It requires users to be smart - It is difficult to work with.
A 35k/year employee cannot do it - What you save in software costs will more than be absorbed in labor costs.
Others Get To See the Code - There are security concerns.
It doesn't make the management look good - If you go this direction, you will have to fight your boss to give you a product that makes your job more difficult.
Are you fucking kidding me about RIM. Blackberrys which are the defacto in the business world. Not everyone uses their phone to text each other about the cool new hangout spot. RIM mostly caters to the no-nonsense business world but has appealed to people who do want a quality product. Also how about the Blackberry Bold?
I still believe that the hype surrounding these products is about promotion, cool features, and maybe a little slashdot bias toward Google and FOSS.
You seem to be responding with "but this is a solid product". I don't deny that (mostly because I own a cheap phone and have little basis to make such a judgement), but if you want to know why Apple and Google make headlines, while RIM and blackberry don't, I think it is because Apple is better with mainstream promotion, and, "Blackberry releases a solid product: great for no-nonsense people who don't like text messaging" is not a very good headline.
It'll be interesting to watch the clean, sleak and confined iPhone go against the more likely open and flexible Android.
Depends. It will be a short race if we're watching the clean, sleek and confined iPhone go against the clean, sleek, open and flexible Android....
Frankly tho', I'm surprised at the number of posters on this site who seem to believe we're going to be looking at a contest between Apple & Google for the smartphone king crown.
Is it American chauvinism that makes so many here discount RIM & Nokia?
No. If Americans were chauvinistic in that way, then Wal-Mart would still be selling American products. Apple knows how to design and promote a beautiful product, and Google seems to dominate the IT market, and has ingratiated themselves with the FOSS community. As for RIM and Nokia, they make closed/proprietary products that are not as well promoted in the US and do not have the "cool factor" of the IPhone.
I think it's purely about promotion, and cool features.
The moment I read it... I felt this enormous pain in my stomach. It got worse and worse to the point where I was heaving with my face on the keyboard. I felt my cheeks ripping apart and out came this little winged monkey. With a fez hat. He just handed me the game, gave me the thumbs up signal and flew out the window.
Unfortunately the game was Duke Nukem 3D. You went through that for the wrong game. At least it wasn't Kid Chameleon or Sewer Shark, but still, you must be disappointed.
It's unfortunate, however, that our status quo is one which makes a large portion of our culture into criminals, and then, they can get elected to office, so long as they claim that's how it should be.
I know the point you're trying to make, but... are you someone who believes once a criminal, always a criminal? What about the ones who have done the time (or other penalty) that society has assessed legally for the crime for which they were convicted?
No. I absolutely believe that once reformed, someone should have opportunities.(I would argue that the "once a criminal always a criminal" approach pushes former convicts into a life of crime by depriving them of other options). The point which I should have made more clearly is that A)> No law should be so strict that only a small minority can adhere to it, and B). It is hypocrisy to have a system where most people are criminals in their youth, and then defend that status quo when they get older.
Colbert asked Kevin Costner if he would run for office and Costner laughed and said something like, 'No... I've lead a colorful life."
I think that would probably be the issue with *most* people like Colbert and John Stewart. The facts of Bush's "colorful" youth were largely ignored when he was running for election. I couldn't believe he got away with "I haven't used cocaine since January of 1987." but more power to him since i think cocaine and pot should be legal.
It's unfortunate, however, that our status quo is one which makes a large portion of our culture into criminals, and then, they can get elected to office, so long as they claim that's how it should be.
I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing. But wise men throughout history have altered their conciousness. And suddenly we disallow it and insist that only the most prissy, straight-laced people who don't even match 90% of the population in actual behavior should be our political leaders. Basically-- PRIESTS should be our leaders. The kings and lords and barons of industry had strong passions and lead bold lives and it gave them the strength of character needed to truly do the right thing.
Umm...Priests have gotten away with things no politician could ever be forgiven for. Make no doubt about it, our politicians have to live up to a much higher standard than our clergy.
