I'll assume you mistyped your last sentence.. no worries, I understand your point.
However, my point was never about what the NRA believes or does not believe about guns. It was whether they were all about the 2nd amendment. I said they only cared about the guns part.
In answer to you:
"The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns"
So? Maybe their arguments should be expanded. That, however, does not make them apply less to guns.
THAT is exactly my point. You are now seeing what I mean.
"So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? "
Such brandishing of weapons in an assaultive or threatening fashion is a perfect example of existing laws against gun crime that the NRA specifically wants enforced even more. Don't confuse the constitional right to merely have them (which the NRA supports) with the idea of actually doing bad things with them (something the NRA is a leading voice against.)
There is a case to be made that merely owning a gun and letting someone know that is an implied threat. However, my point here was that brandishing a gun is "bearing arms" and of course there are limitations to this. The NRA agrees wholeheartedly as you so kindly point out. They admit there are limitations to bearing arms, but they do not want ANY limits on "keeping arms". So lets review. We started with a "right to keep and bear arms". You've admitted that that the "bearing arms" part is NOT supported by the NRA, which leaves my point: The NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, they care about being able to have a gun.
I don't understand why that statement is interpreted by you to be some kind of attack on the NRA. My focus is that the ACLU cares about the Bill of Rights in what it says, but that NRA cares about a particular right. They are pretty upfront about it, too in the way these organizations chose to name themselves.
Your first link doesn't work. Your supervision link doesn't support your argument. It is great that the NRA puts in place education programs. However, their position is that REQUIRING education is a limitation. Not a 40 hour program, not even a 5 minute "can you tell me which end of the gun goes bang" questionaire. Any licensing at all. So, that makes me as the question, what's the point of your link?
You need to chill on your constitutional rights arguments. They are very wonky. Not all rights are unabridged. The freedom of speech ends when causing bodily injury. And in the case I posed with a neighbor, they can't fire a gun (just like I can't play my radio too loud), they can't run an open gun range (they can possibly have a closed one), they can't beat their children with the butt of their gun, and certainly my rights are in conflict when a simple electrical fire can blow up my neighbors house and take mine with it.
So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? It's not hurting you. It is his "right to bear arms". These are things that the Supreme Court has already decided. I guess you must be smarter than a supreme court justice.
Arms at the time of the constitution did not just mean guns. They included at a minimum: Mortars, artillary, howitzers to fire exploding bombs, cannons, rifles, and handguns. These were all used in the revolution and are collectively known as arms. The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns. If you look at their issues and FAQs etc, they are focussed on rifles, handguns,.50 caliber, hunting, ranges, etc. Heck even they're page on the 2nd amendment only discusses guns. That is because they are only interested in the 2nd amendment as far as it allows people to have guns.
T"he NRA is less clear, but their position [nraila.org] is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns."
What part of "keep and bear arms" do you not understand?
Did you read my link or just come up with this piece of dumbshittery yourself? Do you not understand that arms != guns?
"From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": "
The NRA has been long in favor of stiff sentences against those who abuse their firearms (commit violent crimes with them). This is a good example of them wanting the matter to be "well regulated." They have been against ludicrous over-regulation, however, including such ideas as "licensing guns" which violates the 2nd Amendment. They are all about the second amendment and its protection.
Regulate means to control or supervise. NRA is against ANY control or supervision. Specifically in this case, regulation should happen to PREVENT abuses, not to assign sentences after the fact. Please expand on how "licensing guns" violates such constitutional protections as "well regulated". Seriously. I think you are not paying attention and knee-jerking. Take the time to formulate a well thought out answer, and I'll read it and if you are coherent I may change my mind.
I have no personal problem with my neighbor owning a gun. I'd feel better if he was trained on it. I'd like to think I was safe from him having a dangerous 100,000 round ammo dump 30 ft from my house, but that would be regulation, and his rights apparently supercede mine.
The ACLU is straightforward in what its position is.
The NRA is less clear, but their position is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns.
Regardless of whether the word militia refers to individuals in support of or outside regular army or even just Joe Q. Public, the 2nd amendment does not say "a militia" or "a regulated militia", but "a well regulated militia". The simple fact is, the NRA has no interest in any of these terms except for where it allows an individual to own a gun. From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": they are against registering guns, licensing guns, limiting what guns can be purchased (assult weapons ban), and mandatory training before you can use a gun.
My point is not to criticize or applaud the NRA, merely to point out that they are not about the 2nd amendment. They are about removing limits on gun ownership. They are perfectly happy USING the 2nd amendment, though
BTW, the NRA has nothing to do with the second amendment. They care only about the right to bear arms. They could give a flying fuck about a "well regulated malitia" qualifier.
I have no problem with what the NRA is doing, but lets call a duck a duck. And when I say "don't care" I mean, if it doesn't affect the run to johnny owning and using a gun, it won't appear on their agenda. As a GROUP, they remain neutral, not taking a side, not caring.
Wow, no wonder you posted as AC, you are a huge dumbass.
The position of the ACLU is quite clear. They take the stance of the constitution:
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
wow. You didn't figure out day one that by default you could use shift-control-click to emulate a right click on remote desktop? Or that in the freaking OPTIONS you can set it to whatever you want? There is a large difference between "can't" and "hampered"
Now, as to whether it is a "hack" to use two fingers.. tell me, where the fuck is your second finger that is it so "hugely uncomfortable" to put it down, yet bending your thumb under to reach the right button isn't?
and I have had to use it more times than I can count. . . While I am glad it is there, it certainly doesn't help you much to figure out which version you need to roll back to.
Hopefully Vista's version will be better and allow you to choose user data also.
Since Vista will now support disk images for installation, will they take the next logical step and allow an image of a PC that can use retore points to keep that image up to date?
If only some OS maker would create some kind of, I dunno, time machine, to allow you to plug in an external drive and it magically does that so you could backtrack your system completely. . .
A) never ask a designer.. you could put their keyboard on the floor and they wouldn't notice for weeks. shift-option will do what you want for word selection. You are handicapped for not having a mac keyboard in this case.
B) I disagree with your assessment of complicated kb shortcuts.. yes, you can't use alt to select the menu and then arrow around, but I've found that all menu items are given a short cut directly so that situation doesn't occur. I understand, but disagree.
C) The more expensive for equivalent power is now moot.
D) Feel free to keep using windows. I'm very happy that you have an option.
I'm saying with CONSTANT usage, with the full set available will be 106 years. If you are accounting for a growth rate, and there are obviously invalid sets (like those that have groups of all 000) that can only serve to shorten the time to exhaustion. (Oh and sibling post points out another 20% that is effectively unused)
My thought was how the heck could you come up with MORE? I assume you started with with a lower current burn rate to get your numbers, and this is a simple PERT problem, but it made me scratch my head and laugh anyways;)
It's all good. I'm easily amused.
GMail can't filter by custom headers- which makes it absolutely useless for subscribing to mailing lists.
The correct way to do this kind of thing would be to use automatic custom addresses.. i.e. username+uniqueID@gmail.com, then create a filter.
Your points, though valid for the most part, really don't indicate anything about pushing the envelope or not. For instance, your rant on MS live mapping.. I have never seen it, and if it is better, why do you think that it *is* better? Precisely because they set out to BEAT google with that product.
"Pushing the envelope" means to ME going out and being the vanguard where other companies haven't already gone. Kind of the opposite of MS, where they find an existing product and set out to copy it (for the most part, sometimes they do have innovations).
Not sure how you are interpretting that phrase that someone applying it to google makes you so defensive.
For the record, I'm starting to get a little concerned that google is getting close to violating "do no evil" with gbase and checkout, etc... but I do still use them as primary search engine because I RARELY get a lot of spam in my search results.. maybe cause I use really long search strings..
No, the point is that you've disabled all the vista selling points (aero, AV, firewall, etc) and are basically doing nothing interesting. Of COURSE it can run media center stuff, that's not the point.
Since you do disable all the Vista type stuff, why would you choose to run Vista over Media Center?
Let's start again. Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
I. Your initial post, which agreed with both the parent and the grandparent:
And WalMart also knows what sells and what consumers want (because of their sense and respond/just-in-time retail system and supply chain) better than the manufacturers do. Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.
II. My response to you in direct response to your claim that they know what sells and what consumers want better than manufacturers do. was:
Can they do this better than Apple's iTunes store for CD's and Movies or are you just derailing the topic with your AOLish "me too" mentality?
Related to the subject at hand, the NEW distribution model is much cheaper and flexible then shipping physical media to stores.
That is my question, Can Walmart know what consumers want better than Apple for CDs and Movies?[1] I also wanted to clarify whether you were defending Walmart as a "middleman" (which the parent and gparent had already done) in all areas, or were allowing this statement to cover digital media.
III. You suggest that Walmart can do a better job and in the process seem to mix up physical media and digital media, if you will note that your first and second paragraphs are contradictory:
I'd argue that through their IT systems, Wal-Mart can sense demand as well as any e-commerce shop, and because they have less leeway for mistakes when predicting and responding to demand, they're much more sophisticated at response and fulfillment. Furthermore, since they see a bigger slice of the market, their data is more complete and accurate than any specialty website who sees a small segment of the same market.
The e-commerce sites have cheaper distribution channels, can respond to demand faster (by changing graphics on their website overnight vs shipping and laying out product in a store) and offer superior personalization.
Not sure what you mean about the me too AOL comment or why you had to attack me, I was merely responding to the above comment that Wal-Mart was a no-value middleman.
You'll also note that you asked the question as to why the AOL comment, which I admit is valid.. which is why I answered it.
IV. So, now you have stated that Wal-mart can sense demand as well as any e-comerce shop and I felt the need to reinforce my differentiation that physical and digital media are different beasts. I haven't attacked you at all.
First, I have no problem with your comments re: walmart as a physical retailer. My AOL comment was to the *three* level deep "me, toos" defending Walmart. I do, however, think that the point is that the distribution for digital content is wildly different, and everything they know about distribution is therefore antiquated (in this context, not for cheap pampers). Plus, there is NO "walmart leverage" to get better source pricing, since digitally copying something throws production guarantees out the window.
I'd argue that with a physical store you have almost zero sense of what people are looking at, merely the data available at the register. I don't understand your statement "Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.". How does this relate to production of movies or music?[2]
Again, not having to purchase inventory means that digital distribution is infinitely more flexible and creates a market that Walmart CANNOT compete in with a B&M. That is why they are fighting back (more and more toothlessly as people move away from physical media) and why they tried their own online store...
Regarding your signature: "RFC 1149 Compliant" is generally used in a derogatory way to imply that the compliant person/machine is very slow. What is the object that the statement refers to?
I don't stoop to your level, and seeing your past comments, you seem to argue a lot.
I see. You never answered my initial question. You seemed genuinely confused on many issues, such as comparisons to AOL users vs independant thought, how distribution methods change/invalidate the role of middlemen, and how a comparison to a slow by design protocal could possible be regarded as derogatory. You take a superior tone, even though you are wrong. I enjoy pointing out your errors. Welcome to the Internet. Now, if you could just get out of your 20th century mindset on distribution models, you might learn something.
Now, I don't mean to be condescending (that means to talk down to you), but you are still an idiot.
You're wrong. I wasn't commenting on the digital distribution, as I said before, I was adding to the comment above that Wal-Mart isn't a zero-value middleman. Why don't you get that?m Everything else you bring up is just changing the topic.
You're an idiot. My point was that your comment no longer was valid BECAUSE of the context of digital distribution. Look back to my original question to you if your memory is too poor. Additionally, the way you said it was just about as useful as an AOL user.
You're wrong. There are systems out that that can track what people look at, judge how long lines are (and take action like page employee to open another register, etc). Check out http://www.brickstream.com/.
You're an idiot. That is a fantastic product, but the BEST it can do is to show that a particular shopper is standing in a particular area, NOT exactly what product is being looked at. The other wins from that product do NOT apply such as queue lengths, number of open registers, staffing scheduling. Lordy, it's like I'm talking to a 12 year old. What, you work for them or something? Why can't you come up with a well thought argument and justification instead of throwing out non-sensical thoughts?
You're wrong, RFC 1149 isn't a derogatory comment implying slow PC's or anything else. RFC 1149 was an April Fools joke.
And yet you don't understand that calling something RFC 1149 complaint isn't an insult? BWAHAHAHAHA! You really have your head up your ass...I'll just have to assume it applies to you, then. Lordy, I hope you reply, you come up with such gems, I'm laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes..
Here, I'll give you some other fake points you can make:
* Walmart is more effective because they have customers on-site longer then web shoppers are online.
* Walmart employees are smart and efficient, making my shopping experience not only a joy, but an educational experience.
* Walmart threatening the studies is somehow good for the consumer.
First, I have no problem with your comments re: walmart as a physical retailer. My AOL comment was to the *three* level deep "me, toos" defending Walmart. I do, however, think that the point is that the distribution for digital content is wildly different, and everything they know about distribution is therefore antiquated (in this context, not for cheap pampers). Plus, there is NO "walmart leverage" to get better source pricing, since digitally copying something throws production guarantees out the window.
I'd argue that with a physical store you have almost zero sense of what people are looking at, merely the data available at the register. I don't understand your statement "Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.". How does this relate to production of movies or music?
