"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:49ed700c@news.povray.org...

> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up
in
> search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a coffee-burnt
> American.

Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the same
argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do". Well, if
you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it. *If* Google facilitates
piracy, they would be on the wrong. Conversely, there's nothing wrong to
demand from Google or other technology providers to minimize the potential
of their services being used to promote piracy, while fulfilling legitimate
needs. It can be done, and certainly by Google.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the same
> argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do". Well, if
> you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it.

  The same argument could be used to shut down the entire internet.

  How many % of the information transferred over the internet breaks
copyright laws? The internet is clearly facilitating the illegal distribution
of copyrighted material.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> *If* Google facilitates
> piracy,

What, you mean like how I can type "torrents" or "torrentz" into Google and 
it will give me a huge list of websites to try and find some pirate 
software?  Honestly, Google couldn't make it any easier for me (unless they 
actually searched the torrents too).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49eda299@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> > torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the
same
> > argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do".
Well, if
> > you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it.

>   The same argument could be used to shut down the entire internet.

Now you are watering down the argument. Yes, "cars also kill people" too.
No, it's not the same thing.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up 
> in search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a 
> coffee-burnt American.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3ATorrent%2520Search%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcoop%2Fintl%2Fen-US%2Fimages%2Fcustom_search_sm.gif%3BLH%3A65%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23551a8b%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BDIV%3A%23cccccc%3B&adkw=AELymgWXEWUon9bjOI5pGt28x61HhkpeVSOpxZlWsb3wEhXtUJ0zmYciTEYqIgLL57CE7caI-MwiMMfjtQn8ES73dMwigmF3E7xC1I3lbmtlXpFZy62S4Yg&boostcse=0&q=lost&btnG=Search&cx=003849996876419856805%3Aerhhdbygrma


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> torrents. 

Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to 
distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to 
share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49eddf78$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> > torrents.

> Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to
> distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to
> share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.

Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need. Don't know or care about
WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
distros. While a couple legitimate uses have been thrown in time to time for
variety, P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

Post a reply to this message

Le 22.04.2009 00:17, somebody nous fit lire :

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need. Don't know or care about
> WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
> distros. 

Your use of Internet does not constitute any valid data, nor a valid reference.
Ever heard of "Your Mileage May Vary" ?
Democracy is not about pushing your point of view and ruling. That was for absolute
king,
and only a few remains in the world today.

Your other statement about EU could be open to persecution in some countries. Hope you
like it too that way.

> While a couple legitimate uses have been thrown in time to time for
> variety, P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

That's an over-gross generalization, as is your sole purpose here.

Which one do you prefer, happy Canadian : Telus or Shaw ?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:17:44 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need

Just because you don't use it and don't see there is a need doesn't mean 
there isn't a need.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

I disagree.

> Don't know or care about WoW, but I've never needed torrent, 

Good for you.

> and I've downloaded several Linux distros. 

Yes? So?

 > P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

Actually, I'm pretty sure bittorrent was specifically developed for 
downloading game patches.  And if you go to the more general meaning of 
"P2P" rather than "the version of P2P I mean", then no, the majority of P2P 
hasn't been about copyright infringement. IM and email are both P2P 
applications, for example. I don't think "P2P has always been about 
copyright infringement" any more than search has always been about finding 
copyrighted information.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2009 11:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> Two wrongs do not make a right.

They did when we fought the Revolution.  Killing is wrong, but we boldly 
killed many innocent English soldiers in the name of the greater good.

As I understand it (and my understanding is admittedly limited), these 
"pirates" view themselves on Somalia's defenders.  Darren pointed out 
they call themselves the "Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia."  Does this 
sound like someone in it for the money?

Even if they are, it wouldn't be a new thing for revolutionaries to have 
a mercenary bent.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 3:30 AM, somebody wrote:
> "guns don't kill people, people do".

By the way, does anyone know where the quote "Guns don't kill people, 
*I* kill people!" is from? :)  I can't remember atm...

Anyway, it sounds like you have some very strong ideals.  Those are the 
kind that often clash with reality.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> Now you are watering down the argument. Yes, "cars also kill people" too.
> No, it's not the same thing.

Just out of curiosity, but why isn't it the same thing?

