Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:16 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46305 Activity:nil
4/16    The northwest must be taken seriously as it afflicts the CHIEN
        trigram. It suggests that the leaders of the world will be squabbling
        and fighting quite a fair bit. It is even likely that a major world
        leader could get assassinated in 2007. The quarrelsome star 3 will
        cause heated arguments and magnify misunderstandings.
        \_ A "major world leader"?  Would it be unbecoming to keep my
           fingers crossed?
        \_ Er... huh?  I didn't know you could squeeze that much onto one of
           those little fortune cookie papers.
           \_ What, you didn't know China invented information compression
              thousands of years ago along with everything else?
                \_ PhilWongCompress!
2007/4/16-18 [Uncategorized] UID:46307 Activity:nil
4/16    http://www.msnbc.msn.com (see video link)
        Student shot in arm says shooter was Asian male, shot 10-15 students
        in his classroom in engineering building, didn't say anything, then
        left to shoot more people.  Later tried to come back in, shot at door,
        left again.  At least 33 killed and 25+ injured.  One 9mm and one
        .22cal handgun.
2007/4/16-18 [Reference/Military] UID:46308 Activity:high
4/16    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818224/posts
        freepers unhappy GOP-backed bill defeated - would have allowed those
        already with a concealed carry permit to bring a firearm to Virginia
        public universities
        \_ Which of course might have allowed law-abiding students to kill the
           shooter before he did so much damage. -emarkp
           \_ Or shoot someone else trying to shoot the shooter.  Or shoot
              some random person by accident.  Or shoot someone 2 weeks from
              now cause they thought he might be about to shoot someone.
              Hypotheticals are never as clear cut as you want them to be.
              \_ That last one is just stupid.
           \_ I guess.  Maybe if law abiding citizens had watched more
              Steven Siegal movies.
              \_ What do you mean? Someone who owns a gun and knows how to use
                 it doesn't have to have an action movie choreographer in order
                 to threaten or use force. -emarkp
                 \_ I think he's saying that if they had watched Steven Segal
                    they wouldn't need a gun.
                    \_ I doubt watching SS movies turns people into action
                       heros.
                 \_ Yes, if only everyone on campus were packing, nothing bad
                    would have happened!  Because, of course, everyone is
                    well-trained in how to handle firearms, especially
                    when their classroom is unexpectedly turned into a shooting
                    gallery.  The idea of concealed-carry permits preventing
                    incidents like this is complete fantasy.  -tom
                    \_ So you're a prophet and I'm simply wrong?  The shooter
                       was wildly outnumbered by non-shooters, yet there was
                       nothing they could do because no one had a gun to level
                       the playing field. -emarkp
                       \_ I used to hang out with some guys were total
                          gun afficanados.  At first it seemed kinda harmless
                          but then I began to realize that most of them
                          dreamed of being in a situation (guy breaking into
                          their home, stopping a rape, whatever) where they
                          could legally blow someone away.  Not "I have this
                          for protection" but "I have this cause it would be
                          so cool if I actually got to use it on someone."
                          You know who is the last person I want "defending"
                          me?  Some psychopath who just wants to kill someone
                          but has enough sense to wait till it is legal.
                          \_ I bet they didn't say that and you're projecting
                             your own psychoses onto them.
                             \_ No, really there was a significant number of
                                that kept bringing up how they would use
                                x gun in y situation to stop z crime.  After
                                hearing that a few times it became really
                                obvious that they had spent way too much time
                                dreaming of exactly when they would get to
                                kill someone in the name of justice.
                                \_ Well, what's wrong with wanting to stop
                                   crimes? Were they talking about shooting
                                   people who break traffic laws? I bet cops
                                   think about these things. Are cops psychos
                                   who became cops so they could kill people?
                                   \_ The (to be fair few) cops I've known
                                      didn't spend hours at a time talking
                                      about just how they would go about
                                      gunning down someone if x happened.
                                      \_ Well the few gun "enthusiasts" or
                                         whatever I've known don't do that
                                         either. This argument has nowhere to
                                         go "I know people who like X and do Y
                                         therefore X is bad."
