an economic impossibility...but if it actually does occur THEN it might make sense to talk about legislation...and there would be a conscious buy-in to the legislation from the masses who are hungry for cultural enrichment. However, this has not happened, and I therefore submit that it makes no sense to try to preemptively pass laws based on the premise that it might happen (given that it is unlikely and that the situation could be remedied after the fact anyway).

by panda (10044)

The real problem is that Greenspan and Bernanke seem to have failed both basic economics and remedial math. Also, they must have been absent on the day that Keynesian monetary policy was explained.

As unpopular as it may be with some people, what you are seeing today are the fruits of Reagan-era economic policy, "Reaganomics" or as G.H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo Economics."

Basically, the Fed. has kept their lending rates artificially low for the past 20+ years. They have kept this rate well below the rate of inflation. Banks are paying and charging interest using this rate as the basis, since this rate essentially determines the "cost" of money.

Keeping this rate below the inflation rate encourages spending and borrowing rather than savings. After all, why save at 1% when inflation is 8% and you can borrow at 6%? By borrowing now, you can increase your buying power immediately, and get more for the same amount of money, instead of losing money in a savings account.

That's all fine, assuming your wages increase along with the inflation rate, but for most people, they haven't. When wages are not increasing to match the rate of inflation, then people are effectively getting a cut in pay and can afford to buy less stuff. (Obvious, right, but many people need this simple fact explained to them.)

So, as mentioned above, the low Fed. rates encourage borrowing, and even with the modest income increases most people can afford to keep on borrowing, but only for so long. Unless wages make a dramatic increase, borrowing consumers reach the point where they have borrowed all that they can afford to borrow. They reach the point where they are making minimum payments on their loans, paying bills, and for food, energy and other essentials, and there is no money left over. Upon reaching this point, even the most obtuse consumers will cut back on spending and borrowing. Those who don't will default and go bankrupt, whether they file papers to seek bankruptcy protection or not, they will for all intents and purposes be bankrupt.

This is, essentially, what has happened to the U.S. economy. The orgy of spending and borrowing has ended because the sun has come up and all the drunkards are staggering home after the party with massive hangovers.

This is also why injecting $700 billion to buy "bad" debt won't solve a thing. Even if the gov't buys the debt, the consumers will still owe that debt, and the conscientious ones will still try to pay it. As long as the consumers have to pay that debt, spending in the short term will be curtailed.

In the short term, there is no easy fix. In fact, many would think the cure to be worse than the disease. The long term cure is to return to the days of higher interest rates, less spending and more saving. Quite simply, Greenspan's little experiment on the American people has failed to produce the endless growth that he promised.

by SmallFurryCreature (593017)

When MS uses the word Beta, they really mean pre-alpha. Release is Beta. If you want a release quality MS product you need to look for the discontinued tag.

Google is simpler, they got beta, beta and beta. One works, one doesn't, the other works for everyone except you and just when you became totally dependent on it, they kill the project.

Linux has Beta and RC. RC is solid but out of date so nvidia doesn't have drivers for it anymore, beta is solid but nvidia doesn't have drivers for it yet.

Solaris has only one version, more solid and sensible then a rock, it is labelled "Giving your accountant a heart attack".

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=207972&threshold=5&commentsort=0&mode=flat&cid=16957698

So this must mean that Germany has solved all of their problems with child porn, identity theft, extortion, and all of the other shady activities that can happen online, right?

Because there's no way that they'd place corporate trademark and copyright issues ahead of the safety and security of their citizens, would they? On the taxpayer's dime, too?

America's Libertarian Party is not as extremely libertarian as it is extremely right wing

The Political Compass Yep, a joke. It's not 'state-mandated feelygoodness' that is the issue. It's the corporate sponsored bullshit that never gets questioned. It's the concentration of power that is choking our democracy. Libertarians ain't gonna do a damn thing about that. Heck, they encourage it. They would cut funding to those inner city schools though. That will be great for our society, let me tell ya...

I make a dash to the Slash to the D-O-T
Coz them news for nerds makes sense to me
So let this serve as a warning to the spammers and trolls
You may have a fat pipe but you ain't got bawls.

There's a new manifesto by ESR
And the stats of the watts of a hybrid car
I gots love for Perens and miguel, et al
And I voted CowboyNeal on the Slashdot Poll

I'm Microsoft bashin' like every single day
Coz the OS got holes and Exploder's teh gay
Now SCO's talkin' trash so I give firefox a ride
To reply as a Coward so I can hate on McBride

I will flame you with language I won't say to your face
And I bet you can't guess who gots all your base
There's one way to know if your server is rotting
Just post a link and you'll get a slashdotting

You can mod me down coz I'm a karma whore
And I'm a decorated veteran of a recent flame war
Where they fought about an app with a K or a G
And a heated debate on what was meant by "Free"

As a slashbot, when Linux receives a threat,
My palms begin to sweat and my evil bit is set
You best believe I'll be posting a rant
And I'll be surfin' Slashdot 'til my mom says I can't.