Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
reddred wrote:
Let me just chime in to say, however, that I've been mugged several times at gunpoint. These young men who robbed me would have been much less capable of taking my money if they were armed with a knife, and if I were wounded in a fight with the muggers, I'd certainly rather get stuck with a knife than shot at point blank range. I really wish the ****ing crackheads didn't have guns. I don't want to wait for thier children or grandchildren to get a leg up into the middle class and decide that they don't need guns to make it in the world. I hear you, and I'll say right out that we get people up here doing some stupid **** with guns, too. But if we can't keep 'em from getting crack (even in the country, nevermind the city) how the hell can we keep them from getting guns? And the way we've been headed for a while now we won't have to worry about folks moving up into the middle class, because there won't be a middle class, just the rich folks and the poor folks. This sucks, in the negative sense of the term, which... uhh...sucks. -- ha |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
|
#284
|
|||
|
|||
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: That's why Canadians are lined up out the door at US hospitals in border towns like Buffalo and Detroit. You can repeat that all you want, but you might like to catch up with what the majority of tax paying Canucks actually feel about their system, Been there, done that. because it isn't well supported by your projections based upon a small sampling of medical service seekers There's no doubt that it would be politically suicidal for the Canadians to have a health system that doesn't meet the needs of the majority. Yes, the people who come to the US are exceptions, but this only points out the problems involved with putting a government bureaucracy in charge of a critical industry. Ironically, about as close as we get in the US to the Canadian Health system is probably the HMOs, and even the private bureaucracies have problems like this. There are a lot of fundamental problems with health care, and nobody has what you would really call an optimal system. Health care is ultimately about pain and mortality, which makes it a very emotional discussion. There is a even a profound grotesque lexical problem where we call a payment plan "insurance". The inherent ethical and moral problems end up divorcing the business of paying for services from the highly emotional act of demanding and providing services. whose number could be offset by the number of US citizens seeking to acquire medications at sensible prices, from Canada. This turns out to be a matter of cause and effect. Since the Canadians legislated themselves a heavy discount, the US consumers end up paying for it. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Olsen wrote: in article , at wrote on 2/21/05 6:24 AM: Jeff Olsen wrote: Further, EVERY instance of "the people" in that document relates to an individual right. The 2nd is no different. Regardless of the original intent, it doesn't seem sensible to me to allow a modern country to be ruled by what somebody thought 230 years ago, if what they say is inappropriate. Do you feel this way about every right you have, that it is subject to the whims of the majority? Or are some rights inalienable, a basic human right that you and I and everyone else has? I believe the former. I believe that rights are a human construct, not some external tangible thing that would exist in the absence of humanity. Some philosophers agree with this point of view, and some disagree. The Bill of Rights did not GRANT anything; it codified the obvious. Precisely as a DEFENCE against the will of a simple majority. It is quite a process to repeal an amendment to the Constition, or create one, as it SHOULD be. It takes sustained will and a supermajority over a long period of time. That was on purpose. If the Christian Right voted tomorrow, say they got 50.1% of the vote, to say that everyone needs to be baptized and accept Jesus Christ the savior as their own personal God, would you go along with it? Would they be correct simply because they are a majority? Or are some basic human rights seperate from the whims of a majority? I know what I think; what do you think? See above, but delete the phrase "correct simply because they are a majority". "correct" is irrelevant to this discussion. No they aren't. Not unless you are saying we are somehow now SO civilized and it is SO permanent that our present governments are just plain never gonna change, nothing unexpected is ever gonna happen... I'm sorry to say this, because you seem like a polite and reasonable person, but this bit sounds nuts. Like you are "Dale" from "King of the Hill". I can see how you could see it that way. Whatever. My point is not that I'm building a bunker (I'm not, BTW g!), it's that it's not correct to remove a basic, fundamental safeguard like the right to bear arms based on the politics of the moment. Put it another way. I am a fairly liberal guy and a fairly rabid enviromentalist. I'm guessing you are too. So... you don't believe in the serious enviromental degradation you see? Global warming? The possibility that genetic engineering in our food supply could cause some serious bad **** to happen? The huge looming water supply crises? Come on, admit it, you do believe the possibility of these things; they are a tenant of your reality. Any of those things could stand our society on it's ear. So no, I am not irrational to at least use as a tenant of my argument that a human has a right to be armed because it's a dangerous and unpredictable world. It IS; and demonstratively always has been! Oh, I could see society collapsing in our lifetimes. However, I don't think that a handgun will help you much. Unfortunately, society is so intertwined that having a gun is not going to help you if western civilization collapses. You couldn't feed yourself after the tinned food ran out because society is predicated on having complex movements of food between states and between countries. There isn't anywhere in the US that could support 1/100th of the population density we have right now without the road/rail/air/power distribution systems in place. And more than 1 in 100 have guns. Bull**** on the not beeing able to feed myself. You should see the food my wife grows and puts away. Literally hundeds and hundreds of pounds of potatoes, onions, tomatoes, garlic, on and on. We are eating fresh broccoli and kale and lettuce from the winter garden right now, and there are still a bunch of potatoes in the garden she has not even dug up from last year. I'm a pretty darn good