"Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!?
I can hear the legal coffers clinking as lawyers prepare to amass and file class action lawsuits over an infrequent incident blown out of proportion by newscasts seething with "Think of the children" and "Helicopters kill people" campaigns.
Meh, chances are they'll be about as successful as lawyers who sue Smith & Wesson because people play Russian Roulette.
Do you really mean ban all the things - like ban chainsaws and BBQ grills and all the other things that could kill a person when not used safely, or do you just mean ban remote control helicopters because you have some irrational bias against other people's hobbies.
Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.
In some places. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky and at least 10 other states (according to an article in the Lexington Herald-[Mis]Leader) it's legal to pack directly in the state Capitol.
And some people try and say that Southerners are all a bunch of ass-backward rednecks... that sounds like a pretty damn progressive policy to me!
Missouri may be following suit soon, if the legislature overturns the governer's veto of H.B. 436, which would make it a crime to enforce, "all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.
And the part where this entire discussion relates to people who take positive action to protect their privacy?
Uh, I was responding directly to GP; not sure what you mean by this.
How do you propose Google/Facebook/Whomever recognize that "zork98' has the same owner as "bin55go"?
Good question; they probably ask the NSA.
HA!
Okay, technically they have my IP address - Which (in the case of accounts I access from work) could include "only" a few hundred people. And ones I access from the free WiFi at Starbucks in the morning... Well that narrows it down to one of millions.
Aah, therein lies the chink in your armor: how many people who work at the same place you do, also use that same Starbucks WiFi? Also, do you have a decent-length commute, and is the coffee shop closer to your home or workplace? If the answers to those 2 questions are "yes" and "closer to home," then you're probably not quite as obscured as you'd like to be.
And therein we have the ultimate irony of policies designed to make you easier to track - Most of them only apply to those dumb enough to make themselves easy to track in the first place.
Them, and over-confident sorts who allow their hubris to override their (completely justifiable) paranoia.
Have you never heard of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent?
Yes. Point? Both are American citizens with the right to express their opinions, just like you, regardless of what other people think. Maybe you're just jealous that the Nuge is successful enough to be able to say whatever he wants without major repercussion.
Yes, and personally I find the concept a much better idea than the government's "run and hide" strategy that turns kids and teachers into easy prey. Taking into account the fact that this statement from the NRA is a direct response to anti-gun nutters like you who screamed bloody murder when it was suggested to station armed police officers in schools, what's so nutty about training school faculty and staff to defend themselves and their charges? What alternative strategy would you recommend?
Well, for starters, I don't think a thinkprogress.org article that references other thinkprogress.org articles as supporting material is going to be all that accurate and unbiased when reporting a story about an organization they've deemed "the enemy."
Then there's the fact that, if you actually read it, the article is referring to indoor shooting ranges for bb guns, not combustion rifles. That you did not mention this very important aspect makes me wonder - did you not read the article you cited, or are you still being a biased asshole?
If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties.
It's your right to, you know. To turn it around, if you cared about defending rights you'd be standing right next to them, instead of talking shit. Hell, even if some members got together and did something, I'm certain you and many others would join in with the government in demonizing them as "extremists" or some other such nonsense.
I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.
5M NRA members with pea shooters are no match for the US Army (think big guns, tanks, helicopters, etc... you get the idea).
Circa 1770: a rag-tag group of poorly armed guerrilas fights and defeats the most powerful army/navy in the world
1979: Russian forces deploy to Afghanistan to take the region from the Mujahideen; 9 years and over 100,000 lives later, the Soviets withdraw without achieving their goal
2001: US forces invade Afghanistan to, allegedly, take out the Taliban government and Al Queda cells in the region. 12 years on, US troops begin to withdraw, even as the region becomes more unstable than prior to the invasion, and with Al Queda's numbers growing every day.
Point being, history is chock-full of inferior forces winning the day against insurmountable odds. Not to mention, all that fancy hardware means precisely dick when you're using it on A) your tax base, and B) the families of the guys/gals tasked with deploying said hardware.
Summation: anyone who thinks a new US Civil War would be a route for either side is a blistering fucking idiot.
(There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)
It's not illegal, it's against Denny's policy. The only way a legal gun-bearer could be breaking the law in this circumstance would be if the Denny's asked them to leave and they refused; even then, it's simple trespassing. Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.
Always remember, someone putting up a sign doesn't create law.
In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry
This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard.
More ludicrous than the NSA supporters argument of, "we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms?"
With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.
If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.
Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?
Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!?
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!!!!!!"
-- Tom Smykowski
Don't forget the neo-classic, "vertical integration"
I can hear the legal coffers clinking as lawyers prepare to amass and file class action lawsuits over an infrequent incident blown out of proportion by newscasts seething with "Think of the children" and "Helicopters kill people" campaigns.
Meh, chances are they'll be about as successful as lawyers who sue Smith & Wesson because people play Russian Roulette.
Which is to say, not at all.
But we must make sure to only ban assault model helicopters!
Those are the ones that look exactly like other model helicopters, except they have black synthetic bodies and a tac. rail, right?
I know what I said.
Do you really mean ban all the things - like ban chainsaws and BBQ grills and all the other things that could kill a person when not used safely, or do you just mean ban remote control helicopters because you have some irrational bias against other people's hobbies.
Pretty sure he means to be facetious, Eisenstein.
In some places. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky and at least 10 other states (according to an article in the Lexington Herald-[Mis]Leader) it's legal to pack directly in the state Capitol.
And some people try and say that Southerners are all a bunch of ass-backward rednecks... that sounds like a pretty damn progressive policy to me!
Missouri may be following suit soon, if the legislature overturns the governer's veto of H.B. 436, which would make it a crime to enforce, "all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Damn but I love living in the Midwest!
The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.
And the part where this entire discussion relates to people who take positive action to protect their privacy?
Uh, I was responding directly to GP; not sure what you mean by this.
How do you propose Google/Facebook/Whomever recognize that "zork98' has the same owner as "bin55go"?
Good question; they probably ask the NSA.
HA!
Okay, technically they have my IP address - Which (in the case of accounts I access from work) could include "only" a few hundred people. And ones I access from the free WiFi at Starbucks in the morning... Well that narrows it down to one of millions.
Aah, therein lies the chink in your armor: how many people who work at the same place you do, also use that same Starbucks WiFi? Also, do you have a decent-length commute, and is the coffee shop closer to your home or workplace? If the answers to those 2 questions are "yes" and "closer to home," then you're probably not quite as obscured as you'd like to be.
And therein we have the ultimate irony of policies designed to make you easier to track - Most of them only apply to those dumb enough to make themselves easy to track in the first place.
Them, and over-confident sorts who allow their hubris to override their (completely justifiable) paranoia.
Precisely.
Have you never heard of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent?
Yes. Point? Both are American citizens with the right to express their opinions, just like you, regardless of what other people think. Maybe you're just jealous that the Nuge is successful enough to be able to say whatever he wants without major repercussion.
Have you never heard of the NRA's position on guns in schools ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/nra-school-security-hutchinson/2045565/ [usatoday.com] )
Yes, and personally I find the concept a much better idea than the government's "run and hide" strategy that turns kids and teachers into easy prey. Taking into account the fact that this statement from the NRA is a direct response to anti-gun nutters like you who screamed bloody murder when it was suggested to station armed police officers in schools, what's so nutty about training school faculty and staff to defend themselves and their charges? What alternative strategy would you recommend?
their recommendations on building indoor gun ranges for children? ( http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/08/1978921/nra-youth-magazine-home-shooting-ranges/
Well, for starters, I don't think a thinkprogress.org article that references other thinkprogress.org articles as supporting material is going to be all that accurate and unbiased when reporting a story about an organization they've deemed "the enemy."
Then there's the fact that, if you actually read it, the article is referring to indoor shooting ranges for bb guns, not combustion rifles. That you did not mention this very important aspect makes me wonder - did you not read the article you cited, or are you still being a biased asshole?
I'll leave the determination up to the reader.
If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties.
It's your right to, you know. To turn it around, if you cared about defending rights you'd be standing right next to them, instead of talking shit. Hell, even if some members got together and did something, I'm certain you and many others would join in with the government in demonizing them as "extremists" or some other such nonsense.
I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.
Yea, yea, everyone's a critic.
5M NRA members with pea shooters are no match for the US Army (think big guns, tanks, helicopters, etc... you get the idea).
Circa 1770: a rag-tag group of poorly armed guerrilas fights and defeats the most powerful army/navy in the world
1979: Russian forces deploy to Afghanistan to take the region from the Mujahideen; 9 years and over 100,000 lives later, the Soviets withdraw without achieving their goal
2001: US forces invade Afghanistan to, allegedly, take out the Taliban government and Al Queda cells in the region. 12 years on, US troops begin to withdraw, even as the region becomes more unstable than prior to the invasion, and with Al Queda's numbers growing every day.
Point being, history is chock-full of inferior forces winning the day against insurmountable odds. Not to mention, all that fancy hardware means precisely dick when you're using it on A) your tax base, and B) the families of the guys/gals tasked with deploying said hardware.
Summation: anyone who thinks a new US Civil War would be a route for either side is a blistering fucking idiot.
(There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)
It's not illegal, it's against Denny's policy. The only way a legal gun-bearer could be breaking the law in this circumstance would be if the Denny's asked them to leave and they refused; even then, it's simple trespassing. Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.
Always remember, someone putting up a sign doesn't create law.
That's assuming they actually delete the content, as opposed to taking complete ownership of it and blocking your access.
What part of "abandon the old accounts" and start new ones did you miss?
The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.
Case in point: Facebook won't let users close accounts, only "disable" them. They still retain all your shit.
"only memberships" == "only donations"
probably ought to stop while I'm behind...
How many members does the ACLU have, and what are the dues?
Per the ACLU website - membership is somewhere around 500,000, and there are no dues, only memberships.
FWIW.
...the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget...
It's not inexplicable; ~5,000,000 members, each paying ~$35/yr in dues; that's ~$175,000,000/yr, not including donations.
How many members does the ACLU have, and what are the dues?
Same here; I do not typically defend the NRA, except against bigotted gun haters (who I would argue with anyway).
Any group that defends civil liberties, even liberties I don't necessarily agree with, is worth supporting.
This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard.
More ludicrous than the NSA supporters argument of, "we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms?"
With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.
Then why are you bitching? A win is a win, right?
If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.
Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?
Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?
No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences. Someone should teach them how to read a 18th century sentence splice.
Get on it then.
Those figures look bogus.
One month has 114,000 accesses, another month just 15.
I'm suspicious of those figures.
Of course, I do still expect that they are a bunch of porn hounds.
Perhaps they're like the American Congress, and take month-long vacations?
If only there was a central geologically stable and dry place where we could store the waste while we work things out.
I say the moon, but... well, you know.
Space Nazis.
Why, he is the one who got a copyright on it.
Yes, but he did so to prevent dickheads from using his words for their own personal profit.
Natch.