                          \_ You know, I'll bet the 30+ dead people in Virginia
                             wouldn't have minded having a few of these people
                             around. -emarkp
                             \_ You mean at the time he chained the class room
                                doors closed and lined people up to execute
                                them?  Nope, no sirree!  It would have only
                                added to the chaos and innocent people might
                                have been hurt if they all had guns.
                                \_ As opposed to all of them being shot without
                                   defense?  How can you claim "it would have
                                   only"?  One possible outcome is that the
                                   execution would have been stopped and fewer
                                   people died. -emarkp
                                   \_ Assuming that an armed populace would
                                      have made things better (an assumption
                                      I personally don't believe) do you
                                      really think this once every 10-20
                                      years event would make up for the daily
                                      statistics as every freak out there
                                      goes vigilante?
                                      \_ There are already plenty of people who
                                         have guns.  Why aren't we seeing
                                         "every freak out there going viglante"
                                         now? -emarkp
                                         \_ uh, we are.  Look at U.S. murder
                                            rates.  -tom
                                            \_ How many of those are gang
                                               related? How many murders are
                                               by otherwise law-abiding people
                                               suddenly going vigilante versus
                                               criminals who can get guns
                                               anyway?
                                               \_ How does some number of
                                                  these murders being "gang
                                                  related" ameliorate the
                                                  impact on society?
                                               \_ Well, at least 33.  (For
                                                  comparison, England and
                                                  Wales combined had a total of
                                                  50 gun homicides last year).
                                                    -tom
                                                  \_ Lying with statistics:
                                                     you're leaving out the
                                                     murderous Scots.
                                                     \_ ...who still have half
                                                        of the murder rate
                                                        of the U.S.  -tom
                       \_ How do you know no one had a gun?  -tom
                          \_ Actually, that's a good point.  I don't know that.
                             However, guns are explicitly prohibited on campus.
                             I think assuming that no one had a gun is a
                             reasonable assumption under the circumstances.
                             -emarkp
                             \_ OK, I'll also assume that the shooters didn't
                                have guns, then.  -tom
                                \_ Oh tom, you're so witty! -tom #1 fan
        \_ Some assumptions: 1) if it was legal to carry a concealed weapon
           enough of the students would be carrying at the right place at the
           right time. 2) If people were armed, instead of a 33 person
           massacre there wouldn't be 33 more murders spread out over a few
           years because now everyone is armed when they get angry.
           \_ If it was legal to carry, still not everyone would carry.
              People don't kill others just because they get angry. Using a gun
              on someone is like stabbing them to death with a knife. If you
              carried a knife around would you use it on people who made you
              angry? If you are that type of person you will probably wind up
              dead or in jail regardless of gun laws.
              \_ I'm pretty sure if the guy at VA Tech had a knife instead of
                 a gun, he wouldn't have killed 31 people.  -tom
2007/4/16-18 [Reference/BayArea] UID:46309 Activity:nil
4/16    Is "Oakeley" a new term referring to the Oakland/Berkeley area?  I've
        never heard of this term before, but I heard it three times this
        morning in traffic news on KCBS AM 740.
        \_ Oakley is a city out past pittsburgh that poor damned souls commute
                                     \_ Pittsburg
           from, to the bay area, maybe that's what they are referring to.
2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Media] UID:46310 Activity:kinda low
4/16    Just a quick question for those who aren't upset about Imus being
        fired...If the two reverends who had gotten Imus fired were Robertson
        and Fallwell, and talked about "cleaning up the airwaves", would you be
        upset?  -emarkp
        \_ this isn't about "cleaning up the airwaves".  imus has said many
           horribly offensive things in the past.  so have many other radio
           hosts.  he got fired because this time the story grew legs.  the
           same reverends you are so upset about have complained about him
           before, but it never led to his firing.  the story got legs, the
           advertisers got worried, they pulled their support, he got fired.
           now, if you want to examine why it got legs this time around, that
           may be an interesting topic.  but tom's right.  this is a red
           herring.  --scotsman
        \_ Rather a red herring, don't you think, considering those are both
           bigoted assholes who would never call on anyone to be fired for
           racist remaks against blacks.
           If Imus had instead called the University of Utah basketball
           team a bunch of "Mormon white boys screwing their own sisters,"
           I think he should have been fired for that, too.  -tom
           \_ I don't think those two got him fired.  I think advertisers
              threatening to not advertise with CBS anymore got him fired.