hunter. Leave it at that. Again, you show the limits of your knowledge, experience, and abilities. Because YOU can't do something, you extrapolate (and legislate) at ME. I grew up in the countryside, I grew vegetables, I own guns, and I'm a pretty good shot. I still don't think that you could feed yourself, because I think that someone else would take your stuff before you could eat it. Pretty much everyone has guns - if they're hungry, all they have to do is shoot you in the back while you're digging potatoes and steal your stuff. You want to make everyone live like you do and frankly, the way you (generic you, city-dweller you) live SUCKS ASS from my perspective. You should see it outside of my place right now. It is silent because the spring peepers (frogs) down at the wetlands on my land finally got cold and shut up for the night. The stars are BURNING up the sky. There's a frost everywhere. Huge fir and Cedar trees tower over everything. The barn I built with my own hands is over there lookin' dang good if I say so myself. I still have about 2 cords of firewood left (we heat our house with wood) from last year; we'll carry a cord or so of good ash and oak to next winter, which is what I shoot for. Surplus. Buffer. Savings. It's time to start cutting next winter's firewood now and I've got about a cord of split fir put away. It's a better way to live when you have kids - I intend going back to living that way myself in a couple of years. Unfortunately, it causes environmental devastation. The few patches of wilderness left in the US are being destroyed because too many people want to live exactly as you do. Jared Diamond's latest book has some excellent description of exactly this effect. Do you really want to be part of a Resistance? Isn't that a different thing? I don't think that I would take up arms for political purposes, because my first loyalty is to my child, not some system of government. I agree with that. I was responding to your (or someone else's, I'm losing track here) comment that small arms are not effective against an army. No, or make that HELL NO, I do not want to be a part of any such thing. I got kids to take care of. I could literally call 911 and not get anyone here for an hour; in fact that would be about the average response time. I have to be able to take care of my own business. Your reality is not the reality of many others out there. And your reality is not the same for all others either. We have to pick one that works best for everyone. To be honest, when I see that someone else's child has been killed, then I am less concerned about coyotes being after your goats. Just because you'd be worse off doesn't mean that it shouldn't go ahead if lots of other people would be better off. That is just chilling, and it shows why gun owners get so knee-jerk reactionary in the first place. You think making a stupid LAW is gonna change all that anyway? Why not just make it illegal to kill someone with a gun in the first place? Oh wait, we did. I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the answer is so obvious to you? I'm betting you haven't followed the statistical studies. Things are a mess in the cities. That's my fault HOW? You want to take a basic human right from me because you guys are making a mess of it in the cities? No way. That's the way civilization works. You take the actions that are better, on balance, for the whole of society. And clearly, gun control people believe that it is less likely that the "armed meth-head" would be armed if arms were better controlled. The cat is out of the bag. You could legislate to take my guns away, and I'd do it to stay out of prison, but there are far too many out there to somehow create a gun-free America, if that is your dream. Any crook who wanted one would have or could even make one. I could make a functional gun in an afternoon in my shop. Easily. I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the answer is so obvious to you? As an aside, if country folk were even able to support themselves then city folk might feel more charitable towards their points of view. As it is, there is a massive redistribution of wealth from urban areas to the country folk, who are constantly talking about their "taking care of their own business" and self-sufficiency. Jay-sus. You grow more and more annoying to read. Not even sure what to say to that one. I can only think of some rude things. Yeah, you city folks are just SO smart and got it SO together, don't you. It's just so obvious to see. How could I miss it? Well, we're subsidizing you and we don't cause as much environmental damage as you. And then you (generic country folk) turn round and get all sanctimonious about it, and vote Republican. Washington DC banned firearms. Highest per-capita murder rate in the US. But we have to take away your right to bear arms in order to take it away from the bad guys. Not gonna happen... better start addressing the REAL problem, not the scapegoat. Hint: you want an amendment to tilt windmills at, start with the 1st! Let's talk about the REAL reasons our society is going to ****! Also, DC is a chicken-and-egg story. The reason they banned handguns was *because* of the murder rate. I know that. How's that murder rate by handgun doin' anyway? Gosh, it didn't seem to change much did it. Turns out criminals don't exactly follow laws... maybe because they are criminals! 'Course you took away the right of a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves in their own home, but hey.. gotta break some eggs to make that piece-o-**** omelette, eh... I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the answer is so obvious to you? -jeff |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
|
