Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

Fortunately, as illustrated by the stats and interview listed above, the real world doesn't seem to operate like you imagine. Muggers don't point guns at people who may also have guns.

The point that you still can't seem to grasp is that the real-life mugger doesn't want to have to murder somebody for the money in their wallet. If pulling out a gun while mugging someone is likely to escalate into a kill or be killed situation, the mugger will leave the gun at home.

You speak as though you'd be pretty at ease with murdering people, but most people don't want to do that for various reasons. It sounds like you think that all criminals are cartoon or Hollywood villains.

This illustrates what I was originally saying about using the silly "good guy"/"bad guy" descriptors. A threaten-you-for-money-bad-guy isn't necessarily ok with killing people in cold blood. "Badness" is a continuum and attributing maximum badness to every "bad guy" is silly and shortsighted. Raising the risk involved in committing a mugging does seem to reduce the number of muggings instead of just increasing the number of murders.

I'm at a loss for why you can't seem to make this simple connection.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

If you're a criminal who uses a gun to intimidate unarmed people into complying with your requests, but there is a good chance that the "good guy" also has a gun, you'd be a fool to point a gun at the good guy (leaving aside the fact that most petty criminals are pretty foolish to begin with). Why would you voluntarily put yourself in a position where you need to murder somebody or get shot in self defense?

I'm addressing what you said many levels up:

Sorry, that is just nonsense.
In an area where "good guys" may legally carry a gun, every bad guy most certainly has a gun. So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.

No idea in what world you think you live that only the good guys have guns and the bad ones run away (*facepalm*)

In an area where "good guys" may carry a gun, carrying a gun as a bad guy who doesn't intend to use it greatly increases your chance of being shot. A mugger who doesn't want to engage in a shootout is not going to start murdering people because his victims carry guns. He's going to not brandish a gun and, when faced with armed opposition, run away and try to mug people without guns.

Why do you think that just because a person is willing to mug someone, he's also willing to murder someone?

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

Most people may not be willing to kill another person in cold blood, but shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you and threatening to murder you is quite a bit easier and not much of a moral dilemma.

Criminals who want to use a gun as an empty threat would be considerably less likely to point a gun at someone, not intending to actually murder that person, if there is a high probability of their victim shooting them in self defense.

I think that changes things quite a bit. How do you see it not changing anything at all?

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

So the bad guy is "brandishing" his weapon first, to get what he wants. If the good guy tries to pull his he gets shot.

This is a great example of how the simplistic "good guy"/"bad guy" labels make rational thought about a scenario difficult. A "bad guy" may be fine with waving around a gun in order to scare his victims into giving up their stuff, but may not be ok with murdering another person in the commission of a crime. Just because he's a "bad guy" doesn't mean there is no bad thing that he will not do, both for moral reasons (few people are alright with actually murdering another human in cold blood) and for practical reasons (a life of crime can be somewhat stifled by homicide detectives on your trail and crimes in your past that don't have statutes of limitation). The mugger may have no intention of actually shooting his victim with the gun, even if it is loaded or functional. Mugging to murder is a pretty big leap.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 1) 467

Most people get excited and snatch the trigger spraying bullets around and hitting everything except what they're aiming at.

While Marshall's claims are still a bit contentious, a counter to your single youtube data point would be the large number of conscripted soldiers in WWII and Vietnam who never fired their weapons even when faced with the enemy.

Hollywood movies and drunken bar brawls aside, it takes a lot of nerve to pull out a gun and start shooting at people. Training is of course essential to the proper and responsible use of guns, but a dearth of training isn't likely to lead to bullets flying everywhere.

Comment Re:Alternative Encrypted Cloud Storage Providers (Score 1) 128

You mean "client side encryption" conducted by closed source binaries delivered from their servers (and updated automatically)?

You don't seem to get the trust issues here. Having one company handle both the encryption and the data storage is folly. The whole "client side encryption" aspect may or may not be true, but since you can't verify it it amounts to nothing more than marketing.

Comment Re:WONTFIX (Score 2) 378

Yes. If you don't want the topic coming back over and over again, you need provide an explanation for why you're closing the ticket. WONTFIX without an explanation is the equivalent to saying, "because I said so."

It's also lazy. Removing an expected feature because you didn't plan your product development well enough isn't acceptable. Set an appropriate milestone and fix the problem. Did you really not plan well enough to anticipate this being a problem?

Comment Re:Thoughts (Score 1) 158

Because that's not how these gaps in coverage work. They aren't blanketing the country and filling in the gaps with the latest gen technology... They're just upgrading the previous gen installations, so that the biggest urban centers go from 2G->3G->4G->5G while the holes remain unfilled. There are vast areas of my state that are still only 2G and they're not just the unoccupied areas.

Comment Re:Family reunification vs STEM (Score 1) 142

I'd wager, that is run as well as a company with accountability, all the programs you seem to hate could run twice as well for the same cost.

I'm not sure why this view of corporations persists. Companies minimize expenses in order to maximize profits. The cost of goods or services to the customers of a company has little bearing on the cost to the company of providing/producing those goods or services. The cost of a corporate provided service will be what the market can bear and in the case of a monopoly like the government, that cost will be extremely high. Costs (and corners) are cut for the sole purpose of maximizing profits.

If the government was run like a corporation, the citizens would pay just as much but the higher-ups in government would get bigger salaries. If anything could be done to reduce the expenses of the government, it would be done even if it drastically reduced the quality of the services, and the higher-ups would get bonuses. As far as the customer is concerned, profit is an unwanted added expense.

Or did you mean that we'd have competition between several governments and get to shop around for who we pay our taxes to?

Comment Re:Headline is stupid (Score 1) 220

If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota...

Did you even read your link? It was specifically listed as a misdemeanor, before it was struck down as the other reply noted. [It was explicitly stated that it was a misdemeanor, but a sentence of "not more than one year" is indicative of a misdemeanor as well.]

It is disturbing that libel can be a felony in Colorado, Florida, and Michigan (only if the victim is a bank in Michigan, though).

Comment Re:WTF does that mean? (Score 1) 222

The scenario you outlined also makes the most sense. If obtaining a fraudulent license was a defense against copyright infringement, then infringement could easily be systematically laundered through phony licenses from other companies. Unless they're obtaining licenses from Phony Licenses Unlimited, proving bad faith would be difficult. Whether or not a license is obtained in good faith is more a matter to be settled by CBC and CNN in this case. It's irrelevant to the case of whether infringement occurred.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?