 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/01/2011 8:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL, I'm no Tory.;-) That'd be about as crazy as me joining the BNP and
> still wanting to live in the UK.;-)
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2011 20:32, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
>>> between the USA and the UK.
>>
>> I don't think they need to be stolen.
>
> Why are you blaming the USA if you can pass import restriction laws to
> solve your problem, then?
I am *NOT* blam... sorry you got that by now.
> I assumed you were talking about *illegal*
> firearms, because otherwise all you have to do is pass a law making the
> legal firearms illegal to solve *that* problem.
firearms are illegal here (minus a few exceptions). I was talking about
legally obtained guns entering illegal into this country. But you
already got that too.
>> What I proposed was to compare two situations 1) the current one where
>> the NRA is the main direct and indirect factor in gun control
>
> I think a lot of people in this country are in favor of being able to
> have their own guns. It's not like the NRA has taken over or something.
No, they just will make any politician or any journalist saying gun
control may be a good idea lose his job. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "What if they where not available to the criminals either
>
> That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple
> firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded
> by an attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.
>
> Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would
> happen.
>
> Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to
> use them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider
> that maybe the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if
> reducing them would help.
>
Not seeing a lot of those. Most places, everyone having one isn't a good
thing. It certainly wasn't in the US past.
>> We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there.
>
> Yeah, because that worked *so* well with drugs. And with alcohol before
> that.
>
>> We *don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots,
>
> Sure. Because only the brightest people go into the military, and people
> accidentally shoot each other every day there.
>
>> We do not know if everyone having one is a good thing, though that was
>> *precisely* the way things where in the old west, and you could,
>> often, only tell the bad guys from the good guys by whether or not the
>> locals/courts decided you belonged on the end of, or rigging, the
>> rope, hardly a prime example of the "good" that every idiot in sight
>> being armed would produce.
>
> Sure. But that was also at a time when the only police force was the
> general population. Disarm them, and watch what the bad guys do.
>
>> And so on. And, the claims that "studies" say you are better off armed
>> take as little, or less, of *any* of the stuff into account that
>> studies saying guns are not a good thing do.
>
> No it doesn't. It's a simple statistic: People with guns got hurt in
> violent crimes less than people without guns. Admittedly it didn't look
> at things like accidental shootings, but then this was the FBI unified
> crime statistics, not the FBI unified accident statistics.
>
> Saying you can't tell whether it works is like saying you can't tell
> whether changing the speed limit state-wide reduces accidents.
>
>> Pick what can predictably work
>
> Does it work? How do you know?
>
>> Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other" studies
>> saying its a good thing to have them around imo.
>
> Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when
> the shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this
> country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm
> everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the
> government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being
> just as disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)
>
Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it. If we
had the government try to do something, the populace *had* risen up, and
the result wasn't a lot of dead people, and the government winning, you
would have a point. Otherwise, this is bloody idiocy, founded on a fairy
tale. Everyone having a gun wouldn't help us fight the government
successfully today, nor would it have done so at any time in the last
century. Assuming you could get the military to act against the people
it protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned, by so massive a
level, it wouldn't be like freedom fighters doing sneak attacks, armed
with a few guns, it would be more like a primitive tribe attempting to
stop a tank, using sticks.
What keeps the government in line is a) so far we haven't had anyone
sufficiently crazy as to believe they need to *fix* things by
overthrowing the constitution (even if we do have a few stupid enough to
not have a damn clue what it says), and b) the people who would have to
enforce any such overthrow wouldn't allow it, regardless of who was
pushing them. The general populous being able to wave a hand gun around,
when facing a Mach-2 aircraft with frakking cluster bombs, is
meaningless. It gets more and more meaningless as things progress.
Its also imho, a dangerous and stupid way of solving problems. The nuts
we have right now, who *could* very easily cross that line, if not for
the fact that less than 10% of the population would even pretend at
following them, babble about using guns, force, and the second amendment
to overthrow people the other 90+% of the country elected. The sane
people are going to use every method possible to solve the problem
without violence. The crazy people will do anything at all they must, to
win, and shooting at things is like item 3 on every damn one of their lists.
Overthrowing governments by guns a) doesn't work, b) gets a lot of
people dead, and c) makes no guarantee that the ones that shoot last are
going to be the ones *defending* democratic ideals. On the contrary, the
ones most likely to do it don't really believe in them (even if they
play lip service to all of them, while cherry picking only the ones that
they find helpful). The reason it doesn't work is that its the law, and
the constitution, and the ideals, that define whether or not the damn
thing is fair, just and/or free, not how many people got shot getting
there. If you can't curtail the nuts, and stop violence with words, you
have **already bloody lost**.