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: One shouldn't have to "know a lot about Windows." Isn't that defeating the purpose of the concept of a computer? Sheez. Well, no, but it does defeat the purpose of a kitchen appliance. People who use cassette recorders don't know how to align an analog tape deck (but it would help if they knew how to clean the heads and set the record level properly). No, not really. There are those who are happy with a Sony walkman. And then there are others who can't do with anything less than the Sony walkman professional with built in LED meters, Dolby C etc. The 1st group usually cares less about head alignment, demagnetization, and cleaning the heads. PCs cater to the whole market,and unfortunatley the majority of that market is that 1st group who just want a Sony Walkman. The Windows GUI is still too complicated for simple users. There is Microsoft's attempt with Windows XP HOME, but windows is still a complicated beast, hence all the support and maintenance plans available from every PC vendor. Apple has taken a fantastically complicated OS and simpllified it. It's not as simple as Mac OS 9 and below, and probably will never get there, but Apple's made commendable strides. It's quite an achivement that under that friendly finder is unix. A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their computer. The ciomputer is supposed to help them do their work. Knowing the regisrty is just another way of the user helping the computer to help him. The purpose of of Windows and PC's is to sell the hapless public tech support, service plans, training, maintenance. I disagree strongly. But I'd suggest that the purpose of Windows and PCs is to sell the hapless public a way to send e-mail, buy and sell stuff on eBay, download music and videos, and not spend very much money in order to do it. Apple has finally caught on to serving that market with the $500 computer. Other than in a business environment (where there ARE people who "know windows") few Windows people use their PCs as a working tool. Remember, you're posting in a technical newsgroup here, so you're speaking to a small subset of computer users. The $500 Mac Mini is simply Apple venture into the lower price tier, and, more significantly, to enter the new(ish) market where the computer is fast becoming a media appliance, MP3, DVD entertainment system all in one. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo CD |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Codifus posted:
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: One shouldn't have to "know a lot about Windows." Isn't that defeating the purpose of the concept of a computer? Sheez. Well, no, but it does defeat the purpose of a kitchen appliance. (big snip) A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their computer. The ciomputer is supposed to help them do their work. So, you fall squarely into the "computer as appliance" crowd. No problem. However, those of us in the "computer as a customizable tool" crowd can be frustrated by the limitations imposed by appliances. To be sure, we have to know the details of our hardware and OS in order to configure and manage the tool, but it really isn't all that big a deal. In either case, the computer is a big help in performaing the tasks at hand. Pro audio folks tend to be in the "customizable tool" crowd, as that is the basic nature of a pro studio. And, knowing how to use that "tool" is *far* more complicated than any personal computer. So, perhaps the tricky part is to know oneself in so far as which crowd they belong to? Regards, Neil |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
"hank alrich" wrote:
Damn, you, Lorin, here we almost had a flame war goin' and you gotta come along and say that kinda stuff. g I haven't checked the group in months. I pop in for five minutes, and what do I find? The same, tired old arguments about platform superiority. Amazing. Yet in the intervening months I've managed to do a whole pile of work on both XP and OSX machines. Both have worked perfectly most of the time. Both have also on occasion ****ed up in spectacular fashion for no apparent reason whatsoever. If there's a genuine advantage to one over the other, it's managed to escape me, and I use both every single day. Glad to see you're still around. That gives me hope that there's more to see here than computer dick measuring and political debates! g -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
"Codifus" wrote:
A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their computer. I agree. I don't believe one has to, though. You may need to understand the registry to fix things you've ****ed up, but I'm living proof that you can work quite effectively WITHOUT knowing anything about it. I have no idea how to manage the windows registry. I've just never had to. I don't install questionable software. I load only what I need to do my job. I buy hardware from reputable, "name" vendors rather than buying a "good deal" component that's "just as good." I observe suppliers' warnings about hardware and software conflicts. I work with Pro Tools, Photoshop/Illustrator, MSOffice and a few utilities all on one XP machine with no trouble whatsoever. I even have it connected to the internet via a wireless network. It works fine. So I'd say it *IS* possible to work effectively with XP without knowing how the registry works. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
BTW, I love Canada I truely do - like Mexico it's a great place to visit but I just wouldn't want to live there. We will do our best to get by without you. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
-- Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot. "Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message news:dL_Td.12988$ab2.9363@edtnps89... "Codifus" wrote: A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their computer. I agree. I don't believe one has to, though. You may need to understand the registry to fix things you've ****ed up, but I'm living proof that you can work quite effectively WITHOUT knowing anything about it. I have no idea how to manage the windows registry. I've just never had to. I don't install questionable software. I load only what I need to do my job. I buy hardware from reputable, "name" vendors rather than buying a "good deal" component that's "just as good." I observe suppliers' warnings about hardware and software conflicts. I work with Pro Tools, Photoshop/Illustrator, MSOffice and a few utilities all on one XP machine with no trouble whatsoever. I even have it connected to the internet via a wireless network. It works fine. So I'd say it *IS* possible to work effectively with XP without knowing how the registry works. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) None of which changes the fact that the registry is highly prone to getting screwed up, and it DOES require knowing what you're doing to fix it if it does. That you've had no problems running a fairly limited (it sounds like) set of professional apps does nothing to change that. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think they are. I think at the beginning, they probably were, but
now I think is just all that Mac "Hype" going around like their ipod & itunes hype. I use PCs with Intel chipsets because it makes more sence to me. Marc "Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message news:%B%Td.12992$ab2.11805@edtnps89... "Arny Krueger" wrote: BTW, I love Canada I truely do - like Mexico it's a great place to visit but I just wouldn't want to live there. We will do our best to get by without you. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |