I'm sorry can you point to where he claimed to be an expert? He did cite peer reviewed studies from experts, but the whole point of the memo is the methods the company is using to try to solve the problem are ideologically based and they are not tolerant of other points of view.
And are you trying to say that because he isn't an expert his claim that discriminating based on race and gender are wrong is invalid?
Your referring to Damore as a "giant douchebag" highlights the problem. I've read the memo and watched multiple interviews with him and he is absolutely not. But you disagree with him so you're justifying his mistreatment.
2. Raise the age to purchase a gun or use a gun without supervision to 21.
I'm all for this provided we raise the age of adulthood to 21. That also means you can't vote until 21. If you aren't mature enough to have a gun you aren't mature enough to choose the leaders of the country. The pro gun control crowd wouldn't go for that though because young people tend to be very liberal.
3. Raise the requirements for assault rifles and other weapons with the potential for mass carnage. Require a more thorough background check. If you can't get the equivalent of a security clearance, then you probably shouldn't be owning a weapon of war.
"Potential for mass carnage" and "weapon of war" are undefined. These are scary sounding terms that mean nothing. Full auto has been essentially banned since 1986. This is why gun owners roll their eyes at "assault weapon" bans.
4. Raise the requirements on handguns to 25, and require regular certification if you are going to carry a concealed handgun. Can you hit what you shoot at and can you reasonably identify appropriate targets from bystanders? This wouldn't be to produce a marksman, but to at least make sure of a minimal level of knowledge, including keeping a gun secure.
Most states already require some amount of qualification for a concealed carry permit and to renew one if I'm not mistaken.
5. Limit the amount of ammunition you can buy at once for assault style weapons. A licensed gun range maybe able to get unlimited, but only for use at that range. If someone brings in the spent casings they can buy more.
Again, "assault style weapons" is a ridiculous term. It's literally defined by things like what angle the grip is and whether the stock is adjustable. The whole concept of an "assault weapon" is a complete fraud. The campaign against "assault weapons" was created in part with the intent of deceiving people into thinking they were still talking about fully automatic rifles and getting them on board with something they didn't understand. Hence the similarity to the term "assault rifle", which is the term for the select-fire rifles that had already been banned.
Also, you don't need very much ammo for a mass shooting. Ammo is heavy. From what I've read most mass shootings involve up to around 300 rounds fired. You can shoot that much in a day at the range.
6. Teach critical thinking in schools. Too many people don't learn how to think logically. Include funding for after school programs. Keep people busy doing something, not messing around in some gang or something.
I'm actually on board with this. I would expand it to teach things like logical fallacies and manipulation tactics so people are harder to manipulate with propaganda.
7. School uniforms, because they equalize things somewhat for students, and give people a bit more even chance.
On the fence about this. Part of me wants to let people dress like crazies so they're easier to identify.
8. Harden school's with fences and limit access points where guns can come in to something with a metal detector. Yah, I'd like to live in a world that is not required. We aren't in that world.
Security should probably be dealt with on a local level. It's a big country and I'm not sure there is a one size fits all solution. There should definitely be security guidelines for newly built schools though. And maybe some experts sent around to do security assessments.
9. Offer to pay for training for school teachers who wish training in firearms. They must pass with a high degree of competence to be allowed to carry a likely concealed weapon. Don't pay them more to do it. Don't pressure them to do it. Just make it something they can get if they want it. Spread teachers that are armed out so that they are somewhat d
Then how come there are so many youtube videos of people going to those gun control rallies and talking to random people who don't know anything beyond the standard talking points?
DOTA actually wasn't the first Warcraft 3 custom map in its genre. There were many variants of a game called Aeon of Strife which mostly just used the default abilities. I'm not even sure if these maps were the first.
Also, there was a lawsuit about Heroes of the Storm because they were originally going to call it DOTA 2 until they found out Valve hired the developer and was working on DOTA 2. This is why with Starcraft 2 they made it explicit that they own the rights to any custom games uploaded.
Or you could acknowledge the realities of why those deaths are happening. Gun control advocates love throwing these numbers around to support gun bans but don't seem to care why so many people are joining gangs and killing each other. As if a gun ban would lead to group hugs instead of gang violence. And including statistics with suicides is misleading because suicides still happen without guns (see Japan and South Korea). In fact looking at guns in isolation is misleading.
Here's a fun fact: Countries that ban guns see an increase in home invasion robberies while the person is home. The rate in the UK is around 45%, compared to about 10% in the US.
It says right there, appointed FCC chairman by Donald Trump (emphasis mine). Under Obama he was in the FCC as the Republican seat; the chairman under Obama was Tom Wheeler:...
The original post made no mention of who was chairman.
This part is also interesting (from the wikipedia article):
He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012
So everyone is at fault. Don't worry though guys he is a historic diversity appointment.
You seem to think this is a new thing. This problem is the basis of the "small government" philosophy. Corrupt people will seek power, so the best protection is to limit the available power and localize it as much as possible to minimize the damage. Ideally corruption would be punished but it rarely is anywhere.
Having dealt with a lot of code (and programmers) who came from other backgrounds (EE or math), here are the top things I would try to teach them:
1. Data structures and interfaces. Too many of these people create a sea of global variables and functions that manipulate them in difficult to follow ways. Discourage global variables in general except for constants because they WILL abuse them. If you get them thinking in terms of data structures and interfaces (and thus subcomponents of the problem) it will hopefully lead to clean(er) code. Or at least code that can be re-factored later without affecting the rest of the system when they make a mess. Of course, falling into endless layers of abstraction is the opposite problem many CS people have. But if you get good at coming up with data structures and interfaces everything else follows.
2. Understanding the long term effects of their decisions. Hard-coding something might not be a big deal if it's easy to change it later. But some decisions are very difficult to change down the road. Identify them and spend your time accordingly. Consider risk mitigation strategies in these cases, such as prototyping. Experimentation is ok as long as it's done in a low-risk manner (maybe you shouldn't tell them this part). But it's good to try ideas out before committing to them too hard.
3. Try to understand root cause when you run into a programming challenge. I often see what I call a chain reaction of bad decisions. For example, people who don't use IDEs (usually those dirty emacs users) tend to write very large files because managing multiple files is exactly what an IDE is for. Since their files are so large their functions become large because it's difficult to navigate subroutines and helper functions with such a large file. Because of this they end up with a lot of nesting and copy-paste code. Next thing you know they want to change the indentation to 3 or 2 spaces so they have more room with all this nesting.
4. Communicate with your team. Everyone has different ideas on how to do things. If you don't communicate you will end up playing tug of war over competing approaches. Talk and sort it out before you try to force your plan onto everyone else. Approach those conversations with an open mind, LISTEN, and leave your ego at the door.
YouTube is a pretty big deal when it comes to speech and culture. And they have proven to be extremely irresponsible in managing it.
Also consider Android. I have multiple news feeds (their news app and Google Now) where they control which articles I see. In fact I rarely install non-Google apps on my phone because I just don't have the time to dig around for the "best" app in a category.
Indeed. Also, countries with much lower rates of gun ownership can match or exceed suicide rates (see Japan). So it's not the method of suicide that's the problem, it's whatever causes the mindset.
But this isn't too big of a problem because the gun control activists like to compare us to other "developed *western* countries" so they can conveniently leave out countries like Japan and South Korea and claim our suicide rates are high exclusively because of guns. (See Vox's video on gun violence)
I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).
Holy fuck! Paranoid much? I hope there are never any kids in your house.
Maybe you might want to consider moving somewhere you might feel safer?
Wow. I don't even lock my door at night here...
I don't lock my door either. Because it's guarded by my dog... with a gun.
Good for you, but most gun owners don't. They say "I need a gun for self defense! A gun isn't any good if it takes me more than a few seconds to get to!"
Besides-- what if your safe malfunctions? This whole thread is saying "if my safety device malfunctions, I'm going to DIE!" So: safes can malfunction. You trust mechanisms on safes, but not on guns?
I trust my safe because its mechanism does not have any electronics in it, just like the gun inside (aside from the mounted light).
I like how "the hurdles aren't only technical" in the article turned into "the hardest problems aren't technical" in your post. Even this extremely biased article didn't go that far.