That is the reason why so much of the idiot rhetoric you see now is so
disheartening. We have stopped fighting with facts, evidence and sense,
and have instead seen one side drift more and more to the other, while
the other side keeps getting more and more absurd. And, **they** are the
ones suggesting that more guns is a good thing, and that we erase
virtually every progressive law, rights, constitutional amendment, or
principle we have, which doesn't *fit* their world view. Their answer on
how to do this? Get a gun, in case terrorism (i.e., fear and lies)
doesn't work, and we can't just legislate our view on everyone!
What is standing in their way is the military, not the general
population. That is why **part** of the BS they have been pulling is to
try to evangelize the military, to make them side with them, instead of
the rest of the country, who are not evangelicals, literalists, etc. If
the military is not on their side, they can't violently overthrow the
"liberal atheist communist government". If they where, they know, quite
well, that the general populace would be no more able to defend
themselves against the resulting, "corrupt government", than anyone else
has been, in countries where everyone has bloody guns, but the result is
genocide, by whom ever has the bigger set/number of guns.
The second amendment, if directed at "preventing government corruption",
is a fantasy. If you fail, or even if you manage to shoot the "corrupt
official(s)", you are a terrorist, or a traitor, or a madman. You can't
win. And no one claiming you can is talking about the next bloody Hitler
taking over the country, they are talking about someone, "letting gays
marry", or, "using spy satellites to read their location via their tooth
fillings". In short, they are talking about overthrowing the country
over something only a fraction agree with, or they are completely insane.
The fall of this country, if it comes from within, isn't going to be
undone/prevented by a handful of people with guns. Given the kinds of
people that tend to be most obsessed with the damn things, most of them
are going to be *welcoming* the new order, not fighting against it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2011 8:59 AM, andrel wrote:
> (while trying to answer this my power supply broke down :( had to go and
> buy a new one).
>
> On 30-1-2011 2:18, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know where to get them) are
>>> not outside the budget of a 15 YO.
>>
>> A 15YO drug dealer, maybe. It's not hard to see what the price of a gun
>> is. The price *you* pay for them over there? Not so much.
>
> IIRC from a newspaper article it was in the order of €150-€200. Within
> reach of any paper-boy. Availability is mainly via Belgium, with its
> broader fire arm laws. I don't know who made them.
>
>> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
>> between the USA and the UK.
>
> I don't think they need to be stolen.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class
>>
>> Then, if you can't actually import them, you can do this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun
>>
>>> BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people
>>> abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands
>>> they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but
>>> still.
>>
>> While I understand your concern, blaming firearm deaths on other
>> countries having a big market for firearms is like blaming automobile
>> deaths on other countries having a big market for automobiles. It
>> basically doesn't really make much sense. The link between "americans
>> are allowed to have guns" to "fred shot sam in the UK" is tremendously
>> tenuous, methinks.
>
> Proving it in a particular case is rather useless. And I am not blaming
> anyone. There was a discussion on whether the net effect of the US gun
> laws is more or less victims. My point was that you might need to look
> further than your own country. What I proposed was to compare two
> situations 1) the current one where the NRA is the main direct and
> indirect factor in gun control and 2) the fictitious USA where gun
> control is comparable with e.g. the Netherlands (which is where I live
> BTW). In the latter situation not only would the market be smaller,
> there would be less choice and not being legal would have an additional
> effect on the price. All these factors would mean that the number of
> guns in other countries would also be smaller. At least that is what I
> think. That is not a moral judgement however.
> Probably the gun manufacturers and dealers would move to Canada or
> Mexico, still reducing the legal market would have an effect.
>
Not going to happen. For a large segment of the people in the US,
especially politicians, even *suggesting* that someone else's situation
is pertinent to the US situation is damn close to some form of
blasphemy. Unless, of course, the one making the comparison is a right
wing wacko, and then they ignore the actual facts, in favor of making up
shit that they know most people won't have a clue is completely false.
If you tried to compare to, say, the UK, their "invented" facts would
either be to claim that their gun laws cause 500 times as many deaths,
especially among cops, as the US, or they would lie and claim that their
laws allowed everyone over the age of 8 to own one. Its more likely to
be the former though, since Britain isn't "foreign" enough, and its just
possible a large number of people would know that claiming everyone
slept with one under their pillow would be seen through, even by total
idiots.
But, its not uncommon for claims to be made about just about
*everything* from prostitution to drugs, which try to make every country
with even moderately different laws as a cell pool of hell, worse than
anything we have here, and therefor, as bad as it is in the US, it would
be worse if we even suggested adopting someone else's solutions, never
mind actually did so.
