As to machine guns, not only must they have a special license but they must only use weapons that were manufactured before the grandfather period. As a result, there are a limited number of those weapons and there are fewer of them all the time.
If the police want to play by those rules then I'm okay with it.
As to tanks, I'd be very surprised if the police would let just anyone drive around picking up groceries in one of those monstrosities. But if they are okay with that and the government is happy to sell them to the general public and not just the police... I am fine with it. What they're doing now, is not selling them to the public. They only sell them to the police. That effectively means they're banned because you can't find them on the market. If they put them up on the market and let anyone drive them around whenever they want, then I'm happy with the police owning them.
As to police states, most Europeans have no concept of what it means to be a citizen. They went directly from being peasants to being whatever they are now.
Americans threw off the royal yoke and built a new society without a defined aristocracy. We are also inherently suspicious of anything that looks like or could lead to old aristo style privileges. These weapons for me but not for you policies smack very much of that sort of attitude and we're not going to put up with it.
Well, they're also insane so if that is what the environment is on the net, then you had better fucking cover your shit up. Because the NK regime has always been a chimp with a hand grenade. And no, that isn't racist. If they were all white and behaving the way they do... I'd say the same fucking thing. Suggesting it is racist is actually what is racist because it assumes racial inferiority. You made no such claims... but I'm so fucking tired of getting the PC shit thrown around that I'm just preemptively slapping it down just in fucking case.
... Sony should be deeply ashamed of themselves. This is like getting your ass handed to you by a drunk cripple. The guy might be crazy... correct that, we know he's crazy... but he has no legs and he keeps bumping into walls. If you can't deal with that... then take the Russian FSB's solution and just go back to type writers.
He didn't initiate the contact. The FBI did. They picked a foreign nation that they thought might be acceptable to the target and then approached him pretending to be that target. Pretty tame stuff really.
There aren't enough of these guns for law enforcement to make significant use of them. They're too expensive and too rare.
What I further suspect will happen is that the government would chaff under these rules. If forbidden from crafting a loophole just for them, they would create a loophole for everyone. And then you'd get what you want.
But you can't do it directly or you'll fail. Learn something from the opposition. Sometimes you have to attack an issue from 90 degrees.
If they're willing to accept the same restriction, then I'm frankly fine with it. The weapons would be so rare that basically no one would have them including the police.
But again... if they wanted to have them... all they'd have to do is let the public generally have them.
They are civilians. You are in error. They are not military.
They can quit their jobs at any time.
They can participate in the political process with full personal freedom of speech.
To attain special privileges they would have to give something else up.
They have not. They operate under no restrictions that the average person doesn't have upon them already. As such they have given up nothing to pay for additional rights. Therefore they have no additional rights. Therefore they are civilians.
If police want to sign up for terms of enlistment with imprisonment if they go AWOL and give up the right to political expression while enlisted, then they will have paid for special privileges.
Absent giving up something they've done nothing to earn special rights.
Not under the same permits or conditions and not the same tanks and machine guns.
The tanks civilians can buy tend to be forbidden from driving down the road except under special circumstances. They are for collectors. They sit in a room somewhere with a plague in front of them.
if the police want to moth ball all their tanks and put little museum plagues in front of them then I'm fine with them.
As to machine guns, the machine guns Americans are allowed to buy are grand fathered weapons in increasingly short supply. The cost of some of those guns is in excess of 50k because they're not that many of them. What is more, the circumstances under which you are allowed to discharge such weapons are extremely tight.
If the police are willing to play by the exact same rules then I'm fine with it.
It is when there is one set of rules for the rulers and another set of rules for the ruled that we cease to have a rule of law.
I am not asking that civilians be given tanks and automatic weapons. I am demanding that the police be denied them.
They don't need them. If you run into a situation where you need automatic weapons then call in the national guard because your country just got invaded.
Tear gas, sniper rifles, and old fashioned police tactics work just fine to drop anything short of an invasion. You do not need military hardware.
You're forgetting the bit where they could only buy legacy weapons. Antiques. Possibly in good repair but with a very finite number. Every time one breaks there will be one less.
As to letting civilians buy automatic weapons generally... I don't really mind it but you'd need to create a situation to allow that to happen. This isn't that situation.
Apply the same rules to the police that you apply to regular civilians and I am fine with it.
