Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

Yet because of the 2nd Amendment its apparently sacrosanct to even discuss limiting guns. Maybe, just maybe, the founding fathers needed to raise and army and the best way was to allow everyone to have a gun and so the 2nd Amendment was created as part of our founding documents? Maybe they only considered single shot muskets? maybe they would have a slightly different take on 25 clip Uzi's on every street corner?

The Founders wanted the Second Amendment to make sure citizens were able to use lethal force against the state and federal government if necessary, in order to protect their freedom, and to otherwise provide for and defend themselves. This requires them to have whatever weapons which are capable of countering their opposition. The Founders knew well this meant ever increasing firepower, they were not stupid.

We have to remove the guns, or this will keep happening. Do you disagree with that? If so, how would you suggest we prevent this from happening in the future?

No, we do not have to, and if we want to remain free, we cannot remove the guns. You cannot possibly expect that if the citizens disarm, that the government and the nation's criminal underground will also disarm. Unless they do, we become slaves.

The problem is not the weapons, it is our lazy, incompetent society, full of people who can't be bothered to be personally responsible for their actions. We tolerate things from people today that are destroying us. Violence is merely one of many signs of our internal problems.

The good thing is that those problems can be solved, and without the need to disarm free people and turn them into slaves.

You worry about "25 clip uzis..." but don't seem to understand that they very reason there are so many is because the cowards carrying them use them to intimidate and terrorize UNARMED people. As soon as people are armed and trained to defense themselves, those cowards won't want to be anywhere near a gun. They also would not have easy access to the guns if we actually enforced decades old existing laws, and actually started punishing these losers for their crimes.

But no... instead we spend ten times as much money enforcing punitive laws to support corporate welfare, punishing people who have done nothing wrong, all because a bunch of uncreative morons want government mandated cashflow for themselves, even if it means destroying our freedom.

How about when people are irresponsible, we let them take the fall instead of bailing them out? How about instead of coddling a murderer and spending millions caring for them and trying to "figure out why they did it", we instead just shoot them and spend the money helping the victims?

There are a lot of solutions to violence that don't involve the undesirable, unattainable, and idiotic disarmament of free citizens.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

There is not one single case in history where you are correct. 100% of them show the exact opposite of your utopian fantasy.

Criminals in areas where guns are illegal trade them on the black market, from overseas, or simply set up shop and make their own.

Or, shockingly enough, since no one is armed... they just use other weapons to do the same damn thing to their victims.

Unarmed "citizens" are slaves, always have been, always will be.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

Not so shockingly, you are full of shyte. You are just repeating the same mythological bullshit you've been spoon fed and are dumb enough to believe.

In nearly ever jurisdiction where guns are banned, two things happen: increase in crime and loss of freedom. The criminals are still armed, only now they have little to fear from their victims.

Guy kills several people with a gun, and the idiots in our news media say "Gunman kills XYZ...".

However, see a guy kill a dozen with a knife, and it says "Man attacks shoppers..." or some other low key heading, and they don't mention the weapon used at all. Why aren't people who kill with knives called knifemen, or like the german guy who killed a couple dozen with a baseball bad not called batmen or clubmen?

Answer: because guns are used by citizens limit the power of government, and you have a lot of little dictators in government who can't handle the idea of an armed population telling them "Hell no", and enforcing it with lethality.

It has nothing to do with safety or concern over dead children, and the laws won't help any of that anyway. Never have, never will.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

Its very simple: the people in power are corrupt and rotten, and the gun is a particular tool that can take them out of power or prevent an increase in their power.

Obama can squeeze out fake tears all day long, but the fact is he is only crying because we are still armed and it limits his power. That's why he and a lot of other little Hitlers and Stalins want to disarm the population.

A disarmed person is a slave.

Comment Re:Even if this was true... (Score 1) 1009

Because unless your needs are pretty basic and you are willing to put up with various issues like lack of polish and features, you can't recompile "90% of what you need".

You cannot just "recompile" tons of software people need and use every day. I'd be thrilled if Linux could do half of what I need, but it can't.

Even when I have the source, that does not mean I can use recompiled versions. They may not work well, be poorly performing or debugged, or be missing features on the less mature platform. In fact, that's virtually guaranteed.

Open source is great, but the code base lacks a lot of critical, fun, and well polished applications that people use all the time, and most of the time the community is very hesitant to put in the work needed to make it so.

I would love it if everything I needed was open source and also high quality, but that's just not true, and probably won't be for years.

Comment Re:I'm no car expert.. (Score 1) 717

The example I recently read about was a 1985 small car, 4 cyclinder, typically got around 24mph highway. 0-60 acceleration well over 15 seconds.

Fast forward to 2012 and you can buy a car with 600HP and a 5.9L engine, 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... and it gets 24mph highway.

Comment Re:we need a litmus test (Score 1) 1113

Wow, what an ignoramus you are. I'd almost be willing to agree if by religions you also included zealous atheists and other religions, but I bet you don't (yes, atheists, despite the name, preach, evangelize, and are zealous often far above and beyond any of those awful religious people, so let's ban them too).

A good number of these religious people you say are obviously very weak intellectually created the world's technology, including the technology allowing you to spout your ignorance here. Really, you'd appoint a guardian to people like that? The ones that made everything you depend on?

Comment Re:I know this will fly against conventional wisdo (Score 1) 708

...but let's face it, some of us have no interest in management, or consulting. That's why, after a 15-year career in software development, I turned to teaching. And if you're laughing because I'm advocating teaching as an alternative career, you miss my point: Sometimes getting out of the field is a viable option. I grew tired of lining the pockets of CEOs and PHBs and gutless business owners who simply ran their businesses into the ground, businesses built partially on my hard work. Sometimes you have to take a step back and ask yourself "What exactly have I done for society these past years?" Chances are, if you're a software developer at a "large investment bank," not a hell of a lot.

Good points.

I have found that working for things I believe in, generally has also helped my survival a great deal. Most of the time when I am looking for work it is in military, research, or industry. I believe they are foundations of this country and need help, and whenever I work in those fields I'm generally happy. Yes there is all kinds of bullshit to deal with, but you get that wherever you go. Most of the shops I work for, they are generally focused and have well known goals and needs.

Every time I have strayed from that past, I've been fairly unhappy. In a couple of places I made a six figure income, and I was absolutely miserable. Management by whim, customers internal and external who were clueless but drove everything, managers who got raises by screwing everything rotten.

NOTE: I'm not saying you have to focus on those three areas to be happy and productive, that's just my particular choice, and doesn't include a few other qualifiers I have developed over the years. It just happens that much of the time those shops are in the "let's just get work done" category and I find they work better for me.

Wherever you try to apply for work, think long and hard about actually doing the work and what you are contributing to. That will tell you far more about how happy you will be and how secure you job will be than pay scales. Also remember that even seemingly minor differences in benefits can end up being worth 5, 10, 20K US dollars a year in pay. I took a job for $20K less than what I was making recently, but the benefits are worth over 25K more and all of them are cheaper and less money out of my own paycheck.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.