We even get the same BS "internally". Like the bozo protesting the
health care bill, on the basis it would bankrupt the whole country, less
than a year after passing a near identical *state* bill, in his own
state. I swear, sometimes living here is like wandering into some old
village, where like one person in the whole thing ever went any place,
and that was to the next bigger village, to sell a pig, so *everything*
outside must be foreign, and wrong, and dangerous. Been at least twice
this past week someone from either Canada, or even one of the eastern
states, who has come in to the store I worked at and said, "Do you
accept a Safeway card from out of state?" About ready to tell the next
one, "Dah, Soviet Arizona accept all card, even from capitalist nation,
like Nebraska!" I mean WTF?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> "What if they where not available to the criminals either
>>
>> That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple
>> firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded
>> by an attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.
>>
>> Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would
>> happen.
>>
>> Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to
>> use them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider
>> that maybe the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if
>> reducing them would help.
>>
> Not seeing a lot of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
>> Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when
>> the shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this
>> country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm
>> everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the
>> government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being
>> just as disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)
>>
> Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it.
Sure it does. Combined with soldiers (for example) taking an oath to the
constitution instead of the leaders, it helps. But I'm not going to argue
that with you.
> Assuming you could get the military to act against the people
> it protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned,
Yes, because, you know, Afghanistan hasn't had any success in such a situation.
> The general populous being able to wave a hand gun around,
> when facing a Mach-2 aircraft with frakking cluster bombs, is
> meaningless. It gets more and more meaningless as things progress.
Funny. Tell them that in Iraq.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2011 10:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>>>> public,
>>>
>>> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
>>> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>>>
>> I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the
>
> I have no idea what that has to do with duels. And nobody that carried a
> gun carried it unloaded when it takes a minute or more to load.
>
>>>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>>>> to shoot someone,
>>>
>>> Of course they did.
>>>
>> Depends on what you define as rules.
>
> Laws. Same as we have now. Nobody went around saying "He's italian, so I
> get to shoot him."
>
>> I would, again, argue that rules which operated on a) societal
>> justifications, i.e., the person shot was *obviously* deserving of it,
>> due to race, religion, nationality, etc., b) talking fast enough to
>> convince people you had a reason, especially since it might not be
>> possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to handily do away
>> with any possibility of being arrested for shooting someone, all
>> constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just needed to
>> find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near anyone.
>
> Do you have any evidence at all for this?
>
>>>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>>>> don't kill people, people do!",
>>>
>>> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
>>> just like knives were.
>>>
>> Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even,
>> in many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that
>> where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if
>> you don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if
>> you do, you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead.
>
> Gun control means hitting your target. :-)
>
> Note that automobiles are much more dangerous than firearms in that
> respect. Heck, last I looked, swimming pools were more dangerous than
> firearms in tht respect.
>
> > The matches have a place and purpose, which doesn't involve
> improperly using them, and no one much
>> cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to
>> randomly light things one fire.
>
> And a gun in your pocket doesn't tend to randomly shoot people.
>
Sure, and buying fuel oil and fertilizer doesn't mean you *plan* to make
a bomb. Its still considered sufficiently suspicious to require a lot
bloody more strict rules that for a gun. Hell, you can buy a box of
bullets, one of those extra big clips, and the gun, with less trouble
than you could ***Cold medicine***. Why? Because you have a "right" to
the gun, and the presumption is, "They don't plan to shoot at other
people." The automatic presumption of anyone buying more than one
package of something with Amphedamine in it -> drug manufacturing.
That is the thing I find so stupid about this. By all rights, in any
sane world, buying cold medicine should be "normal". Everyone feeling
they need to carry around something that can kill you dead, they might
keep firing, even if they hit their target, and where ***no one*** can
predict that being trained to a) hit, or b) properly use, the damn thing
will actually result in either... That's insane. I don't know if, in a
situation like that, I would a) actually hit what I intended, b) not
panic and shoot myself in the foot instead, etc. Anyone that does is
either lying, delusional, or has experience *in* those situations in the
first place. And, last I checked, the minimum gun training that people
need to own one **does not include that kind of experience**.
Hell, if you get right down to it, half the people I see driving I can't
imagine how they passed the damn driving test (its like a frakking
disease here, no one knows how to use turn signals in the entire damn
city (well, 90% anyway), and that is just the first thing off the top of
my head I find mad about how they drive). You think I should trust the
same people with learning proper gun handling, especially when the moron
that nearly runs me over having failed to use a turn signal gets out and
had a side arm on is belt, and brags about his "carry permit"? He can't
operate a car while following the rules, why the hell would I trust him
to shoot the guy trying to rob me, instead of accidentally shooting me?
Just saying...