If I can own and USE a tank... driving it down the street... then by all means... let the police do the same. That includes any weapons applied to the tank. If you mount machine guns on it or a 180 mil bore main gun... then I want to be able to have one as well... including the ability to buy ammo for it if they can do the same.
As to machine guns, I am aware of the situation. My stance remains the same there. If the police want to pay 20-50k per rifle and increasingly be dealing with antiques... then so be it.
This limits what you'll sell to the police because a lot of this hardware you don't want in "civilian" hands... the police ARE civilians. They are not military.
Anything the police are able to buy, should be something the average citizen can buy.
Pistols? Rifles? Shotguns? Body armor? Tear gas? Gas masks? Flash bangs? Tasers?
All of that can be sold to civilians already. No issue there.
Tanks? Machine guns?
THAT crosses a line.
If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.
If police are getting out gunned by people that have automatic weapons, then we can look at that situation and see how that happened. From what I've seen, that mostly happens with the cartels if it happens at all. And in those cases, you're dealing with a failure of the border patrol etc. Regardless, you can bring in the FBI if you really want to bring some firepower down on their heads.
Very long passwords are very easy to remember if you use mnemonics.
For example:
412a7YaoFbfotCanNciladthptaMace
Completely impossible to remember that password right? Wrong:
""Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.""
You just have a set of rules for turning text into a password.
In this case, all numbers are written as numbers and all words are lower case except nouns which are capitalized.
Substitute that quote for any other and you can generate another very long password that is impossible to forget. You can even write the quote down prominently and no one is going to break into your system unless they know the system by which the quote is turned into a password. The system I cited above is very very simple but you can use a much more complicated one.
The system usually should not change. You can keep that static. The quotes or text strings should change every so often. And when you do, you can put a sticky note on your computer with the quote right there. No one will break in.
You can make the password as long or as short as you like.
The downside is that the decoding process does take a moment. But you will not forget the password.
Sure, which is what your parents did to get you to grow up to be a douche bag just like them, right?
Water boarding is not required to socialize a child. They look to you for everything. They are genetically programmed to imprint on their guardians... especially genetic relatives.
You tell them what is right and wrong and they will almost always just accept that as a given because you said it.
You basically have root access to their ethical, moral, and psychological clockwork for their formative years.
As such, you can either indoctrinate them into your world view or abandon your parent duties leaving them to wander around and randomly imprint on the first thing that tell them what to do.
Often they'll be taken in by corporate marketing which just wants to sell them crap. Or worse they'll be taken in by a radical political ideology which wants more cultists for their sick little games.
Indoctrinating the child protects him/her from predatory memes. They have your ideas filling the vacuum in their minds and so rival concepts will have a hard time getting in until they're old enough to think for themselves.
It is taken for granted that children cannot think for themselves. This is not in dispute. We make decisions for them because they are in capable of making them for themselves. This includes at early stages of their lives which ideas are correct and which ideas are wrong.
Even if you're an idiot, you're less of an idiot then your child is... and given that your child is the genetic progeny of yourself... they're likely to be idiots as well in adult hood anyway if you are also an idiot. There is no harm in indoctrination.
The only times we tend to get upset about indoctrination is when people we disagree with indoctrinate their children to believe what they believe. However, if they indoctrinate the children with ideas we do agree with then no one has a problem.
The issue therefore is not indoctrination but rather ideological disputes.
And really, if an ideologue doesn't have a right to indoctrinate their own children then who do they have a right to indoctrinate?
Objections to the concept are at best naive and at worst fascistic.
Hmmm... Parents have been indoctrinating their children for... always. The big difference is that we now have TV coming into the home and competing with the parent. If you are less compelling than an inanimate object then that might be a bigger problem.
And the correct term is "compelling"... the child must be compelled into your culture. That is a basic tenet of socializing a blank mind. It really isn't that hard. The child is primed to accept indoctrination. You have about 10 to 15 years to really lay the ground work for it.
At around puberty they go into their rebellious stage which is mostly there because biologically that is when your children are supposed to start looking for mates to form their own family. Where upon they'll indoctrinate their own children and so on. This is inconvenient in our current culture because we define childhood as ending around 18-25 depending on context. Even 25 year olds are often regarded as being immature like teenagers by large segments of society.
That is just our culture at this point in time. Our biology says around 13 is when adulthood begins. And that has consequences for how you parent. There are phases. In each phase your responsibilities, goals, and options change.
... is the responsibility of parents. If you want your kid to be an engineer or a scientist then you don't let them self direct outside of that box. You very deliberately encourage certain pursuits.
You have every right to do this as a parent. You do it by imposing your culture on the child. Parents have every right and even responsibility to impose a framework on the child. The alternative is to let the television do it. The television will impose a framework without hesitation or remorse. Do not give it that opportunity. Impose your own programming before it can try.
Here someone will say I am not respecting the freedom of the child. The child is genetically programmed to imprint on adults. If I do not assist this imprinting process then the child will track on the first thing that responds properly. Think of ducks that imprint on humans. The point is that the child will be imprinted regardless. It is a zero sum game. If your child did not adopt the cultural view you prefer then you failed to imprint the child properly.
Doing this properly in the 21st century requires some intelligence, love, patience, and knowledge of human psychology.
Even on a roof. Put them on the south facing roof and then put servos under the panels to TIP them east or west. The panels don't even need to have sensors. Just give the panels a simple clock and sync that clock to specific positions. Basically a giant lookup table for the whole year. So, the system would need a bit of memory but we're talking about perhaps a megabyte. You could even build a simple little equation into the system that asks your latitude, the year, the month, the hour... and from that self generates a serviceable tracking pattern. At noon, the panels would face south assuming you are in the northern hemisphere. They would tilt towards the east during the morning and tilt towards the west in the evening.
Sure sure... no one ever invents anything because someone somewhere else was JUST about to come forward. By this logic, the Allies didn't develop the atomic bomb first because the Nazis were working on it too.
At some point you have to draw a line and say "that guy invented it"... if you want to say in addition to that "lots of people were close to the same thing"... that's fine. But they didn't get there first. The Wright brothers did.
Here you're going to get snarky which is a giant waste of both our time. They went down in the history books at the guys that did it. Suck it.
Slashdot Mirror
As to machine guns, not only must they have a special license but they must only use weapons that were manufactured before the grandfather period. As a result, there are a limited number of those weapons and there are fewer of them all the time.
If the police want to play by those rules then I'm okay with it.
As to tanks, I'd be very surprised if the police would let just anyone drive around picking up groceries in one of those monstrosities. But if they are okay with that and the government is happy to sell them to the general public and not just the police... I am fine with it. What they're doing now, is not selling them to the public. They only sell them to the police. That effectively means they're banned because you can't find them on the market. If they put them up on the market and let anyone drive them around whenever they want, then I'm happy with the police owning them.
As to police states, most Europeans have no concept of what it means to be a citizen. They went directly from being peasants to being whatever they are now.
Americans threw off the royal yoke and built a new society without a defined aristocracy. We are also inherently suspicious of anything that looks like or could lead to old aristo style privileges. These weapons for me but not for you policies smack very much of that sort of attitude and we're not going to put up with it.
Well, they're also insane so if that is what the environment is on the net, then you had better fucking cover your shit up. Because the NK regime has always been a chimp with a hand grenade. And no, that isn't racist. If they were all white and behaving the way they do... I'd say the same fucking thing. Suggesting it is racist is actually what is racist because it assumes racial inferiority. You made no such claims... but I'm so fucking tired of getting the PC shit thrown around that I'm just preemptively slapping it down just in fucking case.
... Sony should be deeply ashamed of themselves. This is like getting your ass handed to you by a drunk cripple. The guy might be crazy... correct that, we know he's crazy... but he has no legs and he keeps bumping into walls. If you can't deal with that... then take the Russian FSB's solution and just go back to type writers.
Idiotic insults are idiotic.
He didn't initiate the contact. The FBI did. They picked a foreign nation that they thought might be acceptable to the target and then approached him pretending to be that target. Pretty tame stuff really.
There aren't enough of these guns for law enforcement to make significant use of them. They're too expensive and too rare.
What I further suspect will happen is that the government would chaff under these rules. If forbidden from crafting a loophole just for them, they would create a loophole for everyone. And then you'd get what you want.
But you can't do it directly or you'll fail. Learn something from the opposition. Sometimes you have to attack an issue from 90 degrees.
If they're willing to accept the same restriction, then I'm frankly fine with it. The weapons would be so rare that basically no one would have them including the police.
But again... if they wanted to have them... all they'd have to do is let the public generally have them.
The Saudis are heavily involved in anti fracking propaganda in the US as well.
Everyone paying attention knows what is going on. This more about money and less about the environment.