Again, not having to purchase inventory means that digital distribution is infinitely more flexible and creates a market that Walmart CANNOT compete in with a B&M. That is why they are fighting back (more and more toothlessly as people move away from physical media) and why they tried their own online store...
Regarding your signature: "RFC 1149 Compliant" is generally used in a derogatory way to imply that the compliant person/machine is very slow. What is the object that the statement refers to?
Slashdot Mirror
However, my point was never about what the NRA believes or does not believe about guns. It was whether they were all about the 2nd amendment. I said they only cared about the guns part. In answer to you:
THAT is exactly my point. You are now seeing what I mean.There is a case to be made that merely owning a gun and letting someone know that is an implied threat. However, my point here was that brandishing a gun is "bearing arms" and of course there are limitations to this. The NRA agrees wholeheartedly as you so kindly point out. They admit there are limitations to bearing arms, but they do not want ANY limits on "keeping arms". So lets review. We started with a "right to keep and bear arms". You've admitted that that the "bearing arms" part is NOT supported by the NRA, which leaves my point: The NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, they care about being able to have a gun.
I don't understand why that statement is interpreted by you to be some kind of attack on the NRA. My focus is that the ACLU cares about the Bill of Rights in what it says, but that NRA cares about a particular right. They are pretty upfront about it, too in the way these organizations chose to name themselves.Your first link doesn't work. Your supervision link doesn't support your argument. It is great that the NRA puts in place education programs. However, their position is that REQUIRING education is a limitation. Not a 40 hour program, not even a 5 minute "can you tell me which end of the gun goes bang" questionaire. Any licensing at all. So, that makes me as the question, what's the point of your link?
You need to chill on your constitutional rights arguments. They are very wonky. Not all rights are unabridged. The freedom of speech ends when causing bodily injury. And in the case I posed with a neighbor, they can't fire a gun (just like I can't play my radio too loud), they can't run an open gun range (they can possibly have a closed one), they can't beat their children with the butt of their gun, and certainly my rights are in conflict when a simple electrical fire can blow up my neighbors house and take mine with it.
So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? It's not hurting you. It is his "right to bear arms". These are things that the Supreme Court has already decided. I guess you must be smarter than a supreme court justice.
Arms at the time of the constitution did not just mean guns. They included at a minimum: Mortars, artillary, howitzers to fire exploding bombs, cannons, rifles, and handguns. These were all used in the revolution and are collectively known as arms. The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns. If you look at their issues and FAQs etc, they are focussed on rifles, handguns,Did you read my link or just come up with this piece of dumbshittery yourself? Do you not understand that arms != guns?
Regulate means to control or supervise. NRA is against ANY control or supervision. Specifically in this case, regulation should happen to PREVENT abuses, not to assign sentences after the fact. Please expand on how "licensing guns" violates such constitutional protections as "well regulated". Seriously. I think you are not paying attention and knee-jerking. Take the time to formulate a well thought out answer, and I'll read it and if you are coherent I may change my mind.
I have no personal problem with my neighbor owning a gun. I'd feel better if he was trained on it. I'd like to think I was safe from him having a dangerous 100,000 round ammo dump 30 ft from my house, but that would be regulation, and his rights apparently supercede mine.The ACLU is straightforward in what its position is.
The NRA is less clear, but their position is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns.
Regardless of whether the word militia refers to individuals in support of or outside regular army or even just Joe Q. Public, the 2nd amendment does not say "a militia" or "a regulated militia", but "a well regulated militia". The simple fact is, the NRA has no interest in any of these terms except for where it allows an individual to own a gun. From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": they are against registering guns, licensing guns, limiting what guns can be purchased (assult weapons ban), and mandatory training before you can use a gun.
My point is not to criticize or applaud the NRA, merely to point out that they are not about the 2nd amendment. They are about removing limits on gun ownership. They are perfectly happy USING the 2nd amendment, though
Well, a good power supply and case will last you forever. But I do see your point with the mobo.
God you are lame.
I have no problem with what the NRA is doing, but lets call a duck a duck. And when I say "don't care" I mean, if it doesn't affect the run to johnny owning and using a gun, it won't appear on their agenda. As a GROUP, they remain neutral, not taking a side, not caring.
The position of the ACLU is quite clear. They take the stance of the constitution:
The focus of the NRA is to protect the right to bear arms. Whether in a malitia or not.
The NRA does a terrible job of defending my right to counsel, for instance. Why cannot I say that they "do not care" about this right?
Frankly, they shouldn't, it would waste valuable resources, and dilute their message. Apparently, you disagree. Whatever.
The Anonymous Coward. It's not about content. It's about learning to use HTML.
or would you prefer the ACLU and not the NRA fought 2nd amendment issues?
