No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.
LOL. Okay, dude. You're naive, at best. You trust the police? Apparently you haven't been paying attention lately. The police, who are now using military surplus on people in the streets, that are never held accountable for excessive use of force? The police, which the courts have already established have NO obligation to protect anyone?
Here's a clue for you: this will never happen. Banning guns starts with the debate on who will actually have a monopoly on having guns. It will NOT be "just the police". There are many armed bureaucracies that will NOT give up their guns. The FBI and everyone under Homeland Security, sure. But also the Department of Education (did you know they have their own SWAT squads?), HUD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture (which also has their own SWAT teams, they use them for raiding illegal raw milk producing farmers, among other things), the State Department (of course), and Commerce (yep, armed). There are numerous state bureaucracies that also have armed teams, including Alcohol bureaus and DMVs. All these folks will NOT be willing to give up guns.
Most private security companies are run and often staffed by military veterans and retired police, and none of them are going to give up their guns. And the wealthy and the elites that hire them will make sure they never have to. Because, yes, your rulers do not want you to have guns, and that's the rulers in government and the rulers not in government. Do you think the banks are going to go along with having their money and assets transported around by unarmed guards? Your government cannot function without the banks, there is no way they will disarm the banks and their security folks. You're going to tell them "Well just call the cops." Good luck.
Of course, we're just getting started. There will be MANY groups clamoring to be part of the monopoly-allowed-to-have-guns, many of them with money and influence, not to mention the weapons manufacturers themselves. One of the few productive exports the US has left is weapons - you think they will give that up? Oh, then you get to try to figure out HOW those powerless, not wealthy, and non influential people will be disarmed, and WHO is going to disarm them. Break out the popcorn - it's going to be fun.
Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.
You said banning guns would be easier than encryption because guns are physical objects. When I pointed out drugs are physical objects, too, and bans fail, you move the goal post. So... you think the only people using illegal drugs are physically addicted?
I assume you, like most people, don't really want to ban guns, but just provide certain people with a monopoly on using them. More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause.
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Right. Works as good as banning drugs, right?
I just RTFA. I saw nothing about violence. I saw nothing about moderating technical criticism. Would you care to point out where Ms. Sharp said anything like that?
It's in the last link of the summary, when she tried to change the LKML to be more to her liking:
Quoting her first message: 'Seriously, guys? Is this what we need in order to get improve -stable? Linus Torvalds is advocating for physical intimidation and violence. Ingo Molnar and Linus are advocating for verbal abuse.
... Violence, whether it be physical intimidation, verbal threats or verbal abuse is not acceptable. Keep it professional on the mailing lists.'"
Verbal abuse != violence. Physical intimidation might be, and a credible threat of violence can be assault - but I don't think Linus has ever actually done that.
we should build an OS above this concept
Then we can ruin it with systemd!
That's usually said to children who have been hurt by words, and it's nonsense. It's telling them to suppress their emotional response entirely, which isn't healthy.
It's said to children to teach them not to suppress their emotional response entirely, but to help them learn restraint, and the difference between verbal sparring and physical assault. It's the basis of civilized society. People are allowed to have disagreements, arguments, and even yell at each other, but it is NOT okay to escalate those disagreements into physical altercation. That's why we prosecute people for assault when they "throw the first punch" - they have initiated violence. We teach our children these concepts early.
The reason that things like solitary confinement or threatening violence work and are considered torture is because even if there is no physical harm there is still very real harm being done.
Those are also physical assault, and actual violence. Threatening violence is assault, and can be criminally prosecuted. Ditto for kidnapping / false imprisonment.
Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can do more permanent damage. Stockholm syndrome, being groomed, being broken down and molded, these are all this that can be achieved by words alone. Maybe Sarah took these things to heart and was incompatible with that environment, and it's healthy for her to express that. Nobody is expecting everything to change over one individual but she is not out of line in speaking her mind.
"Stockholm syndrome", "being groomed", "broken down and molded" - not just words. ALL of your examples involve more than just words - they are using words as part of a system of violence characterized by some form of imprisonment or threat of violence (assault). They don't work on people that can just walk away, or have access to other, neutral actors or supportive people. That is, they work only for people FORCEFULLY isolated or kept under constant surveillance.
So, you've just given us examples of actual, physical force and/or violence, where words are also used to emotionally and psychologically harm the victim. That's not what we're talking about, here.
You're making crude generalizations on the basis of gender. I dare say that borderline bullying isn't a healthy environment for a lot of men or women; it's immature and unprofessional and, as Sarah Sharp eloquently points out in her post, by tolerating such a culture the leaders of the community in question are prioritising the "need" for people to express themselves aggressively over other people's potential need for respectful and sensitive communication. It's all very well to say that people need to learn not to take things personally, but the fact is that you can't possibly know - especially not over a mailing list - just what emotional or personal issues a person might be going through. Do you really a want a situation where curious and potentially talented developers are put off contributing to an important project because of a toxic culture?