              I am curious, do you listen to Imus' show?  Are you really
              going to defend someone who hired someone just to
              write nigger jokes?  I had more respect than that for you.
              \_ Sharpton and Jackson were in on the board meeting of CBS
                 before he got fired.  They also were publicly calling for
                 pressure on his advertising.  From that I conclude that they
                 were involved. -emarkp
           \_ See tom I see the problem as anyone being able to point at
              someone and get him fired. Imus has been making nasty comments
              for decades, but this time the Reverends pointed their fingers
              and he was gone.  I would think that would raise eyebrows here
              considering how much antipathy there is on motd for organized
              religion. -emarkp
              \_ Imus has gotten fired numerous times without Jackson and
                 Sharpton being involved.  And frankly, it is sad that he
                 wasn't fired immediately by CBS and that it took community
                 pressure.  -tom
                 \_ He wasn't fired by CBS immediately because he was making
                    money for them. And has been for years. I've never listened
                    to him and given his history I wouldn't ever listen to him.
                    However, I *also* wouldn't call for him to be fired.
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Really?  Why not?  There's nothing stopping him from
                       spewing his shit somewhere else.  If he is going to
                       to be a well paid moron, he should be tough enough to
                       face hard economic consequences.
                       \_ I think freedom is very important, especially
                          freedom of speech.  For instance, I hate smoking but
                          voted against the massive taxes on smoking (prop 10)
                          and outlawing it in all buildings.  I could never
                          vote for McCain because of his assault on 1st
                          amendment (campaign finance). -emarkp
                          \_ Imus makes money for CBS, therefore it's OK
                             for him to say what he wants--is that your
                             position?  Well, I think it's also freedom of
                             speech for the people affected by his bigoted
                             speech to use *their* free speech rights to
                             call CBS's advertisers (the ones paying Imus)
                             and tell them to fire the guy.  -tom
                             \_ No, it's for CBS to decide if he should be
                                fired. I just wonder why people aren't pointing
                                out that it's clergy that are calling for the
                                air to be cleaned up.  And as for others using
                                their speech, I think it would be better for
                                others to respond to it and stop listening if
                                they're offended.  Wasn't that what people were
                                saying when Janet Jackson flashed her boob?
                                -emarkp
                                \_ Of course when Janet Jackon showed her
                                   boobies THE GOVERNMENT (FCC) was involved
                                   in punitive actions.  Do you see the
                                   difference between government action
                                   and private citizens taking action?
                                   Imus managed to fly under most people's
                                   for a long time, went way over the line
                                   and suddenly people noticed "hey, what is
                                   this asshole doing this schtick that makes
                                   CBS many millions a year?"  and found
                                   a way to make it clear to CBS that hey,
                                   if they wanted to keep him around it was
                                   going to cost them via private economic
                                   boycotts.
                                \_ People *are* pointing out it's clergy.  You
                                   are.  It's completely irrelevant, which is
                                   why no one else is.  And are you really
                                   trying to equate insulting people based on
                                   their race, with flashing a nipple?  Who
                                   did Janet injure?  -tom
                                   \_ My children were injured.  Tom, if you
                                      injure my children, I WILL GET YOU.
2007/4/16 [Uncategorized] UID:46311 Activity:nil
4/16    dans, your brain has been classified as: small.
2007/4/16-18 [Uncategorized] UID:46312 Activity:nil
4/16    that guy who sued Take 2 multiple times for Grand Theft Auto is
        already blaming GTA for the Virginia shooting.
2007/4/16-18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46313 Activity:moderate
4/16    I recently read a book titled "Babyproofing Your Marriage."  In the
        chapter on sex, they had found many (most?) couples with small children
        having sex on the order of once a month.  This is amazing to me,
        aside from around our children's birth (when you aren't medically
        allowed to do it), we have never fallen below about once a week.  Is
        anyone here that deprived?
        \_ How many years have you been together? I've had many relationships
           and have had great sex in the first year. Then it drops off
           sharply by the 3-4th year, and eventually the girl becomes a
           bitch and complains about her salary, her friends' husbands
           making more money, having a house, going to Europe, so on
           so forth.