Gun owners oppose the technology because we know once the technology is there it will be mandated, even if it is buggy as hell. See California and microstamping -- a required technology that doesn't even exist in the form that they are mandating. New Jersey already has a law on the books that once "smart gun" technology is there it is mandated. Also, the line you quoted about the boycott doesn't tell the whole story on that either (but it isn't in the article so I wouldn't expect you to know that). For the sake of the length of this post I won't go into that.
Also, Obama made the FBI come up with a list of criteria for accepting a smart gun. He knew gun owners didn't want them so he figured we can have the federal government create the demand to develop the technology then force it on the general population. If you read their list of criteria it is nearly impossible to implement and requires multiple ways to turn it off (including requiring that the failure mechanism is the gun must work if the "smart gun" tech fails in any way). Requirements I'm sure would be removed when forced on civilians. I got the impression the FBI knew it was a stupid idea.
Currently gun owners do not want any required electronics on their guns that do not have a mechanical backup. Red dot sights have backup iron sights in case the electronics fail, etc. Until we are shooting energy weapons that require processors and batteries to operate, sticking unnecessary electronics into a mechanical device where reliability is a top priority is not acceptable.
After this last presidential election showed just how powerful the internet is you can bet there will be a strong push to manipulate internet sources in the next election. I am interested to see in 2020 how much Facebook and Twitter cooperate with the manipulation and whether it will be enough to push people to other platforms.
What do you mean "modernize"? I am cautious about this line of reasoning because these days phrases like "new ideas" are often used to refer to things that aren't new at all but aren't common because they have failed (like Marxism). Our founding fathers were extremely wise and understood human nature well. Human nature hasn't changed since then.
Our system of government is surprisingly well designed. Most of the fault lies in the voting population. So if your solution is some sort of direct democracy I don't see how giving the ignorant masses direct control of the government would turn out well. In fact, I would argue we would be better off moving back towards the original design of a weak federal government and most issues dealt with at a state level. This theoretically leads to policy that is more in line with what the local population wants and the elected officials are more accountable to the voters.
You're demonstrating why having government take care of everything is a bad idea. "Hey, health care is expensive so lets bury it in a government budget so we don't have to think about it! Problem solved!"
This eventually comes back to bite you. Government has little incentive to do things efficiently or effectively since there are no real corrective forces short of catastrophic failure.
Just because you tell the truth doesn't mean you are a good person.
It also doesn't mean you are a bad person. And if you find yourself frequently in situations where not lying has "consequences" your life is probably kind of fucked up (and/or you must be a lawyer).
Well he points out you can't have open immigration with a welfare state, which we have. He pretty much advocates leaving things where they are. So in order to remove all barriers to immigration you have to first get rid of the welfare state (good luck). Then you have to open immigration with the understanding that the welfare state cannot be reinstituted. Unfortunately even if you managed to pull off step 1 you won't be able to do this because the general population is not rational. Having open borders would also be a problem with the drug cartel situation. With no border patrol you can expect the violence and corruption to spill into the US.
So in practice I don't see open immigration working.
Actually there were indeed a couple of studies linking marijuana use to lower IQs, but others have contested them. A simple google search gives quite a few hits.
I remember back in 2008 when they were voting for TARP. The first vote failed and the stock market crashed. So they put a bunch of pork into it and voted again saying DON'T FUCK THIS UP GUYS LAST TIME YOU FUCKED IT UP AND YOU CAUSED THE STOCK MARKET TO CRASH. So they voted for it this time and the stock market crashed again. I was watching it on C-SPAN while monitoring the market.
They want to play on people's fear and point to the markets around the world reacting negatively to try to change the vote. But I think the market reaction was more about the uncertainty than anything else. Long term the financial impact won't be a very big deal. They will make trade agreements with the EU to effectively get back to the same place.
erm... you mean that big scary organization that is really mostly funded by average citizens? (https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from). I'm not a fan of lobbyists and I wish we could get rid of all of them but the NRA is one that is actually working as intended (giving a group of average citizens a collective voice).
So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support (through donations to the NRA) when it comes to the specific issue they have chosen to support them for?
Well at least I'm not missing anything. I don't use the streaming because Amazon won't make their streaming service Chromecastable. They want you to buy their Fire crap...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry can you point to where he claimed to be an expert? He did cite peer reviewed studies from experts, but the whole point of the memo is the methods the company is using to try to solve the problem are ideologically based and they are not tolerant of other points of view.