They are civilians. You are in error. They are not military.
They can quit their jobs at any time.
They can participate in the political process with full personal freedom of speech.
To attain special privileges they would have to give something else up.
They have not. They operate under no restrictions that the average person doesn't have upon them already. As such they have given up nothing to pay for additional rights. Therefore they have no additional rights. Therefore they are civilians.
If police want to sign up for terms of enlistment with imprisonment if they go AWOL and give up the right to political expression while enlisted, then they will have paid for special privileges.
Absent giving up something they've done nothing to earn special rights.
So long as the police have to follow the exact same rules, I'm fine with it.
They are not military. Police ARE civilians.
Not under the same permits or conditions and not the same tanks and machine guns.
The tanks civilians can buy tend to be forbidden from driving down the road except under special circumstances. They are for collectors. They sit in a room somewhere with a plague in front of them.
if the police want to moth ball all their tanks and put little museum plagues in front of them then I'm fine with them.
As to machine guns, the machine guns Americans are allowed to buy are grand fathered weapons in increasingly short supply. The cost of some of those guns is in excess of 50k because they're not that many of them. What is more, the circumstances under which you are allowed to discharge such weapons are extremely tight.
If the police are willing to play by the exact same rules then I'm fine with it.
It is when there is one set of rules for the rulers and another set of rules for the ruled that we cease to have a rule of law.
Equality under the law.
Or
A police state.
Choose.
I am not asking that civilians be given tanks and automatic weapons. I am demanding that the police be denied them.
They don't need them. If you run into a situation where you need automatic weapons then call in the national guard because your country just got invaded.
Tear gas, sniper rifles, and old fashioned police tactics work just fine to drop anything short of an invasion. You do not need military hardware.
You're forgetting the bit where they could only buy legacy weapons. Antiques. Possibly in good repair but with a very finite number. Every time one breaks there will be one less.
As to letting civilians buy automatic weapons generally... I don't really mind it but you'd need to create a situation to allow that to happen. This isn't that situation.
Did I contradict any of those points or were you just wasting bandwidth?
Apply the same rules to the police that you apply to regular civilians and I am fine with it.
If I can own and USE a tank... driving it down the street... then by all means... let the police do the same. That includes any weapons applied to the tank. If you mount machine guns on it or a 180 mil bore main gun... then I want to be able to have one as well... including the ability to buy ammo for it if they can do the same.
As to machine guns, I am aware of the situation. My stance remains the same there. If the police want to pay 20-50k per rifle and increasingly be dealing with antiques... then so be it.
... to the people.
This limits what you'll sell to the police because a lot of this hardware you don't want in "civilian" hands... the police ARE civilians. They are not military.
Anything the police are able to buy, should be something the average citizen can buy.
Pistols?
Rifles?
Shotguns?
Body armor?
Tear gas?
Gas masks?
Flash bangs?
Tasers?
All of that can be sold to civilians already. No issue there.
Tanks?
Machine guns?
THAT crosses a line.
If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.
If police are getting out gunned by people that have automatic weapons, then we can look at that situation and see how that happened. From what I've seen, that mostly happens with the cartels if it happens at all. And in those cases, you're dealing with a failure of the border patrol etc. Regardless, you can bring in the FBI if you really want to bring some firepower down on their heads.
Very long passwords are very easy to remember if you use mnemonics.
For example:
412a7YaoFbfotCanNciladthptaMace
Completely impossible to remember that password right? Wrong:
""Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.""
You just have a set of rules for turning text into a password.
In this case, all numbers are written as numbers and all words are lower case except nouns which are capitalized.
Substitute that quote for any other and you can generate another very long password that is impossible to forget. You can even write the quote down prominently and no one is going to break into your system unless they know the system by which the quote is turned into a password. The system I cited above is very very simple but you can use a much more complicated one.
The system usually should not change. You can keep that static. The quotes or text strings should change every so often. And when you do, you can put a sticky note on your computer with the quote right there. No one will break in.
You can make the password as long or as short as you like.
The downside is that the decoding process does take a moment. But you will not forget the password.
Sure, which is what your parents did to get you to grow up to be a douche bag just like them, right?
Water boarding is not required to socialize a child. They look to you for everything. They are genetically programmed to imprint on their guardians... especially genetic relatives.
You tell them what is right and wrong and they will almost always just accept that as a given because you said it.