           \_ Almost everything above applies to my marriage, except that my
              wife complains about my salary instead of hers.  But she only
              lets me work 7hrs a day, so I don't see how she can compare
              my salary to the salary of her friend's husbands who work ~10hrs.
              -- !OP
        \_ I have sex with my life like 3 times a year.
           \_ Really.  Do you have children?  Is your wife just "too tired?"
              Do you justuse porn so much you don't care?
                \_ I'm not the "op", but I noticed my sex drive is definitely
                   reduced now that I'm exercising 2-3 hours/day.  Though
                   if I stop exercising for 2 days the libido goes totally
                   through the roof.
                   \_ I'm not the op or pp, but I've found the opposite to be
                      true: the fitter I am, the higher my libido.
                   \_ 2-3 hrs/day?  Maybe you're just plain tired.
                      \_ Yup.  I'm just plain tired.
        \_ How long have you been married?
           \_ I'll avoid identifing myself too closely, but I've been married
              between 1 and 7 years, and have 2 young children.
              \_ Big difference between 1 year and 7 years.
        \_ Dropped from every other day to every third day after the kid
           was born.
2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46314 Activity:nil
4/16    emarkp, you said below that you could never vote for McCain because of
        his assault on 1st amendment (campaign finance)." Which part of McCain-
        Feingold did you consider an assault on 1st amendment rights? --erikred
        \_ The part about what can be said X days before an election. -emarkp
2007/4/16 [Uncategorized] UID:46315 Activity:kinda low
4/16    What kind of stupid name is Tiki Barber?
        \_ Most names are stupid.  Repeat your own name out loud 10-15 times.
           After a while it will become random noise and sound stupid too.
           You can play that game with any word or phrase.
2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46316 Activity:nil
4/16    Question: Your preference, or fetish for certain types of mate
        (brunette, blonde, curly hair, long hair, petite, buttery, etc)...
        is it mostly environmental, or is it genetic?
        \_ I think it's mostly environmental. But your own genetics become
           part of your environment when you look in a mirror or look at your
           family.
           \_ Likewise, I think Oedipux complex counts as environmental factor
              (your eyes see that your mom is brunette/blonde/etc.) rather than
              genetic factor (you subcounsiously know that your mom is
              brunette/blonde/etc.)
2007/4/16-18 [Health/Men] UID:46317 Activity:nil
4/16    Hey women, take note of this: Wealthy men cheat WAAAY more than
        poor men. "For men with money, infidelity is just another perk.
        Among men making more than $300,000 a year, 32 percent report
        cheating, compared to 21 percent of men making less than
        $35,000 a year."
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951664/page/2
        \_ But 90% of the women married to the men making more than $300,000
           don't give a shit.
        \_ 32% is still less than 1/3. "just another perk" is WAAAY overstating
           it.
2007/4/16-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:46318 Activity:nil
4/16    Why is the tax filing dealine 4/17 not 4/16 this year?  (Not that I'm
        complaining about that one extra day. :-) )
        \_ DC has a holiday today. Boston does too.  Since the filing centers
           will be closed, the IRS decided to just back it off another day.
           \_ What holidays are in DC and Boston that don't fall on 4/16 in
              other years?
              \_ According to Wikipedia, Emancipation Day is a D.C. holiday
                 every year on 4/16. Since 4/15 is usually not a Sunday or
                 a Saturday, this doesn't affect tax filing.
                 \_ Thanks!
2007/4/16-19 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46319 Activity:nil
4/16    Abstinence only sex education basically 1.5billion down the shitter:
        http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/04/no_effect.html
        http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
2007/4/16-19 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46320 Activity:nil
4/16    For emarkp: Extensive debunking of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"
        http://timlambert.org/guns/lott
        \_ Hi troll!  Sign your name.  Oh, and just by chance, have you looked
           for any response to Lambert, and weighed it against the paper?  Or
           did you just pick the first reference that fit your agenda? -emarkp
           \_ Maybe we should do what Lott did, which was to create multiple
              accounts in online forums to invent people to support his
              ridiculous position.  -tom
              \_ More on Lott:
                 "In his published research analysis, John Lott has
                 claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that
                 concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired
                 an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim
                 allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely
                 few self-defense uses of handguns are ever
                 reported. But when scholars began questioning his
                 survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that
                 culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed
                 and he had "lost" all the data. The University of
                 Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study,
                 has no record of it being conducted so Lott began
                 claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no
                 records) and that he used students to make the survey
                 calls (though no students have been identified who
                 participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist
                 at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about
                 whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising
                 serious questions about his ethics and credibility."