Yeah, the "real" CA's require that you fax in something on, wait for it, letterhead. oooooh safety......
wow. You didn't figure out day one that by default you could use shift-control-click to emulate a right click on remote desktop? Or that in the freaking OPTIONS you can set it to whatever you want? There is a large difference between "can't" and "hampered"
Now, as to whether it is a "hack" to use two fingers.. tell me, where the fuck is your second finger that is it so "hugely uncomfortable" to put it down, yet bending your thumb under to reach the right button isn't?Hopefully Vista's version will be better and allow you to choose user data also.
Since Vista will now support disk images for installation, will they take the next logical step and allow an image of a PC that can use retore points to keep that image up to date?
Fine for me, I have a mac.
If only some OS maker would create some kind of, I dunno, time machine, to allow you to plug in an external drive and it magically does that so you could backtrack your system completely. . .
B) I disagree with your assessment of complicated kb shortcuts.. yes, you can't use alt to select the menu and then arrow around, but I've found that all menu items are given a short cut directly so that situation doesn't occur. I understand, but disagree.
C) The more expensive for equivalent power is now moot.
D) Feel free to keep using windows. I'm very happy that you have an option.
I'm saying with CONSTANT usage, with the full set available will be 106 years. If you are accounting for a growth rate, and there are obviously invalid sets (like those that have groups of all 000) that can only serve to shorten the time to exhaustion. (Oh and sibling post points out another 20% that is effectively unused) My thought was how the heck could you come up with MORE? I assume you started with with a lower current burn rate to get your numbers, and this is a simple PERT problem, but it made me scratch my head and laugh anyways ;)
It's all good. I'm easily amused.
(1000000000 - 415000000) / 5500000 = 106.36 years?
*sigh*
Your points, though valid for the most part, really don't indicate anything about pushing the envelope or not. For instance, your rant on MS live mapping.. I have never seen it, and if it is better, why do you think that it *is* better? Precisely because they set out to BEAT google with that product.
"Pushing the envelope" means to ME going out and being the vanguard where other companies haven't already gone. Kind of the opposite of MS, where they find an existing product and set out to copy it (for the most part, sometimes they do have innovations).
Not sure how you are interpretting that phrase that someone applying it to google makes you so defensive.
For the record, I'm starting to get a little concerned that google is getting close to violating "do no evil" with gbase and checkout, etc... but I do still use them as primary search engine because I RARELY get a lot of spam in my search results.. maybe cause I use really long search strings..
No, the point is that you've disabled all the vista selling points (aero, AV, firewall, etc) and are basically doing nothing interesting. Of COURSE it can run media center stuff, that's not the point. Since you do disable all the Vista type stuff, why would you choose to run Vista over Media Center?
I. Your initial post, which agreed with both the parent and the grandparent:
II. My response to you in direct response to your claim that they know what sells and what consumers want better than manufacturers do. was:
That is my question, Can Walmart know what consumers want better than Apple for CDs and Movies? [1] I also wanted to clarify whether you were defending Walmart as a "middleman" (which the parent and gparent had already done) in all areas, or were allowing this statement to cover digital media.
III. You suggest that Walmart can do a better job and in the process seem to mix up physical media and digital media, if you will note that your first and second paragraphs are contradictory:
You'll also note that you asked the question as to why the AOL comment, which I admit is valid.. which is why I answered it.
IV. So, now you have stated that Wal-mart can sense demand as well as any e-comerce shop and I felt the need to reinforce my differentiation that physical and digital media are different beasts. I haven't attacked you at all.
Here I also
Now, I don't mean to be condescending (that means to talk down to you), but you are still an idiot.
Here, I'll give you some other fake points you can make:
* Walmart is more effective because they have customers on-site longer then web shoppers are online.
* Walmart employees are smart and efficient, making my shopping experience not only a joy, but an educational experience.
* Walmart threatening the studies is somehow good for the consumer.
I'd argue that with a physical store you have almost zero sense of what people are looking at, merely the data available at the register. I don't understand your statement "Because of this, they don't just stock shelves, they participate in product development on some products.". How does this relate to production of movies or music?
Again, not having to purchase inventory means that digital distribution is infinitely more flexible and creates a market that Walmart CANNOT compete in with a B&M. That is why they are fighting back (more and more toothlessly as people move away from physical media) and why they tried their own online store...
Regarding your signature: "RFC 1149 Compliant" is generally used in a derogatory way to imply that the compliant person/machine is very slow. What is the object that the statement refers to?