Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Rob F]

Let's just leave Rob F out of this.

only 595 lbs to go and I'll be there. Only then will I accurately be able to say "I resemble that remark!"

[Jeff Buchanan]

Aereo would need a sat antenna & receiver/decoder to be single user capable instead of its small radio aerial. Now as soon as Aereo rebroadcasts a cable signal OTA for profit they cross the line and are wide open to the lawsuit.

I don't think its that simple, Tony. This is a hugely complex legal issue that involves all kinds of nuances, copyright laws, FCC regulations and so forth. Bloomberg TV, a cable product, is carried on Aereo. Its the first and intended to be a demonstration that it can be done.

To me, whether Aereo succeeds as a legitimate option to the cable company virtual monopoly, depends on how the courts interpret the rules and how Congress amends them.

So far, my read is that the courts are sympathetic and so is Congress. Problem is, the cable and movie industry spend millions lobbying. Citizens who are sick of paying $300/month for bundled phone, cable and internet services from the likes of COMCAST, have the potential of moving the pile towards technology like Aereo is offering. We'll see.

To me, though, if I were a cable or network broadcaster (e.g., the BTN) who is counting on billions in sports broadcast revenue to support growth, I'd be an idiot to not wonder about and plan for inroads this technology might make in the customer base I'm counting on for those billions.

[Optimus Prime]

Looks like you boys in the mid-west are getting dumped on this Spring. Want you to know it's not terrible everywhere, high of 90F in Miami today, think I will have to swim today, few margaritas might just be what the doctor ordered too.

[entropy]

Pussy

[hack]

Geezer.

[Mackenzie]

When someone starts a new thread, they have the option of selecting an icon to accompany the thread...to get attention or express an emotion. The green arrows you see were selected by the initiator of the thread for whatever reason.

You can also choose an icon for your reply to threads. I selected the light bulb for this reply.

A bit late here but thanks.

[Mackenzie]

Tony, honestly think about your day. Any, ATM, convenience store, gas station and parking lot, you are at risk more often than you think.

Drug addiction is at epidemic levels, these people can be hardly considered rational but keep rolling the dice.

"Buckaroos" like DSL need not worry.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the conversation but.....

http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Police-arrest-2-teens-after-baby-shot-in-head/YrEk2l-HZkOv8N32IilbhQ.cspx

[Dr. Strangelove]

OP does love bragging about how much of a damn pussy he is. Off to measure "boat lengths" in Key West this weekend

[Jeff Buchanan]

Despicable.

Hesitant to bring the politics of gun control to this board but I can't think of a better place than this to here reasoned opinions. Here are mine:

We don't know nearly enough from our research on this matter to make good decisions about how to approach gun violence in the US where it is higher than any other developed country in the world. Even that statement can be challenged depending on what is being measured, reported, analyzed and so forth.

There are two aspects to gun control: gun access and gun use. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence that programs aimed at either aspect reduces gun violence. Some programs work, some don't. Programs that might work in Memphis, may not work in Detroit.

I am not in favor of the Obama line: it's time to do something. No it's not. It's time to thoughtfully identify programs that will work. Frankly, in this politically charged legislative environment I have no faith that congress can do that at the Federal level. Most of what the states are doing is not well thought out but I'd rather have it done there than Federally and that is mostly because of my strong political views regarding the role of the Feds.

Something that should absolutely happen is to eliminate the loop hole that allows for the private sale of guns without back ground checks. (1) there is some evidence that limiting access to guns does reduce the fatality rate of gun crimes overall. Importantly, it does not reduce the level of crime. (2) in the commission of a crime, if there is no gun involved, injury and death are significantly reduced. In other words, if you implement strategies that limit the access of guns to bad actors with mental health problems or criminal records, you'll reduce gun fatality rates; not crime but injury from its commission. These are important distinctions that are rarely mentioned.

I am also supportive of community action strategies at the local level where law enforcement works with residents to reduce crime and gun violence. These kinds of programs, when tailored for the culture and make-up of communities, work pretty well.

Bottom line, it's not a problem to be entirely solved at the Federal level. Better to solve it locally. What does this take? An activist citizenry. Do we have it? Not really. Everybody is more interested in the Kardashians. As sad as this reality is, what it does do is to make me more aware that I can become a victim of a gun crime and I am prepared to deal with that at my level.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The story about the baby murder is horrific but if it's going to start up the gun debate again, I'll report some facts

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?hp&_r=2&

Basically a study of three major cities was done and found that for every ONE TIME a gun was fired in self-defense you also had the following:

7 assaults/homicides
4 accidental shootings
11 attempted/successful suicides

Women who own guns or living with men who own guns are significantly more likely to be murdered than women without them.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I have to ask, strange, do you oppose private gun ownership or just the more limited view that using a gun in self defense causes more adverse outcomes than does any good?

Take a look at this. While your statistics may be accurate, there are some fundamental problems with drawing conclusions from them. Sure, you can always draw your own conclusions but make sure you understand the inherent flaws in data collection when you do. This is a quote and a ref. I'm just to lazy to italicize it.

There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense.

A few surveys in the early 1990s suggested that there are millions of gun self-defense incidents each year, but there are very good reasons to believe that these estimates were improperly calculated and these numbers are way off, more than 10 times too high. If the numbers really were this high, this would imply that pretty much every gunshot wound in America is the result of somebody protecting him or herself.

Even among the more accurate surveys, according to a panel of criminal court judges who reviewed survey respondents' stories, about half the time the gun use was "probably illegal," even assuming the gun itself had been purchased legally.

(More: Gun threats and self-defense gun use, Harvard Injury Control Research Center)

The point? The possession of a gun for self defense is probably not the problem and its really hard to say if it is. Certainly, there are bad outcomes when a gun is used for self defense, but not nearly as bad as the problems associated with crimes committed with guns overall. Therefore, in my mind anyway, the issue you have focused on - bad outcomes when people use a gun for self defense - is small potatoes compared to the larger one of gun violence and the bigger question of what needs to be done to decrease it in the US.

[lineygoblue]

And the Second Amendment is more about the citizenry defending themselves and their liberty from a tyrannical government, than it is about shooting a home invader.

But, that's the radical in me talking, so I digress ...

[DennisT]

high of 90F in Miami today

Definition of terrible in my world.

[Rob F]

And the Second Amendment is more about the citizenry defending themselves and their liberty from a tyrannical government, than it is about shooting a home invader.

But, that's the radical in me talking, so I digress ...

Ah-ha!

Liney finally exposes himself as a former 60's radical!

My guess is that he was a card-carrying member of the Weather Underground (inspired by Bob Dylan's lyric "It don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...), going around blowing things up, although it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that he's a follower of Abbie Hoffman and his Yippie Movement. Another possibility? SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), but I don't see him as one who would associate himself with a group using the word "Democrat" in their title.

Here's a list of 60's radical groups, I'll let the rest of you voice your thoughts on Liney's past after sorting through them:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...s/radical.html

[Rob F]

If I didn't know better, though, I would assume that Dennis had been a co-founder (along with Bobby Seale and Huey Newton) of the Black Panthers.

;-)