You basically have root access to their ethical, moral, and psychological clockwork for their formative years.
As such, you can either indoctrinate them into your world view or abandon your parent duties leaving them to wander around and randomly imprint on the first thing that tell them what to do.
Often they'll be taken in by corporate marketing which just wants to sell them crap. Or worse they'll be taken in by a radical political ideology which wants more cultists for their sick little games.
Indoctrinating the child protects him/her from predatory memes. They have your ideas filling the vacuum in their minds and so rival concepts will have a hard time getting in until they're old enough to think for themselves.
It is taken for granted that children cannot think for themselves. This is not in dispute. We make decisions for them because they are in capable of making them for themselves. This includes at early stages of their lives which ideas are correct and which ideas are wrong.
Even if you're an idiot, you're less of an idiot then your child is... and given that your child is the genetic progeny of yourself... they're likely to be idiots as well in adult hood anyway if you are also an idiot. There is no harm in indoctrination.
The only times we tend to get upset about indoctrination is when people we disagree with indoctrinate their children to believe what they believe. However, if they indoctrinate the children with ideas we do agree with then no one has a problem.
The issue therefore is not indoctrination but rather ideological disputes.
And really, if an ideologue doesn't have a right to indoctrinate their own children then who do they have a right to indoctrinate?
Objections to the concept are at best naive and at worst fascistic.
Hmmm... Parents have been indoctrinating their children for... always. The big difference is that we now have TV coming into the home and competing with the parent. If you are less compelling than an inanimate object then that might be a bigger problem.
And the correct term is "compelling"... the child must be compelled into your culture. That is a basic tenet of socializing a blank mind. It really isn't that hard. The child is primed to accept indoctrination. You have about 10 to 15 years to really lay the ground work for it.
At around puberty they go into their rebellious stage which is mostly there because biologically that is when your children are supposed to start looking for mates to form their own family. Where upon they'll indoctrinate their own children and so on. This is inconvenient in our current culture because we define childhood as ending around 18-25 depending on context. Even 25 year olds are often regarded as being immature like teenagers by large segments of society.
That is just our culture at this point in time. Our biology says around 13 is when adulthood begins. And that has consequences for how you parent. There are phases. In each phase your responsibilities, goals, and options change.
Love implies and contains all relevant ethical considerations.
... is the responsibility of parents. If you want your kid to be an engineer or a scientist then you don't let them self direct outside of that box. You very deliberately encourage certain pursuits.
You have every right to do this as a parent. You do it by imposing your culture on the child. Parents have every right and even responsibility to impose a framework on the child. The alternative is to let the television do it. The television will impose a framework without hesitation or remorse. Do not give it that opportunity. Impose your own programming before it can try.
Here someone will say I am not respecting the freedom of the child. The child is genetically programmed to imprint on adults. If I do not assist this imprinting process then the child will track on the first thing that responds properly. Think of ducks that imprint on humans. The point is that the child will be imprinted regardless. It is a zero sum game. If your child did not adopt the cultural view you prefer then you failed to imprint the child properly.
Doing this properly in the 21st century requires some intelligence, love, patience, and knowledge of human psychology.
Even on a roof. Put them on the south facing roof and then put servos under the panels to TIP them east or west. The panels don't even need to have sensors. Just give the panels a simple clock and sync that clock to specific positions. Basically a giant lookup table for the whole year. So, the system would need a bit of memory but we're talking about perhaps a megabyte. You could even build a simple little equation into the system that asks your latitude, the year, the month, the hour... and from that self generates a serviceable tracking pattern. At noon, the panels would face south assuming you are in the northern hemisphere. They would tilt towards the east during the morning and tilt towards the west in the evening.
As to why they are choosing, if they choose to not take a college course then to claim sexism would require sexism in college... not the companies.
Therefore you can address your fucking retarded sexism charges to the professors at the universities. Have fun with that, retard.
Good day, sir.
Sure sure... no one ever invents anything because someone somewhere else was JUST about to come forward. By this logic, the Allies didn't develop the atomic bomb first because the Nazis were working on it too.
At some point you have to draw a line and say "that guy invented it"... if you want to say in addition to that "lots of people were close to the same thing"... that's fine. But they didn't get there first. The Wright brothers did.
Here you're going to get snarky which is a giant waste of both our time. They went down in the history books at the guys that did it. Suck it.
hey there APK... :-)
Yep. Which is why I keep noscript enabled.