By the way, are you aware that through many different comparisons, 
doctors always come out more dangerous than gun owners?

http://www.naturalnews.com/021206.html

This site attempts to debunk the "myth," and still ends up showing 
doctors as being at least twelves times as deadly as gun owners!

Myself, I can safely say that if everyone who worked at the bank with me 
had a gun on them, we would definitely be safer (and we wouldn't worry 
about robberies the way we do now!).

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 3:17 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Darren New"<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote in message
>> Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to
>> distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to
>> share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.
>
> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

Of course there's a need.  The need is for the conservation of 
bandwidth.  Just because your ISP doesn't send you a bill for every byte 
of traffic over their pipe, doesn't mean that bandwidth isn't costing 
someone something.

P2P filesharing (which, as others have pointed out, is distinct from P2P 
in general) is all about conserving bandwidth.  It doesn't care what 
information is being shared.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:35:47 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 4/21/2009 3:30 AM, somebody wrote:
>> "guns don't kill people, people do".
> 
> By the way, does anyone know where the quote "Guns don't kill people,
> *I* kill people!" is from? :)  I can't remember atm...
> 
> Anyway, it sounds like you have some very strong ideals.  Those are the
> kind that often clash with reality.

Eddie Izzard credits the NRA for that quote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

Yes they do.

> Don't know or care about
> WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
> distros.

Whoopeee for you :-)

I have mostly used torrents for downloading game demos.  Modern game demos 
are HUGE, and nobody seems to want to host them for free, or if they do the 
download speed is tiny.  Finding them as a torrent is easy, and then it 
usually uses up 100% of my bandwidth so the download is done in no time.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>> distributing something copyrighted.
> 
>   Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)

The day someone puts up a FTP server full of copyrighted material, they'll
ban the FTP protocol too?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up
> in search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a
> coffee-burnt American.

http://google.com/search?q=filetype:torrent

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> *If* Google facilitates piracy, they would be on the wrong.

Do a Google search for: <some software> serial|keygen|crack...

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49ef5987@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > *If* Google facilitates piracy, they would be on the wrong.
>
> Do a Google search for: <some software> serial|keygen|crack...

Hmm, good point. Up until recently, it was hard to argue that that's
actively facilitating piracy. But I believe presently the technology and
power is there for Google to block indexing of known pirate sites. I think
inaction on their part currently is borderline, and if the software
companies had their act together, they could help fill the legislative
vacuum concerning such matters. A big part of this legislation should be
protecting those providers that implement such filters. That's why I think
the EU directive a couple of threads up would be a good idea to implement. I
think it's inevitable that Internet as a lawless zone won't last forever.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:30:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> But I believe presently the technology and power is there for Google to
> block indexing of known pirate sites

I disagree.

Dealing with sites that actively provide cracks/serial numbers/etc is 
like playing a game of whack-a-mole.

I actually have to - in my day job - deal with sites like this.  Not for 
software, but for test "braindumps".  Those braindumps are an illegal use 
of copyrighted material that is provided to the test-taker under a non-
disclosure (the candidate taking the exam must agree to the NDA prior to 
taking the exam).

We shut one down, and two pop up to replace it.  Often run by the same 
people, and often run out of the same country.

I get to meet with corporate lawyers next week to discuss how we approach 
this problem.

Solving the problem is not as easy as one might think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f128ee$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:30:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > But I believe presently the technology and power is there for Google to
> > block indexing of known pirate sites

> I disagree.
>
> Dealing with sites that actively provide cracks/serial numbers/etc is
> like playing a game of whack-a-mole.
>
> I actually have to - in my day job - deal with sites like this.  Not for
> software, but for test "braindumps".  Those braindumps are an illegal use
> of copyrighted material that is provided to the test-taker under a non-
> disclosure (the candidate taking the exam must agree to the NDA prior to
> taking the exam).
>
> We shut one down, and two pop up to replace it.  Often run by the same
> people, and often run out of the same country.
>
> I get to meet with corporate lawyers next week to discuss how we approach
> this problem.
>
> Solving the problem is not as easy as one might think.

I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse game,
much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors will always
be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't mean there is not a
definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the problem utterly and
completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you? Using a similar mix of
blacklisting and heuristics employed by anti-virus programs, players like
Google who both have the technology and the power can make a huge dent in
the problem. The locks on our doors won't stop all thieves either, but they
will discourage casual ones.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:39:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse
> game, much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors
> will always be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't
> mean there is not a definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the
> problem utterly and completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you?