                 http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott
                 \_ Wow, so a political group which opposes gun ownership
                    disagrees?  Stunning. -emarkp
                    \_ So essentially, any document or study which doesn't
                       support your position, or comes from a group which
                       doesn't support your position, is inherently
                       fraudulent?  Your job as a scientist in the Bush
                       Administration is secure!
                       \_ Sigh. No, I'm not arguing that. My point is that
                          rather than simply quoting mindlessly from the
                          proponent and critics is to read them both or search
                          for a third party.  For instance, the National
                          Acadamy of Science looked into the issue, and while
                          they say they can't support the conlusion that "more
                          guns = less crime" they *can* conclude that "more
                          guns != more crime". Since I've never read the book,
                          nor was I claiming it was correct, I really don't
                          care much, except the "debunking" cited above is from
                          a "lecturer" of CS (particular graphics--and his Java
                          applet has bugs) whereas Lott has more experience
                          with statistics.  Michelle Malkin has criticized Lott
                          as well, even though she agrees with him
                          ideologically. -emarkp
                          \_ Does that equal sign mean 'logical implication,'
                             'algebraic equality' or is it the equal sign they
                             use in structural equation models? -- ilyas
2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46321 Activity:nil
4/16    Pelosi at 53% approval.  By way of comparison, Gingrinch maxed out
        at 41%.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html
        \_ Polls re: people we don't vote for: yawn.
2007/4/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:46322 Activity:nil
4/16    Why are the VT shootings being described as "worst in US history"
        by the media?  This seems like useless hyperbole where none is needed,
        and besides:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
        \_ well, wikipedia says worst "civilian" shooting in U.S. history
        \_ The TV news says it's the worst "school shooting" in US history.
2007/4/16-19 [Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:46323 Activity:nil
4/16    Hoping to get a recommendation for a friend ...
        "I'm looking into setting up a server for some static web pages, a
         wiki, a Subversion server, and possibly some other stuff (e.g.
         BugZilla).  Can you recommend a hosting service?  I think I need shell
         access, PHP, MySql, and Apache.  The bandwidth and storage
         requirements will be modest, so a modest price would be nice."
        \_ Set up a $200 box on a friend's cable/dsl line.
2007/4/16-19 [Uncategorized] UID:46324 Activity:nil
4/16    pro concealed-carry advertisement blames Virginia Tech for 32 deaths
        http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg
        http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19024-2/feelsafe.jpg
        \_ We all need to live in that shining land of civility and peace,
           Iraq.
        \_ It's amazing how well-oiled the machinery of the ideolouges is.
              -tom
           \_ PKB.
        \_ Nice Kahr
2007/4/16-19 [Reference/Military] UID:46325 Activity:moderate
4/16    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007319.htm
        go down to "A student e-mails"
        If the students had a gun, they might have been able to stop it.
        -emarkp
        \_ And everyone who talks tough when safely at home is to be taken
           seriously now?
        \_ If the shooter didn't have a gun, it would have been stopped to
           begin with.  -tom
           \_ unfortunately laws are there to discourage someone from
              doing harm to others at the cost of severe punishment
              but if the person such as this doesn't care about punishment
              because he doesn't plan to survive (suicide) then laws
              become meaningless. The deterrent is gone unless there
              is the fear of being shot by law-abiding armed citizens
              which there were on that campus not to long ago.
              The fact that guns are in the 2nd amendment prevents our
              government from lining up its citizens along the edge of
              a ditch and machine gunning them down for not following
              what the facist govermnment wants them to do..
              but I take it you didn't believe in the holocaust either..
              I believe anyone who listens to tom will one day end
              up in a line in from a ditch and get gunned down and buried
              easily.
           \_   if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then
                that incident would not have happened last week.
                you have unreasonable fears about people who CCW that
                they would shoot each other. Concealed carry people
                do not pull out their weapons because that is illegal
                (CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out their
                gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious
                who the immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass,
                do you have a major fear of a bicycle crash with lots
                of bikes together? it should happen more so since they
                break the law and pass red lights and they break and
                attack cars...
              \_ As much as I agree w/ you, the 2d is not an effective
                 deterrent against federal abuse in this day and age.
                 What use is a handgun against a tank or a ucav?
                 \_ Have you seen Iraq lately? A few tens of million
                    lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of things.
                    lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of
                    things.
                    \_ I had not considered this. I guess if the gov.
                       is reluctant to deploy its full destructive
                       might against the opposing force, then small
                       arms mights be an effective means of resistance.
                       \_ Well, even in Vietnam, where the US did try to
                          deploy full destructive force.
                          \_ No we didn't.  Today we bomb, sort of, then
                             we ask them to talk with us a bit, then it
                             doesn't go well so we bomb a bit more in some
                             other unimportant place and whatever you do
                             don't ever bomb too far north.  Can't go
                             around actually killing the enemy unfairly.
                          \_ No H-Bombs were used in Vietnam, afaik.
           \_ if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then that incident
              would not have happened last week. you have unreasonable fears
              about people who CCW that they would shoot each other.
              Concealed carry people do not pull out their weapons because
              that is illegal (CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out
              their gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious who the
              immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass, do you have a
              major fear of a bicycle crash with lots of bikes together? it
              should happen more so since they break the law and pass red
              lights and they break and attack cars...
           \_ Damned pesky 2nd amendment. -emarkp
                 \_ Actually no. It is entirely unclear that the 2d creates
                    a personal right. Even if it does, the 2d has never been
                    incorporated against the states, therefore the states
                    remain free to regulate arms, provided that there is no
                    state constitutional limit. In this case, Art I Sec. 13
                    Virginia's State Constitution imposes substantially the
                    same limit as the 2d. If anyone is to "blame," it is the
                    people of Virgina, who adopted this limitation in 1776
                    and have not seen fit to repeal it since then.
                    I disagree w/ the assertion below that the 2d would not
                    have been placed in the Constitution if the information
                    known today was known to the framers. As the Constitution
                    is derived from Common Law, and this right was recognized
                    at Common Law since the late 1100s, it is likely that the
                    framers would have included it. The life of the law is
                    experience.
                    \_ England is a common law country, yet they've essentially
                       banned gun ownership.  -tom
                       \_ Thank god we parted company w/ them.
                       \_ And they're also the most nanny-statish on-camera
                          people on the planet, ever.  The less we follow
                          their example the better.
                          \_ yeah, it's much worse to be shot with a camera
                             than with a gun
              \_ Yes, it is.  Shockingly, the founding fathers weren't able
                 to anticipate 100% of the effects the pieces of paper they
                 signed might have 200+ years later.  It's farcial to assume
                 that they would write the constitution the same way if
                 they had the information available to us now.  -tom
                 \_ of course they would,, having a gun+ammo back then
                    was the only way you could survive, indians, bears,
                    murderers, rapist.. it's the great equalizer...
                    but if only the murderer has the gun then it's
                    a total massacre like yesterday.. somehow.. criminals
                    (those who do not follow the law) will always find
                    weapons and kill off law abiding folks..
                    It's not about gun laws, not about guns... it's about
                    the stupid way laws are applied to the citizenry..
                    they are always applied against law abiding citizens..
                    if some people CCW on that campus then it would have
                    ended sooner but the laws forced those who obey the
                    law to not bring their guns to campus.
                    \_ The shooter was not a criminal until he started
                       shooting.  It is almost certain that if he lived
                       in someplace like the U.K., he would not have had
                       the guns and ammo necessary to carry out his
                       rampage.  -tom
                       \_ The framers included the 2d for precisely this
                          reasons - they felt less free when the crown
                          could take away their only ultimately effective
                          means of resistance.
                          In their minds the costs imposed on society by
                          the free access to arms - violent crime - was
                          outweighed by the cost imposed by restricting
                          that right - government oppression.
                          I undestand that you feel that this balance is
                          no longer appropriate (or was never appropriate).
                          If you suggest that we should rebalance today,
                          why? Mere change in technology?
                          If so, do you think that we should rebalance the
                          4th to give the police more or less ability to
                          use things like thermal imagers to look into your
                          house? Do you think that we should rebalance the
                          1st for things like hate speech, child pr0n on
                          the Internet?
                          The framers seemed to get so many things correct,
                          that, to me, it is foolish to think they got this
                          one wrong.
                          \_ The other amendments are all much more fluid than
                             the second, which has a large, well-funded group
                                \_ The others are not at all fluid.
                                   \_ I disagree, the scope of the
                                      1st, 4th, 6th, 14th, &c. have
                                      tended to expand and contract
                                      over the years. For example,
                                      the 4th exclusionary rule is
                                      currently on the wane. As is
                                      the emphasis on a warrant.
                                      The 6th right to assistance
                                      of counsel has also been
                                      significantly reduced in the
                                      last decade. Since the 40s
                                      the 14th has almost never
                                      been used for economic laws,
                                      but its coverage of other
                                      rights continues to expand.
                                      \- not a challenge but an inquiry:
                                         what are the sig changes to 6th amd
                                         right to counsel recently? for 4th,
                                         assume you mean US v LEON etc. ok tnx
                                         \_ Re 6th - I am off on dates
                                            but look at KUHLMANN v.
                                            WILSON, 477 US 436, holding
                                            that 6th requires cops to
                                            deliberately elicit stmt
                                            from suspect. It was long
                                            assumed that the test for
                                            interrogation under the
                                            6th was much less or at
                                            least equal to interrogation
                                            under 5th (MIRANDA) b/c the
                                            6th confers an affirmative
                                            right to assistance of counsel
                                            whereas 5th merely gets you a
                                            warning.  Also, TEXAS v. COBB,
                                            532 US 162, holding that 6th
                                            doesn't even apply to related
                                            offenses - the 5th again is
                                            better b/c it is not offense
                                            specific. The trend is toward
                                            weaker 6th. (and weaker 5th,
                                            e.g. DICKERSON v US, 530 US
                                            428 holding only that stmt
                                            in violation of MIRANDA can't
                                            be used in the DA's case in
                                            chief - but DA remains free
                                            to use for impeachment,
                                            sentencing, &c.)
                                            Re 4th - Consider HUDSON
                                            v MICHIGAN, 126 S. Ct. 2159,
                                            holding that MAPP exclusion
                                            not required for a knock
                                            notice violation AND holding
                                            (in dicta) that as long as
                                            the cops could have acted
                                            legally (ie got a warrant)
                                            the doctrine of inevitable
                                            discovery can sanitize a
                                            bad actions. Implication
                                            of the extension of
                                            inevitable discovery is
                                            that once cops have probable
                                            cause they can always search
                                            and arrest w/o a warrant b/c
                                            once they have probable they
                                            could have got a warrant.
                                            \- re: invetiable discovery,
                                               i think the BREWER v WILLIAMS
                                               cases are pretty interesting.
                                               once of those cases where
                                               one of those cases where
                                               you couldnt write a better
                                               screenplay than the real facts.
                             of ideologues defending against any attempt to
                             change it or make it relevant to today's world.
                             The *first* reaction of the President of the
                             Frickin' United States to a gruesome gun massacre
                             was to reassert the right to bear arms.  Somehow
                             I don't think that his first reaction to the
                             most egregious violations related to the first or
                             fourth amendments would be to talk about how
                             important free speech is.  (And as for the
                             fourth, we already have plenty of evidence that
                             he doesn't care about it at all).  -tom
                             \_ To many, the very fact that the courts have
                                treated the other amendments as fluid is
                                itself a problem that, if necessary, may need
                                to be rectified via the rights protected by
                                the 2d.
                                Some would also suggest that the 1st and 4th
                                both have a large, well-funded group of ide-
                                ologues defending them against any attempt
                                to change them or make them relevant to
                                today's world - namely the ACLU.