A lot of times in school, I was told viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce. I always wondered if this would apply to eunichs or mule.
For the debate over whether viruses are "alive" to make any sense, there has to be some literally essential difference between things that are alive and things that are not. The past 200 years or so of biology ought to have taught us that, contrary to what seemed evident to the ancients, there isn't any such essential difference. Organic matter is just a form of organization of inorganic manner. From the point of view of what the ancients knew, there was a huge gulf between everyday living beings and inert objects. From the point of view of what we know, there are many intermediate cases.
So, instead of wasting time trying to decide whether viruses are "really" alive or not, you should just accept the fact that our knowledge today is advanced enough to show that the question--which we inherited from people who knew less than we do--is flawed.
I'm wondering if this, (as well as the question of whether Pluto is a planet), it is more about coming up with an objective and internally consistent definition of what the word means.
So, no, there may not be a great difference between one classification and another, but the argument is more about coming up with a logical way of thinking about the two.
I suppose by that logic, the internet was invented when bit torrent came out...And ten years from now, we can say "it wasn't invented until technology X was released."
The internet worked, even when it was gopher. HTML may have been a useful concept, but it is bullshit to redefine the internet as HTML, just so you don't have to give credit to those who worked to get it started.
I recently tried to write my first real AJAX page (a small and simple page with a date-publication selector, and I had a time getting the page to work on IE7, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, and Safari. (Maybe it was because I was just trying to retrieve HTML, containing tables, and dynamically embed it into the current page).
Anyway, GWT has some strong competition. How does it, and it's competitors, do when it comes to cross-platform compatibility? If I just want to retrieve a table or widget, or piece of HTML and place it in the current page, are some better than others?
(Please don't tell me that web 2.0 is based on the idea that everything involves encoding all data as XML or JSON, and writing an XML/JSON-to-HTML interpretor that runs on the web page).
Hello world will get old after a while. You need something easy, that can produce something that would interest him. For that, I would suggest either VB, because it is very easy to get a GUI app up and running, Java, or HTML, with php/asp/J2EE, all for similar reasons.
What I don't understand is, why was Dent unable to forgive so many people for letting the Joker kill his girlfriend, when he was able to forgive the Joker for killing his girlfriend?
I don't think "almost anybody" fakes the age, name, and romantic interest in order to harass a minor into suicide. There is specific language in the law being applied, and the acts this woman committed are within those words.
I am not a lawyer, but TFA states that she is being charged only for violating the site's EULA (which makes her an unauthorized user). If this interpretation is correct, then everyone who signs up for a website using a fake email address is just as guilty, of the same thing, as her.
As for the harassment, I'm surprised they can't get her for that, or for stalking. My problem is with the approach, that we make everyone a criminal and the let judges arbitrarily decide who goes to prison.
Do the people that make laws have absolutely ANY idea how the internet works and is used?
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
Most laws are not written with the intent to oppress others. Many of the worst ones in non-totalitarian states are written like this one: an overly broad law that can be used to arrest nearly anybody, and gives a well-meaning authority figure an unprecedented amount of power.
If we allow someone to have this power now, then we cannot take it back, if and when it becomes abused. (See the patriot act for an example)
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
(Noren)
While he did not use the word 'invent',
He did not use the word or even try to imply that he invented the internet.
he was nonetheless was arrogant as hell in this statement,
Politicians are supposed to be leaders. If he had the vision to recognize the potential in this technology, long before anybody else, and fight for it in congress, then why shouldn't he be able to brag about it?
and well deserving of mockery.
If he was deserving of mockery, then why do Republicans have to lie about the reason?
Yes, I know he got some funding legislation passed. Politicians who think they deserve all the credit for the things they spend the people's money on are deeply arrogant and mistaken, and should be held to account.
If it was a good decision, then why doesn't a politician deserve credit for having made the decision? Sure, it would be nice if a politician said "I passed a bill to create this road and the hard-working construction crew built it", but, that's never been how politics work.