For years, yeah, they did.  Because of the costs of constantly swinging 
the hammer on the mole's head.  But I feel we have to make an effort, and 
my management supports this now.

> Using a similar mix of blacklisting and heuristics employed by
> anti-virus programs, players like Google who both have the technology
> and the power can make a huge dent in the problem. The locks on our
> doors won't stop all thieves either, but they will discourage casual
> ones.

When Google starts doing that, and they start censoring legitimate 
content, then that also becomes bad.

The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very 
simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material, 
though, can lead people to illegal activities.

So should the guide be blocked from public access?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f1ed0e@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:39:32 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse
> > game, much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors
> > will always be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't
> > mean there is not a definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the
> > problem utterly and completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you?
>
> For years, yeah, they did.  Because of the costs of constantly swinging
> the hammer on the mole's head.  But I feel we have to make an effort, and
> my management supports this now.
>
> > Using a similar mix of blacklisting and heuristics employed by
> > anti-virus programs, players like Google who both have the technology
> > and the power can make a huge dent in the problem. The locks on our
> > doors won't stop all thieves either, but they will discourage casual
> > ones.

> When Google starts doing that, and they start censoring legitimate
> content, then that also becomes bad.
>
> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
> though, can lead people to illegal activities.
>
> So should the guide be blocked from public access?

Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
>> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
>> though, can lead people to illegal activities.
>>
>> So should the guide be blocked from public access?
> 
> Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

It is freely distributable copyrighted material.

Today it's legal.  There are some people (like those who passed the DMCA) 
who happen to think that the mechanisms that protect things should not be 
protected free speech.

Similarly, in some countries, it is legal to discuss, crack, and disclose 
the copy protection mechanisms in software.  The US isn't one of those 
places, but there are plenty of places where it is allowed.

You need to stop looking at these issue through US-centric eyes.  Either 
that or just flatly state that your opinion is not mutable, and we can 
all stop arguing with you and move on to something else.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f212c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
> >> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
> >> though, can lead people to illegal activities.

> >> So should the guide be blocked from public access?

> > Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

> It is freely distributable copyrighted material.

Then, my answer is no. That was easy, wasn't it? See, internet isn't really
any different than "real life". If the "MIT Guide to Lockpicking" is freely
distributable IRL, same should go for the internet. The complication is the
borders, as you indicate below, but I suspect it's not an insurmountable
problem.

> Today it's legal.  There are some people (like those who passed the DMCA)
> who happen to think that the mechanisms that protect things should not be
> protected free speech.
>
> Similarly, in some countries, it is legal to discuss, crack, and disclose
> the copy protection mechanisms in software.  The US isn't one of those
> places, but there are plenty of places where it is allowed.

Does that make it viable as a sustainable model? Sure, Kyrgyzs (*) may not
care about whether cracking software hurts Autodesk or not - it's not their
intellectual property. But I'm pretty sure they would care if the shoe was
on the other foot. More importantly, from a developmental standpoint, they
won't be able to establish an Autodesk of their own until the laws change.

For the simple reason that I cannot see legalizing copyright infringement as
part of a viable economic model, I can claim it's wrong to legalize it. If
you care less about economy, more about morals, maybe you may find it's
wrong from a "golden rule" standpoint.

(*) I know nothing about copyright laws in Kyrgyzstan. I just singled them
out because their name is cool.

> You need to stop looking at these issue through US-centric eyes.

Ethical relativism is an absurd and meaningless proposition when its taken
to its nihilistic extreme of  "anything goes" and "all opinions are equally
valid". Ironically, ethical relativism itself is actually a western-centric
view.

So, *someone* is going to impose their views. Why would that someone be the
someone who wants a completely lawless internet rather than someone who
wants a highly controlled one? I don't subscribe to the notion that
lawlessness is de facto standard, that it's the natural state of things,
that it's the default.

> Either that or just flatly state that your opinion is not mutable,

I suspect that my opinion is no more or less mutable than yours. I have yet
to see a single person change his/her opinion during an online discussion in
the short history of internet. I'm not tempted the least bit to be the
first.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:13:23 -0600, somebody wrote:

> For the simple reason that I cannot see legalizing copyright
> infringement as part of a viable economic model, I can claim it's wrong
> to legalize it.