What struck me about what she was trying to do, and I've seen others try to do the same thing, is to equate some comment or comments on a mailing list, or other post, as "violence". When I grew up we learned that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me." That is, they're just words, they are not fists or knives or guns. It's not "violence" to berate someone or use colorful language or anything else. It may "offend" you, but taking offense at something someone says is entirely subjective, and impossible to enforce, because you end up with "speech codes", banning words, and other asinine restrictions until everything is a euphemism or metaphor until no one knows what anyone is talking about any more.
Bullying used to mean you're getting physically intimidated, punched, kicked, assaulted or robbed regularly. Now it seems it's enough that someone said something that hurt your feelings. And people can get their feelings hurt by things that are totally NOT intended that way by the speaker, just because of the listener's history or viewpoint.
Equating speech to physical violence is a very dangerous trend that will not end well.
Potatoes are toxic to dogs.
Incorrect. The TOPS of the potato PLANT, yes. Potatoes are okay, and sweet potatoes are good for them. Check your local pet store, and you will find lots of dog food that includes sweet potatoes.
Well, what really bothers me is that a "good" website would have 1-3MB of content. For me, a good web page is mostly text, and rarely holds more than 20K of actual content.
Dude, you simply cannot do a decent animated kittycat gif with a 20K web page, so your analysis is obviously biased.
My parents have a dog, which LOVES cucumbers. It even looks like he likes them more than meat. When planted cucmbers are ripe, this dog looks under leaves and eats one every time he is near garden.
My beagle loved sweet potatoes. She kept digging them up out of the garden way before they were big enough to harvest. When we did go to harvest them, we got like 2 potatoes.
Let's discuss some of his policies: 1) Bernie preaches Increased taxes. The tax rates from the 1940's through the 1980s were much higher, with the top marginal tax above 90%. The rich still worked and got filthy rich. This is important because that money was used to pay for the (now) crumbling infrastructure we take for granted. It was used to pay for social programs that were incredibly popular and successful.
To understand this, you need to review exactly how that "top marginal rate" was applied and when, the people it actually affected, and how it would apply as a modification to the current tax code. The spending (any way you want to break it down) was still significantly smaller proportion of the nation's GDP than what it would be under Sander's proposals.
2) Bernie preaches Increased taxes. The tax rates from the 1940's through the 1980s were much higher, with the top marginal tax above 90%. This paid for education which used to cost less than $1800 (inflation adjusted) per year at UC. Now a year of school at a UC costs $13000. There has been a redistribution of wealth from those who have not, to those who have (banks and financial institutions collect on this debt, and ultimately their shareholders). If you have numbers otherwise, show them.
WHY has UC, a state-supported school, gone from charging $1800 to $13000? A significant part of the reason is federal funding of student education via direct lending. It is then paid directly by the beneficiaries (degree holders, who earn more than non-degree holders). Under Sander's proposal of paying for it directly, the funding is likely to increase (more people will want this benefit), and spread out over more people (instead of 22-32 year-olds, you have a larger pool of 18-, say 60-year-olds). But that will include people that have already paid for their own education, people that received NO benefit, because they did not get a paid-for education, etc. That's not really as fair a system, especially because the real beneficiaries will be the highly-paid administration and tenured professors of the state-supported schools. Note that under the current system, there are NO banks or for-profit finance institutions involved. Student loans are now ALL directly provided and managed by the federal government.
3) Bernie preaches Increased taxes. Before Reagan finally put the stake through the heart of the US, US deficit/debt were under control. The US debt started increasing massively after Reagan cut taxes. If you have numbers otherwise, show them.
Well during Reagan's administration, the debt did increase. But the budget was later balanced during the Clinton years, so it was handled at that point. Unnecessary wars and excessive foreign intervention were very expensive (and continues to this day), and then the elites in both parties decided in 2008 to
4) Bernie preaches Increased regulation. As the right and far right parties in the US cut regulations, they removed any incentives for businesses to provide for the society that gives them the limited liability and corporate-hood they so enjoy.
He is wrong and so are you. Regulation is hurting small business and increasing the power of the largest corporations that keep their money overseas to avoid taxation. In 1975 the bound edition of the Federal Register (the publication that expresses the details of Federal regulation) consisted of 71,244 pages. It has increased dramatically in recent years and at the end of 2011 it stood at 169,301. 38,000 PAGES of new regulations were released in 2001-2011 alone. Large multinational corporations have cadres of lawyers and accountants that can figure that out, absorb the costs, and figure out how to avoid most of them through overseas affiliates and other means (not to mention inserting their OWN regulations themselves to help keep smaller competitors from being competitive), and it introduces massive barriers to entry for young entrepreneurs and small start-up companies. We need LESS regulation (or much SMARTER ones), not MORE!
5) Bernie preaches Increased regulation. Worker protection and supporting strong unions. The Japanese are unionized. The Germans are unionized. The French are unionized. They have middle classes. They have happier citizens. They have social mobility. If you have numbers otherwise, show them.
