And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.
That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.
You cannot see the forest for the trees.
This is ALL ABOUT buying time by making sharing research more difficult so they can improve detection technology. They know criminals will print them and they are not afraid of the single shot Liberator. They want to be ready to detect a highly reliable, multi-shot, semi or fully automatic, 3D printed firearm. They want to threaten those who would share their insights and improvements to slow development.
Not better. More available.
Here in the UK, it's pretty hard to get an illegal gun. You need connections - a contact in organized crime who can put you in touch with the right people. That means your common street gang member doesn't have a gun - they have to make do with knives. If 3D printed guns became more practical, every gangsta-wannabe would have one.
It's a US law/regulation. Guns are already easily available here. It's not a problem to get one. Availability is not the issue. And they are not afraid of a unreliable, single shot, kludge like the liberator and its ilk.
The Feds are scared that some bright boy genius will take existing plans and improve things with newer and improved 3D printing technology to make a highly reliable and effective, undetectable weapon. They don't give two shits if some UK hoodlum can suddenly print a Liberator and have an illegal handgun in London. They are worried about someone bringing something that works well and can't be detected on a plane or on a Federal property.
Like you were supposed to when you started charging for cable. Who knows, you could make more money by offering a better product.
Yea, I miss the good old days. MTV actually played music (and no advertising). USA actually had programming all night (and it was weird stuff). TBS had black-and-white movies.
Now, get off my lawn
Ahh... I miss Rhonda Shear on USA.... Up... All night.
Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of people/animals/real housewives running around talking to/mating with/assaulting each other? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how TV dramas/wildlife programs/"reality" shows can be fun for the actors/animals/just awful human beings, I just don't get people paying money to watch others act in/be oblivious to/shamelessly mug for the camera in them.
To each his own?
I don't see anybody offering to spend $100 per month to watch the Kardashians, or Survivor, or Real Housewives of ($cityname) for a commercial free feed. That is the difference. Sports fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix. That is one of the biggest drivers of ballooning cable TV and sporting ticket costs, and the reason for public funding of private sports arenas.
It takes away from their talent pool to work on a 15 year old operating system that very few people actually want to run.
Given the installed base that fought tooth and nail to stay on XP even when the end was near, I'd hardly say that few people wanted to run it. You might make that case now since there has been such a long gap since any security updates have been released.
I think politicians are already chasing post-office jobs pretty aggressively. Most people have been following the Hastert story, where the government is charging him with withdrawing his own money in an improper fashion. My question was how does a one-time high school coach go to Congress and end up being able to afford millions in hush money? Supposedly it's all coming from his time after Congress.
Better question: How does someone withdraw his own fucking money in "an improper fashion?" It would be deliciously just if Hastert had voted for those smurfing rules.
Is the simple math too hard for you? Perhaps you could ask a third grader to do it for you.
Man, the dickheads are everywhere today!
Everybody gets cranky when it gets that hot.
Unfortunately these 'progressives' seem to have convinced a lot of people that it's "for the best". It's a big shame. Hopefully it's a passing fad.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Second, You claim that I do not have the right to shoot you in the face because it is "AGAINST THE LAW" but in the prior post you claim (erroneously) that I have the right to "lie in court" because "the First Amendment protects that right." Which way is it? Do I have illegal rights or not?
Let me define rights for you:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
Therefore, if it is illegal, IT IS NOT A RIGHT!
I can read just fine. Apparently you cannot so I will spell it out for you. My point is that it is NOT a legal (or natural) right if you cannot exercise it without fear of penalty from the government. I argue that there are voluminous violations of our Constitutional rights by the very people who swore to uphold the very same Constitution. In an ideal world, the only case which our Constitutionally enumerated rights SHOULD be curtailed is when they are in direct conflict with our OTHER rights.
uh... you CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects that right.
You CAN "dirty talk" to a minor, the First Amendment protects that right.
You CAN lie in court, the First Amendment protects that right.
What the First Amendment DOES NOT DO is protect you from the consequences of that exercise of the FREEDOM to say what you want to if it is a violation of other Laws. The Constitution is Supreme.
That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. By your logic, I have the right to shoot you in the face too, but I can't avoid the consequences of my exercise of my rights. Here's a clue for free: If the government locks you up when you do something, it's not a right, natural or granted, unless the government is illegitimate and is trampling those rights. If you happen to suffer consequences at the hand of your fellow man, but the government sits on its thumbs, it's a right.
You're not allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowd,
you're not allowed to "dirty talk" to a minor,
you're not allowed to lie in court,
... and that list goes on and on.
Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.
[...] most people who complain about the restriction of their free speech either have no clue, or forcefully refuse to acknowledge that that freedom is only valid against the gouverment (sic), not their fellow man.
This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.