And are you trying to say that because he isn't an expert his claim that discriminating based on race and gender are wrong is invalid?
Your referring to Damore as a "giant douchebag" highlights the problem. I've read the memo and watched multiple interviews with him and he is absolutely not. But you disagree with him so you're justifying his mistreatment.
Lets get rid of the electoral college so Georgia can decide our presidential elections. 10 billion votes out of 243, why not?
Nonsense! Their age verification system is bulletproof. That's why they keep making me confirm I was born on January 1 1900.
2. Raise the age to purchase a gun or use a gun without supervision to 21.
I'm all for this provided we raise the age of adulthood to 21. That also means you can't vote until 21. If you aren't mature enough to have a gun you aren't mature enough to choose the leaders of the country. The pro gun control crowd wouldn't go for that though because young people tend to be very liberal.
3. Raise the requirements for assault rifles and other weapons with the potential for mass carnage. Require a more thorough background check. If you can't get the equivalent of a security clearance, then you probably shouldn't be owning a weapon of war.
"Potential for mass carnage" and "weapon of war" are undefined. These are scary sounding terms that mean nothing. Full auto has been essentially banned since 1986. This is why gun owners roll their eyes at "assault weapon" bans.
4. Raise the requirements on handguns to 25, and require regular certification if you are going to carry a concealed handgun. Can you hit what you shoot at and can you reasonably identify appropriate targets from bystanders? This wouldn't be to produce a marksman, but to at least make sure of a minimal level of knowledge, including keeping a gun secure.
Most states already require some amount of qualification for a concealed carry permit and to renew one if I'm not mistaken.
5. Limit the amount of ammunition you can buy at once for assault style weapons. A licensed gun range maybe able to get unlimited, but only for use at that range. If someone brings in the spent casings they can buy more.
Again, "assault style weapons" is a ridiculous term. It's literally defined by things like what angle the grip is and whether the stock is adjustable. The whole concept of an "assault weapon" is a complete fraud. The campaign against "assault weapons" was created in part with the intent of deceiving people into thinking they were still talking about fully automatic rifles and getting them on board with something they didn't understand. Hence the similarity to the term "assault rifle", which is the term for the select-fire rifles that had already been banned.
Also, you don't need very much ammo for a mass shooting. Ammo is heavy. From what I've read most mass shootings involve up to around 300 rounds fired. You can shoot that much in a day at the range.
6. Teach critical thinking in schools. Too many people don't learn how to think logically. Include funding for after school programs. Keep people busy doing something, not messing around in some gang or something.
I'm actually on board with this. I would expand it to teach things like logical fallacies and manipulation tactics so people are harder to manipulate with propaganda.
7. School uniforms, because they equalize things somewhat for students, and give people a bit more even chance.
On the fence about this. Part of me wants to let people dress like crazies so they're easier to identify.
8. Harden school's with fences and limit access points where guns can come in to something with a metal detector. Yah, I'd like to live in a world that is not required. We aren't in that world.
Security should probably be dealt with on a local level. It's a big country and I'm not sure there is a one size fits all solution. There should definitely be security guidelines for newly built schools though. And maybe some experts sent around to do security assessments.
9. Offer to pay for training for school teachers who wish training in firearms. They must pass with a high degree of competence to be allowed to carry a likely concealed weapon. Don't pay them more to do it. Don't pressure them to do it. Just make it something they can get if they want it. Spread teachers that are armed out so that they are somewhat d
Then how come there are so many youtube videos of people going to those gun control rallies and talking to random people who don't know anything beyond the standard talking points?
DOTA actually wasn't the first Warcraft 3 custom map in its genre. There were many variants of a game called Aeon of Strife which mostly just used the default abilities. I'm not even sure if these maps were the first.
Also, there was a lawsuit about Heroes of the Storm because they were originally going to call it DOTA 2 until they found out Valve hired the developer and was working on DOTA 2. This is why with Starcraft 2 they made it explicit that they own the rights to any custom games uploaded.
Or you could acknowledge the realities of why those deaths are happening. Gun control advocates love throwing these numbers around to support gun bans but don't seem to care why so many people are joining gangs and killing each other. As if a gun ban would lead to group hugs instead of gang violence. And including statistics with suicides is misleading because suicides still happen without guns (see Japan and South Korea). In fact looking at guns in isolation is misleading.