                                My concern is merely this - if the 2d can be
                                reevaluated b/c of a changed factual predicate
                                what is to stop similar reevaluation of the
                                other amendments. Even under this administra-
                                tion, the 4th continues to limit executive
                                power. But, the executive continues to insist
                                that these limits are outdated and prevent it
                                from acting in ways that are necessary to
                                protect the people.
                                If we accept the arms controller's arguments,
                                then perhaps we should accept the executive's
                                argument as well. This will leave us subject
                                argument as well. This may leave us subject
                                to invasive government conduct w/ no means of
                                of resistance (however ineffective those means
                                may actually be).
                 \_ There's a process to change the constitution put in place
                    by those same founders.  If the 2nd amendment right to bear
                    arms is no longer beneficial to our society then let's drop
                    it from the constitution.  Other amendments have come and
                    gone, there is nothing so special about this one it can't
                    be changed through the process provided without resorting
                    to bizarre and unjustifiable misinterpretations of the
                    wording.  (No, I'm not saying you're doing that but it is
                    common to say the 2nd doesn't say what it says).
                    \_ Unfortunately, attempts to undo the 2nd amendment would
                       be met with much resistance, and those opposed happen
                       to be the same people who are heavily-armed.
                       \_ You're right, that is a problem.  It would be much
                          easier to take away people's civil liberties if they
                          didn't have those pesky guns!
                          \_ Didn't you see the recently released e-mail
                             exchange between Bush and Abu Gonzales?
                             BUSHG: Let's spy on people and read their
                                    e-mails so we can win the war on terra!
                             GONZALESA: But the people have guns!
                             BUSHG: Shit, never mind, I forgot!
           \_ Yes!  This is it!  What we need is a War on Guns!  That'll be
              right up there with the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War
              on Terrorism, the War on Crime, the War on Smoking, the War on
              Bad Eating Habits, the War on Drunk Driving, the War on The
              Growing Digital Divide Between the Rich and the Poor, the and war
              to end all wars: The War On War Itself!  What we need is another
              War!  Woot!
              \_ Hey, drunk driving is WAY down these days.  Yes it is still
                 bad, but it's miles better then it was a generation ago.
                 \_ How are the other 8 or 9 Wars On XYZ going?  I suspect
                    Darwin has more to do with any slim decrease in drunk
                    driving deaths than anything else.
                    \_ Drunk driving fatalities have dropped a significant
                       amount, by several thousand deaths a year in the U.S.
                       Smoking is also way down, as are pot and cocaine use
                       among teens.  Some of the things you list, such as the
                       War on Terrorism, are foils for political efforts that
                       have nothing to do with their stated goals.  And what's
                       your point, anyway...that we shouldn't try to change
                       anything?  -tom
           \_ Since you can't stop him from having a gun, you should let
              other people have guns.
        \_ I have this magic wand that will make all guns disappear. Then
           the same government you trust with your guns will surely stay
           out of your bedroom, your lifestyle and your wallet.
           \_ Out of curiosity, how does your right to own a gun prevent the
              government from intruding into your bedroom, lifestyle, and
              wallet now?
              \_ Or to take this thought further: when in the history of the
                 U.S. has private ownership of guns been an effective check
                 on government power?  -tom
                 \_ Every day.  Look at the British.  It could be like that
                    here.
                    \_ Like what?  -tom
                       \_ Spying on you everywhere you go for starters.
                          \_ So you think the only thing keeping the U.S.
                             from spying on you everywhere you go is
                             private gun ownership?  I'd say the two
                             are completely unrelated.  In fact, I think
                             a lot of the gun yahoos are the same guys
                             who want to give the government more power
                             to spy on us.  -tom
                 \_ Until the 40s I would say that private ownership of
                    guns had been an effective check on government power.
                    The government hesitates to act against the people,
                    if it believes the people may take to the streets to
                    correct its misdeeds. Since the 40s I would say that
                    if the government decides to truly move against the
                    people, private gun ownership is of no consequence.
                    \_ The government would never move completely against
                       the people anyway. They can usually manipulate and
                       propagandize to get 30-40% of the people to support
                       whatever it is, which is enough to maintain the
                       notion of representative gov't and forestall direct
                       confrontation. At least since the Civil War. (Private
                       ownership of guns didn't stop the feds from pwning
                       the South.)
2017/09/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/23    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:16 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>