Google "H1-B". Google "Jobs that have moved overseas." This stuff just means there are more people unemployed in the US. Those jobs are NOT going to Japan or Germany or France. Did you even RTFA that started this post!??!?
6) Bernie preaches universal healthcare.
Yea, that's cool. But you need to do something about the pharmaceutical companies that are sucking up all the money in the healthcare system. And enjoying a massive amount of protection from liability of all kinds. Obamacare tried to take a step in the right direction, but if you look carefully at how it's working, you will see doctors and hospitals struggling, and drug companies with ever-increasing profits.
7) Social mobility in the US is MUCH lower than any of the European countries with so-called "socialism" (Sweden, France, Germany, Norway, Australia, etc). http://www.epi.org/publication... If you have numbers otherwise, show them.
Right. That sucks. It used to be a LOT better, because consolidation of power (upward) was not as great in the US is not like it is now. There are LOTS of factors involved, and a proper analysis of policies that promote greater mobility would be far too lengthy to discuss here. I'm really not that interested in comparing the US to other countries, because, frankly, the US is unique in many respects. How upward mobility has declined in the US over time (and it has) is much more instructive. Here is a very brief intro if you are interested in that. I agree it needs to be addressed, but we probably disagree on how to do that (I know I disagree with Sanders). In a nutshell, I don't think "better jobs" is the answer, because of regulation, corporate motivations, the global landscape of competition, and similar factors. Instead, US people should be encouraged at every turn to become entrepreneurs and run businesses themselves, even if starting as a business of one. We should cultivate the ability of individuals to maximize their own potential as individuals, not mold themselves into some valuable cog for a multinational globalist.
Without infrastructure, without education, without regulation there can be no middle class. Only the rich and their servants.
Irrelevant. What are you describing, here, Afghanistan after the US rubblized them? I mean, without those things there really is no civilization at all. Even in the middle ages they had infrastructure, and education (for some), and regulation (whatever the local Lord said goes), but there was still only the rulers and the serfs. I don't want 90% of my labor confiscated by the local landlord, but how am I better off if 90% of it is confiscated by the central government?
I'm in favor of the Government working for all of us, which is what the Constitution promotes. Not for a handful of us which is what you promote.
It really pisses me off that you assume that I "promote" having a government that is working for "a handful of us". What I am warning you about is that Sander's ideas (and I do think he is sincere) are likely to lead us to a government that only works for a handful. The elites. That is, it will make what we have now even worse. The Constitution is a document intended to LIMIT the power of government so that most of the power is in the hands of the PEOPLE. That is what I want. But Sanders wants even MORE power for the federal government, and it is already beyond the bounds of what the Constitution was intended to chain it into. Government is a necessary evil. Necessary, yes. But EVIL, still, and thus needing constraints. The founder's vision of those constraints was codified into the Constitution. They saw what happened when government, any centralized, consolidated seat of power, had TOO MUCH authority.
My question is, why do you want to tear apart the Constitution to keep a few rich people as your masters subverting the intention of the Constitution?
What? WTF? Please see my previous answer. You're just ranting now.
The only thing I can guess is aspirational identification, you have the illusion that one day you too will rise out of the lower, uneducated class you are in and become filthy rich and will be mildly inconvenienced by having to pay back into the society that gave you the ability to become filthy rich in the first place.
Yea, fuck you. You don't even know me. You're back on your "you don't like Bernie so you're an evil ignorant asshole I can berate. Oh, and fuck the horse you rode in on, too.
Please share those policies that Bernie has that you are so scared off, and how they are incompatible with the Constitution.
Well he LOVES the Department of Homeland Security, created by the Patriot Act, and that alone is a spit in the face of the Constitution. He helped authorize a bill to provide $15.2 billion for foreign military operations in FY 2000. Why are we involved in foreign governments' internal affairs? NOT authorized by the Constitution. I really have no problem with promoting education with public moneys, or health care, either (although neither is authorized Constitutionally), but it has to be done without allowing privileged actors from rent-seeking (as college administrators, drug companies, and others are doing and will do even more as power and money is further consolidated centrally to achieve Sander's goals).
In his policies and his idealism, Bernie Sanders is something of a fossil: a relic of socialism past. I disagree with his conclusions and prescriptions, but I admire his honesty and his goal of helping all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity or religion. What I can’t stand are the liberals who disguise their profit-seeking and social prominence by claiming to stand with the oppressed, who never miss an opportunity to signal their allegiance to the cause of the day, but who would never set foot in Baltimore without a security detail, and have never lost a job because an undocumented worker priced them out of the market.
LOL, you just pulled one of the tricks they used to usurp the Constitution: the "are you with us or with the terrorist" trick!
Conflating my statement to that one is unadulterated bullshit. I tried to address what you said rationally, but you're full of angst and can't see past your nose. In fact, your initial reply was really nothing more than "Yea, well so-and-so did it first so it's okay for me to do it now." I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're hopelessly lost in a delusion of your own snowflakitude.
Good day to you, sir!
Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.