If he got AK-74 with a "cursory background check", he's committing a felony across entirety of US. Federal law specifically requires class 3 license for an automatic firearm that was made up to 1986, which requires lengthy and complex INVESTIGATION (note - not just a check, but an actual investigation) by ATF. These last around a year on average, and ATF can refuse this license/revoke already granted license at its leisure.
Anything made post 1986, and it's just plain illegal to own for a civilian, period.
Charlie Hebdo. Main difference in France is that men in question have actual automatic weapons, rather than imaginary automatics that are used in US.
Hint: the so called "assault weapons" that are commonly used in school shootings are semi-automatic. Getting an automatic weapon in US is much harder than France. It's extremely difficult to get a legal automatic weapon in US and you'll be monitored by ATF constantly if you get one. The rights ATF gets to help them monitor you if you're a registered owner of an automatic weapon are utterly draconian. Illegal market is highly dangerous to access because of ATF. France on the other hand is suffering from the Balkan problem. Continental Europe is still awash in illegal automatic weaponry from Yugoslav war, passed through networks of Kosovar mafia which has spread across the continent, and there's no real unified continent-wide response like ATF can produce in US to counteract it.
"Food insecurity" is the umbrella term, invented specifically because Western civilization destroyed non-mental illness related hunger in their societies completely, and has now almost eliminated all non-political (i.e. warfare) hunger on world stage. Which is why certain circles, desperate to maintain the narrative of "evil capitalism starving children" when the exact opposite is true, have invented the term "food insecurity". This term encompasses everything from "dying of starvation" to "skipping breakfast because you were late for your first class, because you got drunk off your feet and overslept the previous day".
That's right. Alcoholic party animal who oversleeps and skips breakfast is just as "food insecure" as hypothetical individual who cannot afford food for months on end and ends up dying. Hypothetical because these individuals no longer exist. Capitalist societies are wealthy enough to ensure that the biggest problem their poor face today is being too damn fat. That's right. Our biggest food related problem for poor people today is that they eat too damn much.
It's worth noting that hunger still exists. It's usually either mental illness or crime related (relatives starving unwanted child, mentally ill person not taking care of himself), or political (socialism causing mass starvation event in the country's cities in Venezuela).
Have people other than microsoft marketing wankers and game makers specifically paid to limit their games to win10 only actually tried to peddle the lie that win7 is worse for gaming than win10?
It's patently better. It doesn't randomly break because of updates, it doesn't need multiple workarounds just to match win7 performance on the same hardware, and it has much better support for older games.
So unless you have a need to run a small handful of games that MS paid to make win10 exclusive and that aren't yet out on 7 on the clause of "timed exclusive ran out", you should be running win7 for gaming.
They are unlikely to have any options left. It's clear that removal of XUL was their last ditch hail mary to stop FF's slide into oblivion.
Now that it's established that Mozilla will not do anything that might stop this slide, and anything that it can do as an organisation is unable to stop this progress, all they can do is try to branch out into other products as another desperate hail mary.
It was actually much worse. What happened was the the companies literally had lawyers who specialized in getting useless drunkards fired. This is because when you're running a company, you don't want a useless drunkard who never shows up for work, and even when he does, he's dangerous to himself and co-workers. And who still has the right to state guaranteed job.
So what happened was that these lawyers would go through lengthy court procedures to prove that this particular person wasn't doing the work he was supposed to, that company tried anything and everything that could be reasonably expected of it, and he still didn't do the work. Then court would allow the company to fire this person, which meant that he immediately got hired by another company.
And the circle would start anew, and the only thing that changed was the payer of drunkard's salary.
You cannot have problems understanding it, because I pre-emptively removed this potential for misunderstanding by providing specific and accurate definitions for the terminology.
It was also a trap for ideological trolling. Which you nicely fell into.
"Project Fear" is widely accepted name for the remain campaign, as it was pointedly all about spreading unsubstantiated fear about Brexit consequences, none of which have come to pass.
The rest of your argument is literally "aristocracy is better than democracy because side I like lost the democratic vote, but is widely supported by aristocracy". In this regard, you completely reinforce my point.
Problem being that it would only deepen their anti-democratic tendencies which are already clearly pronounced. Considering the cultural fracturing going on in UK right now, it would be extremely dangerous to push yet another large voting block to cement their clear anti-democratic biases.
It's pretty much factual that one side had overwhelming amount of elites in that negotiation, while other had barely any.
This is evident in the fact that aristocratic class can afford to maintain the Project Fear to this day, and effectively took over the Brexit negotiations process entirely to provide a "Brexit without exiting EU" which is what May appears to be working toward. If balance within the aristocratic class on each side was even roughly even, such blatantly undemocratic action would have never been allowed to occur.
