AVFCforever1991 Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 And now they want to make available the technology for anyone to make their own gun. Because that's what freedom's all about, right? Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun. "But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2013 And now they want to make available the technology for anyone to make their own gun. Because that's what freedom's all about, right? Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun."But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there."That some knowledge could end up hurting people is never a reason to keep the knowledge from being widely available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 And now they want to make available the technology for anyone to make their own gun. Because that's what freedom's all about, right? Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun. "But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there." That some knowledge could end up hurting people is never a reason to keep the knowledge from being widely available. No limits? Would that apply to, say, al Qaeda training manuals and bomb manufacture instructions? Or other things whose main practical application is likely to be causing harm to others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2013 Restricting information on how to kill people means restrictions on science (biology/medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.) and access to scientific knowledge.Information wants to be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Yes it does mean restrictions. Restrictions on access to some information, and restrictions on how some information is applied. For me it's a given that such restrictions will exist, and the question is whether they are used for the common good (eg to limit harm) or otherwise (eg for personal power and profit, concealing wrongdoing). Information isn't capable of wanting anything, let alone higher order concepts like "to be free". (And if it did want it, I'd tell it it couldn't have it. So there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 6, 2013 Author Share Posted May 6, 2013 And now they want to make available the technology for anyone to make their own gun. Because that's what freedom's all about, right? Asked if he felt any sense of responsibility about whose hands the gun might fall into, he told the BBC: "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people - that's what the tool is - it's a gun. "But I don't think that's a reason to not do it - or a reason not to put it out there." The Call of Duty generation all grown up now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2013 The fact is, though, that very few, verging on no, restrictions are workable, especially in an environment where the cost of transmitting information is effectively nil and the technical ability to relay it is essentially universal.Most of the information required to build a multistage thermonuclear weapon is surprisingly widely available; there are tens of thousands in this world with the required grasp of physics and the computer power (a smartphone is more than sufficient for doing the calculations quickly) to fill in the gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) Thing is, there is nothing to stop someone in the UK or any other country, then buying a 3d printer downloading the gun CAD file and making their own. Effectively making guns freely available and ungoverned anywhere. Edited May 6, 2013 by jon_c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 The fact is, though, that very few, verging on no, restrictions are workable, especially in an environment where the cost of transmitting information is effectively nil and the technical ability to relay it is essentially universal. Most of the information required to build a multistage thermonuclear weapon is surprisingly widely available; there are tens of thousands in this world with the required grasp of physics and the computer power (a smartphone is more than sufficient for doing the calculations quickly) to fill in the gaps. In that context, we should be trying to reduce the likelihood of people wanting to do very damaging things. It often seems that US foreign policy seems expressly designed to do the opposite. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Obama administration is under fire from left, right and center for the Justice Dept. seizing phone records of Associated Press journos without warrants...and in an unrelated case, the IRS has admitted it targeted conservative political organizations for auditing and/or denial of tax exemptions... Obama is looking more and more like Richard Nixon. Absolute disgrace. Obama is a **** trainwreck of a president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Obama administration is under fire from left, right and center for the Justice Dept. seizing phone records of Associated Press journos without warrants...and in an unrelated case, the IRS has admitted it targeted conservative political organizations for auditing and/or denial of tax exemptions... Obama is looking more and more like Richard Nixon. Absolute disgrace. Obama is a **** trainwreck of a president. It's Eric Holder. He's still intent on extraditing Kim Dotcom for Megaupload for essentially the same thing that Viacom has had it's suit against Youtube thrown out of court a second time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 Holder is absolutely diabolical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Obama administration is under fire from left, right and center for the Justice Dept. seizing phone records of Associated Press journos without warrants...and in an unrelated case, the IRS has admitted it targeted conservative political organizations for auditing and/or denial of tax exemptions... Obama is looking more and more like Richard Nixon. Absolute disgrace. Obama is a **** trainwreck of a president. You cant compare Obama with Nixon. If you want a trainwreck of a president then choose Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 15, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) Holder provided the legal cover for Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, lo those many years ago. You don't sack a useful tool like that.On the Nixon comparisons, I've been making them for a number of years. The similarities are eerie. Edited May 15, 2013 by leviramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 People who make these comparisions need to check their history Obama is nothing like Nixon. One was an ultra right republican who was evil and totally corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 People who make these comparisions need to check their history Obama is nothing like Nixon. One was an ultra right republican who was evil and totally corrupt. ...and the other was responsible for Watergate? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Obama administration is under fire from left, right and center for the Justice Dept. seizing phone records of Associated Press journos without warrants...and in an unrelated case, the IRS has admitted it targeted conservative political organizations for auditing and/or denial of tax exemptions... Obama is looking more and more like Richard Nixon. Absolute disgrace. Obama is a **** trainwreck of a president. You cant compare Obama with Nixon. If you want a trainwreck of a president then choose Bush I can, and I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Yes like the health care bill that expanded health care to provide affordable health insurance to low and middle income families is a real right wing policy. Look at all his right wing bills that the republicans have blocked since he became president http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50177069 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 I think Levi's use of the word "Eerie" is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts