Wonders where your "well regulated militia" is. Wonders why military weapons aren't all legal. Bazookas? Anti-Aircraft weapons? Tanks? Hmm. They call count as "bearing arms".
I don't suppose it would matter if I pointed out that, in 1776, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," i.e. a well-regulated clock keeps perfect time, and that even today, "militia" is defined as a non-regular armed force of ordinary citizens not under the government's employ.
Nope, you're probably one of those folks who's convinced themselves (or rather, been convinced by the nanny-state's propaganda wing, corporate media) that "well-regulated militia" == cops, and that the founders, who fought and died to free themselves and their descendants from tyrannical oppression, didn't want an armed populace.
The right to keep.50 cal sniper rifles, subcompact machine pistols, belt-feed autocannons, and bunker-buster bombs should be addressed by constitutional amendment. Baring such an amendment, the regulation of such devices should fall to the states. Though, this is not exactly how the Constitution is interpreted or enforced today. Pity, though, since it worked quite well for the first few decades after it was drafted.
Considering that the right for private citizens to bear arms, in part....for defense against the govt itself...I'd say the authors of the Constitution would be ok with people owning weapons equal to the ones owned by the govt.
The right to bear arms wasn't just for hunting game....
Doesn't say they don't have to be either. It'll be another one of those things they didn't foresee back then; no serial numbers on muskets in part because mass production hadn't been invented yet.
Well, considering that the registration process is intended to keep certain guns out of the People's hands, AKA "infringe" on our right to keep and bear them...
Not that I think everyone should have access to automatic rifles - crazy folks and government agents have a long history of irresponsibility when it comes to firearm ownership, so I do think there should be some restrictions for those types of cases.
is this dude someone famous that I've never heard of before? I'm just wondering why I should care what he thinks about printing guns at home. TFS doesn't even mention him other than in the title...
He's running Defense Distributed's "3D Printed Gun Contest" the article is about, so yea, probably bears mentioning.
The problem lies right there, the fact that you feel that you need to defend yourself implies that the system has an underlying issue that should be solved. And it's solved by education and control, not by doing an arms race with your next door neighbor.
Violence simply leads to more violence.
Being prepared for violence to be committed against you != committing violence against another.
Besides, read your Constitution - we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so we can defend ourselves against the government, not our neighbors.
Police are going to have a field day with printed guns, which by nature won't have/need serial numbers or registration (except possibly for conceal and carry)
*re-reads the Second Amendment*
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government...
by whom? What reason would we have to believe this hereforeto unnamed source?
UDID has no real value to the FBI so why would they be taking them
Anybody who tells you that your personal identifying information (or information that personally identifies your devices) has no value is a liar, probably trying to misdirect you. All data is valuable to someone, somewhere, sometime.
Converting candidate responses from legalese to English, please wait...*
Question 1: Innovation and the Economy:
BO: I plan on dumping at least twice as much money into corporate pocketbooks via the continued fucking-up of the US intellectual property process. Oh, yea, and I plan on hiring a shitload of STEM teachers to prep future patent lawyers, er, "engineers" for this task.
MR: Less taxes and regulation for businesses, more H1B Visas and foreign "trade agreements" that take jobs away from Americans.
Question 2, Climate Change:
BO: Sure, it's a problem, but I've already dumped a shit-ton of your money into the "clean energy" companies my buddies own, as well as attempting to set up a "carbon credit exchange" scam, er, system, that would have funneled even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of my campaign contributors - what the fuck else do you expect me to do about it?
MR: Probably bullshit, but I won't let my disbelief in the concept prevent me from using this as an opportunity to badmouth my opponent and recommend further redistribution of wealth to my also-rich homies!
Furthermore, since China doesn't give a fuck about the environment, I don't think we should either.
Question 3: Research and the Future:
BO: Uh, like I said before - more of the public's money given to corporations so they can privately profit; seriously, what don't you guys get about that?
MR: Agreed, with the caveat of, you guessed it, less regulation for the same corporations. After all, corporations are people, and if you can't trust people with your money...
Question 4: Pandemics and Biosecurity:
BO:... Pass.
MR: Less taxes and regulation on business... Oh, and more public surveillance. How are we supposed to know who's sick if we're not watching you all 24/7?
Question 5: Education:
BO: Earlier in my administration, I proposed adding 100,000 STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) teachers... just don't ask how that's going...
MR: Education is a serious issue these days... which is why I recommend busting teachers' unions, defunding public schools in favor of private "charter" schools, and of course, blaming the current abysmal state of education solely on my opponent.
Question 6: Energy:
BO: Hey, I mentioned giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to my buddies who run "clean energy" companies, right?
MR: I disagree with my opponent; I think we should be giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to the oil companies my buddies run instead. Can I getta 'Keystone Pipeline,' anyone?
Question 7: Food:
BO: Food safety was pretty fucked up when I came to office, so I made new rules that changes what qualifies as 'fucked up.'
MR: More government regulation and taxes. Hey, if those agri-business chumps want the same deal I give the oil and pharmaceutical companies, they need to pony up some campaign bucks, ya dig?
Question 8: Water:
BO: My administration has invested millions in fresh water conservation and restoration efforts. Granted, these programs would have existed anyway regardless of who held this office at the time, but hey - I do, so I get to take the credit. Suck it, Bush.
MR: Disband the EPA, less regulation on businesses, privatize the 'fresh water industry'. What could possibly go wrong?
Question 9: The Internet:
BO: I promise to ensure online freedoms, granted they don't run afoul of all the new intellectual property and civilian surveillance we have/are coming up with.
Ha ha, remember when I told you I was going to veto CISPA? Suckers...
MR: The internet is for businesses to make money off of. Period. End of discussion. If you're somehow, some way preventing businesses from making as much money as possible from the internet, my administration will come down on
Oh yeah, because it pays sooo well. Sorry you hate your life. Maybe you should
chop off a few fingers and jump on that sweet sweet gravy train.
Granted, OP was probably being a fascist dick in making the comment, considering the assholish phrasing, but whether they meant to or not, they actually made an excellent point - too much income from a job will substantially decrease the amount of disability assistance this individual receives, likely to the detriment of their livelihood.
Well, what is the disadvantage? Why would you NOT want to use one?
Because unless you're running your own VPN, there's no proof or guarantee that whoever is running it isn't farming your data anyway, and just lying to you about it.
Not the same thing; refund fraud requires the customer/scammer to actively circumvent the retailer's pricing system; in the instance we're discussing, the retailer is the one who incorrectly priced an item, and customers merely took advantage of the mistake.
No, they are terrible for taking advantage of a known mistake. Just like the cashier would be if they knew the item was ringing up at a higher than marked price and just quietly pocketed the difference if the customer didn't notice.
Actually a better analogy would be if Wal-Mart accidentally marked the price of Avatar to $1, but the customer service/return desk still saw it priced at $10. So a bunch of people went and bought a thousand copies of Avatar for $1 each and immediately returned it to the return desk for $10 each. While Wal Mart isn't going to prosecute anyone who did it a few times, you can bet they will press charges against someone who did it a thousand times..
Press charges? For what? It's not theft, since Wal-Mart is the one who set the pricing, so what crime could they possible charge someone with?
They could, perhaps, sue the individuals playing the buy-return-buy game, but the question there is, what would be the legal basis of Wal-Mart's case?
If the best they have is "Your Honor, we mispriced one of our products and people took advantage of it!" I would presume a (US) judge fluent in economics would likely reply, "Welcome to capitalism, now get the hell out of my courtroom, and take your frivolous lawsuit with you."
I just can't seem to wrap my head around the concept that an error on the part of a retailer (ArenaNet in this case) is somehow the responsibility of their customers, you know?
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
Crude and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal or threatening. Considering the lack of relevance to the conversation at hand, I have to ask - do any of these anecdotes have a purpose?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
In your opinion, with which I disagree on the basis that it is ignorant and childish. I posit that the true "genuine bona fide moron[s]" are the people who thought/think the rantings of a regular person, with no record of terrorism or violent behavior, was worth wasting so much time and resource on prosecuting, especially considering that the judge in the case themselves stated that no such prosecution should have occurred.
I presume, since you're to the point of resorting to ad hominem and pedantics, that you've run out of legitimate arguments, assuming you had any to begin with.
About bans: ArenaNet is banning for exploiting because they want to send a very clear message that exploiting design errors will not be tolerated. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is and shouldn't be taken advantage of.
To me, the legitimacy of the bans falls on the answer to one question: did ArenaNet make all players aware that the exploit existed, or did they just ban the people who found it incidentally?
If the former, than I totally understand the ban; "Hey guys, there's a problem with this particular game mechanic, don't exploit it or we'll ban your ass." == fair enough.
If the latter, than it's utter bullshit. It's not the gamer's fault that the game had such a major flaw, and if ArenaNet never told them "hey, that's an exploit, don't do it" prior to the bans, then ArenaNet is quite obviously the one in the wrong. If this is the case, it would be as though Wal-Mart accidentally dropped the price of Avatar to $1, then had everyone who purchased said movie at said price arrested for theft (there's a term for that kind of con, though the specifics escape me at the moment).
ArenaNet is doing all this to send a very clear message on how they expect their players to behave, and I'm happy they are.
Again assuming they didn't announce the existence of the flaw prior to initiating bans, what message is that? "Take advantage of a seemingly legit game mechanic that we later discover/decide is not legit, and we'll block you from using the product you paid for?"
I was walking through the bakery department of my local supermarket one day when I heard an employee (some form of manager) loudly rebuking a another employee, saying "I told you to reduce all the bread BY 10p to not TO 10p!!".
At which point most of the people within hearing range headed over as quickly as they could to scoop up as many 10p bread bargains as they could.
People are terrible.
So, what you're saying is that people are terrible for wanting to get a great deal on some bread?
Slashdot Mirror
Wonders where your "well regulated militia" is. Wonders why military weapons aren't all legal. Bazookas? Anti-Aircraft weapons? Tanks? Hmm. They call count as "bearing arms".
I don't suppose it would matter if I pointed out that, in 1776, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," i.e. a well-regulated clock keeps perfect time, and that even today, "militia" is defined as a non-regular armed force of ordinary citizens not under the government's employ.
Nope, you're probably one of those folks who's convinced themselves (or rather, been convinced by the nanny-state's propaganda wing, corporate media) that "well-regulated militia" == cops, and that the founders, who fought and died to free themselves and their descendants from tyrannical oppression, didn't want an armed populace.
Considering that the right for private citizens to bear arms, in part....for defense against the govt itself...I'd say the authors of the Constitution would be ok with people owning weapons equal to the ones owned by the govt.
The right to bear arms wasn't just for hunting game....
At least one person here gets it...
Doesn't say they don't have to be either. It'll be another one of those things they didn't foresee back then; no serial numbers on muskets in part because mass production hadn't been invented yet.
Well, considering that the registration process is intended to keep certain guns out of the People's hands, AKA "infringe" on our right to keep and bear them...
Not that I think everyone should have access to automatic rifles - crazy folks and government agents have a long history of irresponsibility when it comes to firearm ownership, so I do think there should be some restrictions for those types of cases.
is this dude someone famous that I've never heard of before? I'm just wondering why I should care what he thinks about printing guns at home. TFS doesn't even mention him other than in the title...
He's running Defense Distributed's "3D Printed Gun Contest" the article is about, so yea, probably bears mentioning.
The problem lies right there, the fact that you feel that you need to defend yourself implies that the system has an underlying issue that should be solved. And it's solved by education and control, not by doing an arms race with your next door neighbor.
Violence simply leads to more violence.
Being prepared for violence to be committed against you != committing violence against another.
Besides, read your Constitution - we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so we can defend ourselves against the government, not our neighbors.
That's just the gravy.
Police are going to have a field day with printed guns, which by nature won't have/need serial numbers or registration (except possibly for conceal and carry)
*re-reads the Second Amendment*
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government...
Its been pointed out many times...
by whom? What reason would we have to believe this hereforeto unnamed source?
UDID has no real value to the FBI so why would they be taking them
Anybody who tells you that your personal identifying information (or information that personally identifies your devices) has no value is a liar, probably trying to misdirect you. All data is valuable to someone, somewhere, sometime.
yea, first 'yes' should have been a no.
Johnny5 is finally safe from the evil sadists who would say he isn't alive!
Amazing that I had to scroll to the bottom of the page to get to the inevitable Short Circuit reference...
Yes, yes,
The cops will say 'no' but the Constitution says 'yes',
yes, no,
take it apart,
yes, easily remedied with a HERF pulse.
Yup, that 'bout covers it...
They certainly don't have as many rights as horses, or house cats, or puppies, do they?
You have obviously never yourself, or known another person who stole/killed/injured/otherwise damaged a cow they did not own.
Converting candidate responses from legalese to English, please wait...*
... Pass.
Question 1: Innovation and the Economy:
BO: I plan on dumping at least twice as much money into corporate pocketbooks via the continued fucking-up of the US intellectual property process. Oh, yea, and I plan on hiring a shitload of STEM teachers to prep future patent lawyers, er, "engineers" for this task.
MR: Less taxes and regulation for businesses, more H1B Visas and foreign "trade agreements" that take jobs away from Americans.
Question 2, Climate Change:
BO: Sure, it's a problem, but I've already dumped a shit-ton of your money into the "clean energy" companies my buddies own, as well as attempting to set up a "carbon credit exchange" scam, er, system, that would have funneled even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of my campaign contributors - what the fuck else do you expect me to do about it?
MR: Probably bullshit, but I won't let my disbelief in the concept prevent me from using this as an opportunity to badmouth my opponent and recommend further redistribution of wealth to my also-rich homies!
Furthermore, since China doesn't give a fuck about the environment, I don't think we should either.
Question 3: Research and the Future:
BO: Uh, like I said before - more of the public's money given to corporations so they can privately profit; seriously, what don't you guys get about that?
MR: Agreed, with the caveat of, you guessed it, less regulation for the same corporations. After all, corporations are people, and if you can't trust people with your money...
Question 4: Pandemics and Biosecurity:
BO:
MR: Less taxes and regulation on business... Oh, and more public surveillance. How are we supposed to know who's sick if we're not watching you all 24/7?
Question 5: Education:
BO: Earlier in my administration, I proposed adding 100,000 STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) teachers... just don't ask how that's going...
MR: Education is a serious issue these days... which is why I recommend busting teachers' unions, defunding public schools in favor of private "charter" schools, and of course, blaming the current abysmal state of education solely on my opponent.
Question 6: Energy:
BO: Hey, I mentioned giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to my buddies who run "clean energy" companies, right?
MR: I disagree with my opponent; I think we should be giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to the oil companies my buddies run instead.
Can I getta 'Keystone Pipeline,' anyone?
Question 7: Food:
BO: Food safety was pretty fucked up when I came to office, so I made new rules that changes what qualifies as 'fucked up.'
MR: More government regulation and taxes. Hey, if those agri-business chumps want the same deal I give the oil and pharmaceutical companies, they need to pony up some campaign bucks, ya dig?
Question 8: Water:
BO: My administration has invested millions in fresh water conservation and restoration efforts. Granted, these programs would have existed anyway regardless of who held this office at the time, but hey - I do, so I get to take the credit. Suck it, Bush.
MR: Disband the EPA, less regulation on businesses, privatize the 'fresh water industry'.
What could possibly go wrong?
Question 9: The Internet:
BO: I promise to ensure online freedoms, granted they don't run afoul of all the new intellectual property and civilian surveillance we have/are coming up with.
Ha ha, remember when I told you I was going to veto CISPA? Suckers...
MR: The internet is for businesses to make money off of. Period. End of discussion. If you're somehow, some way preventing businesses from making as much money as possible from the internet, my administration will come down on
Oh yeah, because it pays sooo well. Sorry you hate your life. Maybe you should chop off a few fingers and jump on that sweet sweet gravy train.
Granted, OP was probably being a fascist dick in making the comment, considering the assholish phrasing, but whether they meant to or not, they actually made an excellent point - too much income from a job will substantially decrease the amount of disability assistance this individual receives, likely to the detriment of their livelihood.
It's not a 1:1 ratio; getting a higher-paying job (or even a raise) can totally fuck the impoverished over financially.
With "FAP" in the name, I figured it was a given.
Not sure if trolling, or just stupid...
"But six entities could not be identified because they were masked through third party hosting."
NSA
FBI
FAPSI
GCHQ
CSE
GCSB
Please tell me FAPSI has something to do with porn...
Well, what is the disadvantage? Why would you NOT want to use one?
Because unless you're running your own VPN, there's no proof or guarantee that whoever is running it isn't farming your data anyway, and just lying to you about it.
Get over yourself
I'm not the one getting their panties in a bunch because someone disagrees with me, now am I?
Not the same thing; refund fraud requires the customer/scammer to actively circumvent the retailer's pricing system; in the instance we're discussing, the retailer is the one who incorrectly priced an item, and customers merely took advantage of the mistake.
Here in the US of A, we call that capitalism.
No, they are terrible for taking advantage of a known mistake. Just like the cashier would be if they knew the item was ringing up at a higher than marked price and just quietly pocketed the difference if the customer didn't notice.
Welcome to capitalism.
Now get the hell off my lawn.
Actually a better analogy would be if Wal-Mart accidentally marked the price of Avatar to $1, but the customer service/return desk still saw it priced at $10. So a bunch of people went and bought a thousand copies of Avatar for $1 each and immediately returned it to the return desk for $10 each. While Wal Mart isn't going to prosecute anyone who did it a few times, you can bet they will press charges against someone who did it a thousand times..
Press charges? For what? It's not theft, since Wal-Mart is the one who set the pricing, so what crime could they possible charge someone with?
They could, perhaps, sue the individuals playing the buy-return-buy game, but the question there is, what would be the legal basis of Wal-Mart's case?
If the best they have is "Your Honor, we mispriced one of our products and people took advantage of it!" I would presume a (US) judge fluent in economics would likely reply, "Welcome to capitalism, now get the hell out of my courtroom, and take your frivolous lawsuit with you."
I just can't seem to wrap my head around the concept that an error on the part of a retailer (ArenaNet in this case) is somehow the responsibility of their customers, you know?
if your coworker said his mother just died do you crack jokes about how ugly she was?
if you get in a fender bender on the highway do you start craking jokes about how the other guy's car sucks?
if you go on blind date with a woman, five minutes in do you start making crude jokes about her ethnicity?
Crude and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal or threatening. Considering the lack of relevance to the conversation at hand, I have to ask - do any of these anecdotes have a purpose?
you can have an argument about legality of this case all you want, but hands, down, 100%: are a genuine bona fide moron if you think threatening to blow up an airport on a wide open communication channel is funny
In your opinion, with which I disagree on the basis that it is ignorant and childish. I posit that the true "genuine bona fide moron[s]" are the people who thought/think the rantings of a regular person, with no record of terrorism or violent behavior, was worth wasting so much time and resource on prosecuting, especially considering that the judge in the case themselves stated that no such prosecution should have occurred.
I presume, since you're to the point of resorting to ad hominem and pedantics, that you've run out of legitimate arguments, assuming you had any to begin with.
About bans: ArenaNet is banning for exploiting because they want to send a very clear message that exploiting design errors will not be tolerated. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is and shouldn't be taken advantage of.
To me, the legitimacy of the bans falls on the answer to one question: did ArenaNet make all players aware that the exploit existed, or did they just ban the people who found it incidentally?
If the former, than I totally understand the ban; "Hey guys, there's a problem with this particular game mechanic, don't exploit it or we'll ban your ass." == fair enough.
If the latter, than it's utter bullshit. It's not the gamer's fault that the game had such a major flaw, and if ArenaNet never told them "hey, that's an exploit, don't do it" prior to the bans, then ArenaNet is quite obviously the one in the wrong. If this is the case, it would be as though Wal-Mart accidentally dropped the price of Avatar to $1, then had everyone who purchased said movie at said price arrested for theft (there's a term for that kind of con, though the specifics escape me at the moment).
ArenaNet is doing all this to send a very clear message on how they expect their players to behave, and I'm happy they are.
Again assuming they didn't announce the existence of the flaw prior to initiating bans, what message is that? "Take advantage of a seemingly legit game mechanic that we later discover/decide is not legit, and we'll block you from using the product you paid for?"
I was walking through the bakery department of my local supermarket one day when I heard an employee (some form of manager) loudly rebuking a another employee, saying "I told you to reduce all the bread BY 10p to not TO 10p!!".
At which point most of the people within hearing range headed over as quickly as they could to scoop up as many 10p bread bargains as they could.
People are terrible.
So, what you're saying is that people are terrible for wanting to get a great deal on some bread?
Who do you think you are, Scrooge McDuck?
Stories like this are why I think the title of the Canadian national anthem is exceedingly appropriate.
Oh, Canada...