>> Someone that carries them around for the *sole* purpose of, "I might
>> need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably be presumed to be possible
>> arsonists,
>
> Wow, really? And I guess anyone who carried a pocket knife on the
> grounds it's useful for opening packages ought be arrested for assault
> if they didn't get any fedex deliveries that day?
>
Yeah, ignore the rest of my explanation of what I meant by that, and
just pick on the one detail you could reject..
And, yeah, I would think, "Most people are not as smart as they imagine
they are, including me, which is why I wouldn't trust them to get it
right.", is a perfectly valid bloody argument.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2011 3:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> "What if they where not available to the criminals either
>>>
>>> That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple
>>> firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded
>>> by an attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.
>>>
>>> Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to
>>> use them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider
>>> that maybe the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if
>>> reducing them would help.
>>>
>> Not seeing a lot of those.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
>
>>> Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when
>>> the shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this
>>> country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm
>>> everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the
>>> government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being
>>> just as disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)
>>>
>> Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it.
>
> Sure it does. Combined with soldiers (for example) taking an oath to the
> constitution instead of the leaders, it helps. But I'm not going to
> argue that with you.
>
The oath has a lot to do with it. The average person having a weapon.. I
am highly skeptical of.
>> Assuming you could get the military to act against the people it
>> protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned,
>
> Yes, because, you know, Afghanistan hasn't had any success in such a
> situation.
>
Oh, yes, because the average Afghani government official has access to
entire arms manufacturing plants, giant armies, dozens of airports, and
whole military bases... Try using an example where there is a tangible
disparity between what the people fighting the government and the people
in the government have to fight with, and there are *no* outside sources
either a) providing them with support, or b) trying to avoid casualties.
If the government had the means, and was willing, or *we* as the outside
help, didn't care about casualties, a few main cities could be kept, and
the rest of the country smashed to pieces, and the result would kind of
leave a) no one willing to keep fighting back in the places left, and b)
no one left outside of those places to fight. Its like the Nam argument.
If you where willing to win by *any means*, you could have just killed
everyone that got in the way, indiscriminately. As a rule, dictators,
fascists, etc., tend to take that tactic *especially* when resistance is
actually possible, since they don't give a damn about the people they
are going to rule, only about their own vision. Places like Afghanistan
they are successful because those that help from outside *want* an
intact country, for one reason or another, and the ones in the
government being fought both want something left *after*, and often,
without outside help, are no better armed than the rebels.
Hardly a useful example... Try every other point in history, where both
sides where armed, but one of them had **no problem** just simply wiping
out everyone that didn't accept their rule. You can't win against a
superior force, if the superior force wants to keep most of the people
fighting them alive. The problem with fascists and the like is, they
generally don't give a shit if anyone they define as, "dangerous to the
new order", survive at all.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Try using an example where there is a tangible
> disparity between what the people fighting the government and the people
> in the government have to fight with,
You mean, like, Afghanistan when the Russians or Americans invaded? You
seemed to completely miss my point.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hell, you can buy a box of
> bullets, one of those extra big clips, and the gun, with less trouble
> than you could ***Cold medicine***.
Depends where you live. In NJ, you have to have your fingerprints run thru
the FBI to buy a box of bullets. You don't get a gun at all, unless you can
prove you need one for work. Oh, and "I carry around tens of thousands of
dollars of cash as part of my job" doesn't count as a good reason.
Yet, I don't see anyone talking about how much safer New Jersey is than,
say, Texas.
> Yeah, ignore the rest of my explanation of what I meant by that, and
> just pick on the one detail you could reject..
Honestly, you write such long rambling posts full of unsupported assertions
that I couldn't possibly actually answer your entire post, even if I wanted to.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2011 5:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Try using an example where there is a tangible disparity between what
>> the people fighting the government and the people in the government
>> have to fight with,
>
> You mean, like, Afghanistan when the Russians or Americans invaded? You
> seemed to completely miss my point.
>
And you are missing mine. Russia didn't want to wipe out everything and
start over, neither did the US. When you enemy is unwilling to kill
everyone they come across to win, and/or are intent of making allies,
you have some means, even if limited, to resist. When this isn't the
case... you get things like WWII, where being a "freedom fighter" isn't
going to get you any place.
And, even if you are in that sort of position.. the point of fighting a
war against an aggressor is to eventually win. If it takes you 20, 30,
50, etc. years to do that, there may not be enough of your own
principles left to restore anything you where fighting to protect in the
first place. If you want to defend yourself from corruption, you need to
do it in a *short* time, not over decades. Otherwise, you are not
fighting to protect/restore anything, you are fighting to replace what
ever you had with something else, and it will never be the same thing
you started with (it might not even be what you where fighting to
defend/protect, by the time you are done).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