I am not advocating legalizing copyright infringement.  In fact I 
personally own copyrights.

But leaving p2p networking technologies in place is not "legalizing" 
anything.  You police what is shared, not the method by which it is 
shared.

Driving up to someone's house and delivering a package isn't inherently 
illegal.

Driving up to someone's house and delivering illegal drugs is.  But it's 
not the driving up and delivering that's illegal, it's the content that 
is being delivered that is illegal.

Or would you also advocate that people taking packages to other people's 
houses should also be made illegal?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49ee7615$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/21/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:

> By the way, are you aware that through many different comparisons,
> doctors always come out more dangerous than gun owners?

You convinced me. I'm going to see a gun owner if I get cancer. Ultimately,
though, I think funeral houses are the most dangerous place to be around.
Somebody's always been dead every single time I've been to one. Who can say
it won't be me next time? So I stopped going to funerals. I may just live
forever.

See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2009 6:09 PM, somebody wrote:
> See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

Faulty reasoning my a**, medical errors alone account for more deaths 
every year than gun handling errors.  And forget all that stuff about 
"you're already sick, so you're more likely to die."  I'm talking about 
cases where the death is directly the result of a mistake, not where you 
went to see a doctor and they couldn't cure you.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f51b57$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/26/2009 6:09 PM, somebody wrote:

> > See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

> Faulty reasoning my a**, medical errors alone account for more deaths
> every year than gun handling errors.  And forget all that stuff about
> "you're already sick, so you're more likely to die."  I'm talking about
> cases where the death is directly the result of a mistake, not where you
> went to see a doctor and they couldn't cure you.

Isn't it a bit unfair to compare mistakes by gun owners to mistakes by
doctors? I mean after all, a mistake with a gun results in a miss or a
non-fatal wound by definition, while the only doctor who kills intentionally
that I can name is Dr Kevorkian.

Really, where do you get the numbers from? What constitutes a mistake? If a
cancer patient's life is extended for decades through administrations of
hundereds of medications, and if the last medication was to much or too
little, does that end up in the mistake column?

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
> I mean after all, a mistake with a gun results in a miss or a
> non-fatal wound by definition, while the only doctor who kills intentionally
> that I can name is Dr Kevorkian.

?

A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly 
killed.
A mistake by a doctor results in someone getting hurt and possibly killed.

Compare the deaths from the two groups, and deaths from doctors are 
higher than deaths by gun owners.  The only mitigating factor I could 
possibly think of is that people see doctors more often than gun owners, 
so there are more opportunities to make mistakes overall.  I don't know 
the ratio of accidental deaths to visits, so that could make a difference.

The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in 
fact!) were something like 16,000 killed in the US from guns, and 96,000 
by doctors.  Again, these are cases directly resulting in death due to 
medical error.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Compare the deaths from the two groups, and deaths from doctors are higher 
> than deaths by gun owners.

Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story.  A 
better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus 
lives lost as a direct result of actions".  I suspect doctors would be 
firmly ahead by a long way then...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story.  A 
> better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus 
> lives lost as a direct result of actions".  I suspect doctors would be 
> firmly ahead by a long way then...

  OTOH it's basically impossible to measure how many lives are saved thanks
to guns.

  For example, how many lives were saved thanks to the Normandy landings
and subsequent fall of Germany? Completely impossible to say.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I suspect doctors 
> would be firmly ahead by a long way then...

If you're counting professional doctors, wouldn't it be wise to count 
professional soldiers and policemen too?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> killed.

I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If someone
gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
for.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49f5c8c1@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

> > Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story.
A
> > better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus
> > lives lost as a direct result of actions".  I suspect doctors would be
> > firmly ahead by a long way then...

>   OTOH it's basically impossible to measure how many lives are saved
thanks
> to guns.
>
>   For example, how many lives were saved thanks to the Normandy landings
> and subsequent fall of Germany? Completely impossible to say.

Germans were not exactly fighting with forks and spoons.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49f5e1e4@news.povray.org...
> Chambers wrote:

> > A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> > killed.

> I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If
someone
> gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
> for.

Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
instance. It's a disingenuous and meaningless comparison. Atom bombs, by the
same criteria, are the best thing that happened to humanity. Not a single
human has died from an accidental detonation. Thus, every household should
have one.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f5bbf4@news.povray.org...
> On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:

> The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in

Well, it must be true then.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:49f5ee59$1@news.povray.org...

> Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for

, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:49f5e1e4@news.povray.org...
> > Chambers wrote:

> > > A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> > > killed.

> > I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If
> someone
> > gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
> > for.

> Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
> instance. It's a disingenuous and meaningless comparison. Atom bombs, by the
> same criteria, are the best thing that happened to humanity. Not a single
> human has died from an accidental detonation. Thus, every household should
> have one.

  A gun is simply a more advanced version of a crossbow, which is an
advanced version of a bow. Nobody seems to oppose people who own and use
bows as a sport.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49f61472@news.povray.org...

>   A gun is simply a more advanced version of a crossbow, which is an
> advanced version of a bow. Nobody seems to oppose people who own and use
> bows as a sport.

I don't remember the last time I read a news article about someone using a
bow to kill people. We read about guns being used to kill people on a daily
basis. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 9:48 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
>> killed.
>
> I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If someone
> gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
> for.

That makes it even worse for doctors.

Think about it: a profession dedicated to saving lives kills *more* 
people than a tool designed to take them.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 10:42 AM, somebody wrote:
> Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for

I never had an "accidental deaths by gun" column.

It was always "total deaths by gun" versus "accidental deaths by doctor."

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 10:45 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> news:49f5bbf4@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
>
>> The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in
>
> Well, it must be true then.

Given that every other website I found had much worse statistics for 
doctors, I thought I would quote the most subdued figures.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Think about it: a profession dedicated to saving lives kills *more* people 
> than a tool designed to take them.

More people die while driving a car than while jumping off a tall building 
without any safety devices.  It's true! Jumping off a tall building is much 
safer than driving!

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f67c18@news.povray.org...
> On 4/27/2009 10:42 AM, somebody wrote:
> > Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> > not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column,
for
>
> I never had an "accidental deaths by gun" column.

Correct.

> It was always "total deaths by gun" versus "accidental deaths by doctor."

False.

From the article you posted the link:

<q>
-- There are 700,000 physicians in the United States.
-- There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by
physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is
0.171.
-- There are 80 million gun owners in the United States.
-- There are 1,500 accidental deaths from guns every year, regardless of age
group, and the accidental death percentage per gun owner is 0.0000188.
</q>

So, no, *you* didn't have that column, but I never said *you* had it either.

In any case, it's meaningless. The comparison is nonsense on so many levels
that it's not even wrong.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f67c9d$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/27/2009 10:45 AM, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
> > news:49f5bbf4@news.povray.org...
> >> On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
> >
> >> The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth,"
in
> >
> > Well, it must be true then.
>
> Given that every other website I found had much worse statistics for
> doctors, I thought I would quote the most subdued figures.

Interesting criteria for assessing truth.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/28/2009 10:26 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message
>> Given that every other website I found had much worse statistics for
>> doctors, I thought I would quote the most subdued figures.
>
> Interesting criteria for assessing truth.

Actually, it usually works.  When you hear some statistics that seem too 
far fetched to be true, take the ones that are the least far fetched.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fa9971$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/28/2009 10:26 AM, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote in message

> >> Given that every other website I found had much worse statistics for
> >> doctors, I thought I would quote the most subdued figures.
> >
> > Interesting criteria for assessing truth.
>
> Actually, it usually works.  When you hear some statistics that seem too
> far fetched to be true, take the ones that are the least far fetched.

Yes, the lesser of outrageous claims must be true. I know it works. It's a
common salesman's trick. Well, it works for the salesman anyway.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/1/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> Yes, the lesser of outrageous claims must be true. I know it works. It's a
> common salesman's trick. Well, it works for the salesman anyway.

?

You're misunderstanding me.  In fact, you do so persistently enough that 
I think it's intentional.

I did NOT say, "the lesser of outrageous claims must be true."
I DID say, the lesser of outrageous claims is more likely to be true.

And don't bother trying to discredit me by associating my arguments with 
those used by salesmen.  The fact is that everyone is selling something, 
including you, so the sooner you get over your irrational, babyish fear 
of sales the sooner you can get on with being an intelligent adult.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message