Like or hate Brexit all you want. You cannot reasonably argue that the path in which British elites managed it is in any way, shape or form what was being voted for. And that is what democratic mandate is for. Actually following the will of the people, even if your class privilege puts this against your interests. The entire point of direct democracy is to put constraints on power of elites and people closely aligned with them to influence policy to the point where you have aristocracy rather than democracy.
I use those words in their accurate definition. Arestos - elites, "the excellent ones". Demos - the people, "the entirety of the peoples". Cracy suffix - system of rule by [prefix].
I don't like the mining-as-a-payment-for-services-rendered method any more than you do, but there are actually people that genuinely want to "pay for services" this way.
I've seen quite a few web sites that specifically allow for voluntary mining in addition to donations, and quite a few people appear to mine for them, because they tend to keep leader boards of the miners in question public.
Audience is the exact opposite of an analyst. Reaction is also the opposite. Which is why there was so much screaming about "offensive ads showing up on video" on google a few years ago.
"Soon" means nothing. It's the go to marketing buzzword when you don't have any idea, but want the free marketing attention that is journalists who have no idea how anything works.
If you think that advertising is the good way of "piercing the bubble", you are beyond hope. Advertising is what pisses off even the people that advertising is for in many cases. Ads are annoying. Welcome to realisation made in 20th century.
If you want to pierce bubbles, you're going to have to actually get off the ivory tower and talk to people, rather than aim to piss them off even more with ads they will find offensive.
If ads aren't targeted, they'll have to have more impressions of the same ads to get the same amount of relevant views. Non-targeted ads are also cheaper for this very reason than accurately targeted ones.
So this is going to lead to you seeing more ads, because non-targeted ads are cheaper per impression and they need to show more of them to hit the target audiences.
You're not going to get any less ads, and ads that aren't targeted tend to be even more of a nuisance to people. That's why most people don't opt out from ad targeting systems on various sites now that GDPR allows for it.
Slashdot Mirror
If he got AK-74 with a "cursory background check", he's committing a felony across entirety of US. Federal law specifically requires class 3 license for an automatic firearm that was made up to 1986, which requires lengthy and complex INVESTIGATION (note - not just a check, but an actual investigation) by ATF. These last around a year on average, and ATF can refuse this license/revoke already granted license at its leisure.
Anything made post 1986, and it's just plain illegal to own for a civilian, period.
Charlie Hebdo. Main difference in France is that men in question have actual automatic weapons, rather than imaginary automatics that are used in US.
Hint: the so called "assault weapons" that are commonly used in school shootings are semi-automatic. Getting an automatic weapon in US is much harder than France. It's extremely difficult to get a legal automatic weapon in US and you'll be monitored by ATF constantly if you get one. The rights ATF gets to help them monitor you if you're a registered owner of an automatic weapon are utterly draconian. Illegal market is highly dangerous to access because of ATF. France on the other hand is suffering from the Balkan problem. Continental Europe is still awash in illegal automatic weaponry from Yugoslav war, passed through networks of Kosovar mafia which has spread across the continent, and there's no real unified continent-wide response like ATF can produce in US to counteract it.
"Food insecurity" is the umbrella term, invented specifically because Western civilization destroyed non-mental illness related hunger in their societies completely, and has now almost eliminated all non-political (i.e. warfare) hunger on world stage. Which is why certain circles, desperate to maintain the narrative of "evil capitalism starving children" when the exact opposite is true, have invented the term "food insecurity". This term encompasses everything from "dying of starvation" to "skipping breakfast because you were late for your first class, because you got drunk off your feet and overslept the previous day".
That's right. Alcoholic party animal who oversleeps and skips breakfast is just as "food insecure" as hypothetical individual who cannot afford food for months on end and ends up dying. Hypothetical because these individuals no longer exist. Capitalist societies are wealthy enough to ensure that the biggest problem their poor face today is being too damn fat. That's right. Our biggest food related problem for poor people today is that they eat too damn much.
It's worth noting that hunger still exists. It's usually either mental illness or crime related (relatives starving unwanted child, mentally ill person not taking care of himself), or political (socialism causing mass starvation event in the country's cities in Venezuela).
Have people other than microsoft marketing wankers and game makers specifically paid to limit their games to win10 only actually tried to peddle the lie that win7 is worse for gaming than win10?
It's patently better. It doesn't randomly break because of updates, it doesn't need multiple workarounds just to match win7 performance on the same hardware, and it has much better support for older games.
So unless you have a need to run a small handful of games that MS paid to make win10 exclusive and that aren't yet out on 7 on the clause of "timed exclusive ran out", you should be running win7 for gaming.
You can make any win10 into "no updates until I want them" by simply disabling windows update service.
Doesn't get rid of spyware however.
They are unlikely to have any options left. It's clear that removal of XUL was their last ditch hail mary to stop FF's slide into oblivion.
Now that it's established that Mozilla will not do anything that might stop this slide, and anything that it can do as an organisation is unable to stop this progress, all they can do is try to branch out into other products as another desperate hail mary.
Between Australis and removing XUL, it has essentially nothing left to make it recognisable as Firefox.
They may as well just rebrand it "Chromefox" and be done with it.
Are you still pissed that this particular move cemented FF's slide into oblivion as a browser used by almost no one?
Except that, of course, Project Fear made wide sweeping claims of immediate consequences upon just getting the Brexit voting result.
And now that you're unmasked, you just go full retard. Nice.
It was actually much worse. What happened was the the companies literally had lawyers who specialized in getting useless drunkards fired. This is because when you're running a company, you don't want a useless drunkard who never shows up for work, and even when he does, he's dangerous to himself and co-workers. And who still has the right to state guaranteed job.
So what happened was that these lawyers would go through lengthy court procedures to prove that this particular person wasn't doing the work he was supposed to, that company tried anything and everything that could be reasonably expected of it, and he still didn't do the work. Then court would allow the company to fire this person, which meant that he immediately got hired by another company.
And the circle would start anew, and the only thing that changed was the payer of drunkard's salary.
You cannot have problems understanding it, because I pre-emptively removed this potential for misunderstanding by providing specific and accurate definitions for the terminology.
It was also a trap for ideological trolling. Which you nicely fell into.
"Project Fear" is widely accepted name for the remain campaign, as it was pointedly all about spreading unsubstantiated fear about Brexit consequences, none of which have come to pass.
The rest of your argument is literally "aristocracy is better than democracy because side I like lost the democratic vote, but is widely supported by aristocracy". In this regard, you completely reinforce my point.
Every single news agency on the planet is linked to IS, and their torture and murder of civilians.
When measuring stick produces outcomes this absurd when applied universally, said measuring stick is useless.
Problem being that it would only deepen their anti-democratic tendencies which are already clearly pronounced. Considering the cultural fracturing going on in UK right now, it would be extremely dangerous to push yet another large voting block to cement their clear anti-democratic biases.
It's pretty much factual that one side had overwhelming amount of elites in that negotiation, while other had barely any.
This is evident in the fact that aristocratic class can afford to maintain the Project Fear to this day, and effectively took over the Brexit negotiations process entirely to provide a "Brexit without exiting EU" which is what May appears to be working toward. If balance within the aristocratic class on each side was even roughly even, such blatantly undemocratic action would have never been allowed to occur.
Like or hate Brexit all you want. You cannot reasonably argue that the path in which British elites managed it is in any way, shape or form what was being voted for. And that is what democratic mandate is for. Actually following the will of the people, even if your class privilege puts this against your interests. The entire point of direct democracy is to put constraints on power of elites and people closely aligned with them to influence policy to the point where you have aristocracy rather than democracy.
I use those words in their accurate definition. Arestos - elites, "the excellent ones". Demos - the people, "the entirety of the peoples". Cracy suffix - system of rule by [prefix].
I don't like the mining-as-a-payment-for-services-rendered method any more than you do, but there are actually people that genuinely want to "pay for services" this way.
I've seen quite a few web sites that specifically allow for voluntary mining in addition to donations, and quite a few people appear to mine for them, because they tend to keep leader boards of the miners in question public.
You're talking as an analyst.
Audience is the exact opposite of an analyst. Reaction is also the opposite. Which is why there was so much screaming about "offensive ads showing up on video" on google a few years ago.
"Soon" means nothing. It's the go to marketing buzzword when you don't have any idea, but want the free marketing attention that is journalists who have no idea how anything works.
That's a really weird and roundabout way of admitting to the point I made above.
If you think that advertising is the good way of "piercing the bubble", you are beyond hope. Advertising is what pisses off even the people that advertising is for in many cases. Ads are annoying. Welcome to realisation made in 20th century.
If you want to pierce bubbles, you're going to have to actually get off the ivory tower and talk to people, rather than aim to piss them off even more with ads they will find offensive.
This is irrelevant to discussion at hand. Adblock working is a completely separate issue.
Adidas are Russian collaborators. Obviously.
If ads aren't targeted, they'll have to have more impressions of the same ads to get the same amount of relevant views. Non-targeted ads are also cheaper for this very reason than accurately targeted ones.
So this is going to lead to you seeing more ads, because non-targeted ads are cheaper per impression and they need to show more of them to hit the target audiences.
You're not going to get any less ads, and ads that aren't targeted tend to be even more of a nuisance to people. That's why most people don't opt out from ad targeting systems on various sites now that GDPR allows for it.