Here's a fun fact:
Countries that ban guns see an increase in home invasion robberies while the person is home. The rate in the UK is around 45%, compared to about 10% in the US.
And Obama appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC board.
It says right there, appointed FCC chairman by Donald Trump (emphasis mine). Under Obama he was in the FCC as the Republican seat; the chairman under Obama was Tom Wheeler: ...
The original post made no mention of who was chairman.
This part is also interesting (from the wikipedia article):
He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012
So everyone is at fault. Don't worry though guys he is a historic diversity appointment.
You seem to think this is a new thing. This problem is the basis of the "small government" philosophy. Corrupt people will seek power, so the best protection is to limit the available power and localize it as much as possible to minimize the damage. Ideally corruption would be punished but it rarely is anywhere.
Having dealt with a lot of code (and programmers) who came from other backgrounds (EE or math), here are the top things I would try to teach them:
1. Data structures and interfaces. Too many of these people create a sea of global variables and functions that manipulate them in difficult to follow ways. Discourage global variables in general except for constants because they WILL abuse them. If you get them thinking in terms of data structures and interfaces (and thus subcomponents of the problem) it will hopefully lead to clean(er) code. Or at least code that can be re-factored later without affecting the rest of the system when they make a mess. Of course, falling into endless layers of abstraction is the opposite problem many CS people have. But if you get good at coming up with data structures and interfaces everything else follows.
2. Understanding the long term effects of their decisions. Hard-coding something might not be a big deal if it's easy to change it later. But some decisions are very difficult to change down the road. Identify them and spend your time accordingly. Consider risk mitigation strategies in these cases, such as prototyping. Experimentation is ok as long as it's done in a low-risk manner (maybe you shouldn't tell them this part). But it's good to try ideas out before committing to them too hard.
3. Try to understand root cause when you run into a programming challenge. I often see what I call a chain reaction of bad decisions. For example, people who don't use IDEs (usually those dirty emacs users) tend to write very large files because managing multiple files is exactly what an IDE is for. Since their files are so large their functions become large because it's difficult to navigate subroutines and helper functions with such a large file. Because of this they end up with a lot of nesting and copy-paste code. Next thing you know they want to change the indentation to 3 or 2 spaces so they have more room with all this nesting.
4. Communicate with your team. Everyone has different ideas on how to do things. If you don't communicate you will end up playing tug of war over competing approaches. Talk and sort it out before you try to force your plan onto everyone else. Approach those conversations with an open mind, LISTEN, and leave your ego at the door.
YouTube is a pretty big deal when it comes to speech and culture. And they have proven to be extremely irresponsible in managing it.
Also consider Android. I have multiple news feeds (their news app and Google Now) where they control which articles I see. In fact I rarely install non-Google apps on my phone because I just don't have the time to dig around for the "best" app in a category.
Indeed. Also, countries with much lower rates of gun ownership can match or exceed suicide rates (see Japan). So it's not the method of suicide that's the problem, it's whatever causes the mindset.
But this isn't too big of a problem because the gun control activists like to compare us to other "developed *western* countries" so they can conveniently leave out countries like Japan and South Korea and claim our suicide rates are high exclusively because of guns. (See Vox's video on gun violence)
Holy fuck! Paranoid much? I hope there are never any kids in your house.
Maybe you might want to consider moving somewhere you might feel safer?
Wow. I don't even lock my door at night here...
I don't lock my door either.
Because it's guarded by my dog...
with a gun.
Good for you, but most gun owners don't. They say "I need a gun for self defense! A gun isn't any good if it takes me more than a few seconds to get to!"
Besides-- what if your safe malfunctions? This whole thread is saying "if my safety device malfunctions, I'm going to DIE!" So: safes can malfunction. You trust mechanisms on safes, but not on guns?
I trust my safe because its mechanism does not have any electronics in it, just like the gun inside (aside from the mounted light).
I like how "the hurdles aren't only technical" in the article turned into "the hardest problems aren't technical" in your post. Even this extremely biased article didn't go that far.
Gun owners oppose the technology because we know once the technology is there it will be mandated, even if it is buggy as hell. See California and microstamping -- a required technology that doesn't even exist in the form that they are mandating. New Jersey already has a law on the books that once "smart gun" technology is there it is mandated. Also, the line you quoted about the boycott doesn't tell the whole story on that either (but it isn't in the article so I wouldn't expect you to know that). For the sake of the length of this post I won't go into that.
Also, Obama made the FBI come up with a list of criteria for accepting a smart gun. He knew gun owners didn't want them so he figured we can have the federal government create the demand to develop the technology then force it on the general population. If you read their list of criteria it is nearly impossible to implement and requires multiple ways to turn it off (including requiring that the failure mechanism is the gun must work if the "smart gun" tech fails in any way). Requirements I'm sure would be removed when forced on civilians. I got the impression the FBI knew it was a stupid idea.
Currently gun owners do not want any required electronics on their guns that do not have a mechanical backup. Red dot sights have backup iron sights in case the electronics fail, etc. Until we are shooting energy weapons that require processors and batteries to operate, sticking unnecessary electronics into a mechanical device where reliability is a top priority is not acceptable.
After this last presidential election showed just how powerful the internet is you can bet there will be a strong push to manipulate internet sources in the next election. I am interested to see in 2020 how much Facebook and Twitter cooperate with the manipulation and whether it will be enough to push people to other platforms.
What do you mean "modernize"? I am cautious about this line of reasoning because these days phrases like "new ideas" are often used to refer to things that aren't new at all but aren't common because they have failed (like Marxism). Our founding fathers were extremely wise and understood human nature well. Human nature hasn't changed since then.
Our system of government is surprisingly well designed. Most of the fault lies in the voting population. So if your solution is some sort of direct democracy I don't see how giving the ignorant masses direct control of the government would turn out well. In fact, I would argue we would be better off moving back towards the original design of a weak federal government and most issues dealt with at a state level. This theoretically leads to policy that is more in line with what the local population wants and the elected officials are more accountable to the voters.
You're demonstrating why having government take care of everything is a bad idea. "Hey, health care is expensive so lets bury it in a government budget so we don't have to think about it! Problem solved!"
This eventually comes back to bite you. Government has little incentive to do things efficiently or effectively since there are no real corrective forces short of catastrophic failure.
Just because you tell the truth doesn't mean you are a good person.
It also doesn't mean you are a bad person. And if you find yourself frequently in situations where not lying has "consequences" your life is probably kind of fucked up (and/or you must be a lawyer).
Well he points out you can't have open immigration with a welfare state, which we have. He pretty much advocates leaving things where they are. So in order to remove all barriers to immigration you have to first get rid of the welfare state (good luck). Then you have to open immigration with the understanding that the welfare state cannot be reinstituted. Unfortunately even if you managed to pull off step 1 you won't be able to do this because the general population is not rational. Having open borders would also be a problem with the drug cartel situation. With no border patrol you can expect the violence and corruption to spill into the US.
So in practice I don't see open immigration working.
Actually there were indeed a couple of studies linking marijuana use to lower IQs, but others have contested them. A simple google search gives quite a few hits.
I remember back in 2008 when they were voting for TARP. The first vote failed and the stock market crashed. So they put a bunch of pork into it and voted again saying DON'T FUCK THIS UP GUYS LAST TIME YOU FUCKED IT UP AND YOU CAUSED THE STOCK MARKET TO CRASH. So they voted for it this time and the stock market crashed again. I was watching it on C-SPAN while monitoring the market.
They want to play on people's fear and point to the markets around the world reacting negatively to try to change the vote. But I think the market reaction was more about the uncertainty than anything else. Long term the financial impact won't be a very big deal. They will make trade agreements with the EU to effectively get back to the same place.
The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.
It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/...
erm... you mean that big scary organization that is really mostly funded by average citizens? (https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from). I'm not a fan of lobbyists and I wish we could get rid of all of them but the NRA is one that is actually working as intended (giving a group of average citizens a collective voice).
So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support (through donations to the NRA) when it comes to the specific issue they have chosen to support them for?
Well at least I'm not missing anything. I don't use the streaming because Amazon won't make their streaming service Chromecastable. They want you to buy their Fire crap...