When we see George W. Bush mocked for taking all the credit for test scores in Texas improving, Bill Clinton mocked for economic improvements during his administration, and Ronald Reagan supporters mocked for giving him credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall, then it may make sense to go after people like Al Gore, for his comment.
You have been told that your idea of what an assault rifle is was incorrect.
Then I looked it up and found that my definition holds truefrom most sources. But the issue of how it was classified still has nothing to do with my original statement that Assault rifles are regulated and the Supreme court decision does not change that, and, if you can think of a gun that has been wrongly outlawed simply because it looks cool, then I don't give a fuck. So, you can't feel like a commando when you're holed up in your mom's basement jerking off to a Ron Paul speech. If the gun is no different from perfectly legal guns that are on the market already, then why should I care?
As for those that are designed for military, terrorism, and insane militia guy use, I'm ok with them being regulated. Of course, you have been telling me that those guns don't exist.
However, you don't let facts get in the way of your deluded little world.
The hypocrisy of that statement astounds me. The next time you feel the need to reply to something, do me a couple of favors.
Keep me out of it. I don't give a fuck about your paranoid insistence that the world is falling apart because you can't have a cool-looking gun.
Try to repeat, in your own words, what you think the other person just said. I'm pretty sure it will be radically different from what was actually said.
You let other people define what is and is not acceptable to you.
That's part of living in a society. People make laws, and you have to follow them, whether you like it or not.
Not once was anybody talking about a "Bullet Spraying Machine" and yet you insist that is the topic of discussion.
Someone mentioned that we need handguns to fight off the government when they get too oppressive, and I may not have been perfectly clear in implying that you would need a hell of a lot more than that. As for my insistence, I insist that I was stating that some weapons, including "bullet spraying machines" are illegal. Then you start on your rant about how the classification system is too subjective for your tastes. That is changing the subject, and putting words in my mouth.
In short, you are a narcissistic moron with whom I do not want to have a discussion.
And you are a paranoid retard with no grip on reality.
You are not going to budge on your assumptions and I will not bend my facts.
Funny how you have not stated one single fact. You stated that assault rifles are defined as scary looking guns, and WERE DEAD WRONG! If i recall, that is the whole gist of the nutty rant you're been trying to drag me into. Then the rest of the conversation has been name-calling and rhetoric.
So what was your point? Is it that you don't like the word "assault rifle?" Since the first word, you have been off in your own little world rambling about bullshit that doesn't have a thing in the world to do with anything I said, other than the word "assault rifle".
And you should stop being such a dick, by the way. I'm trying to figure out whether you have a point or if you're just a lunatic with a gun obsession. All this "you're ignorant" talk, makes me think it's the latter.
I spent several years working with people with Mental Retardation. Granted, these were not considered "mild cases", and as such, may be beyond the help of this drug, but I have to tell you, if I had a choice between their life, or having to spend half my income on drugs, even with the possibility of long-term liver damage, I would still take the drugs.
It is not semantics...There are plenty of "hunting rifles" that were banned because of the "Assault Weapons Ban." Completely off-topic. You have missed the point entirely. The point is that high-powered guns can still be outlawed (according to this ruling).
You choose to remain ignorant of plain facts because you are being forced SCARY PROPAGANDA about what guns are and what they do. I know what guns do. They destroy things. I don't need to know a model number or a classification to know what happens when a bullet penetrates a brain.
guns...conspiracy...guns Yeah, life is unfair, and regulations regarding dangerous things sometimes go too far. Still missing the point.
Why do YOU get to define what is "Too Powerful?" I don't. I define what I mean when I use a word, and if a donut somehow got classified as an assault rifle, then I can say "I wasn't referring to that".
Why does anyone get to regulate anything? Because we live in a country with laws. We get to decide what behavior is illegal. We get to decide which possessions are too harmful. If someone builds a nuclear weapon in his basement, we get to say "no you can't have that"
The rules regarding assault weapons is arbitrary at best and horribly preposterous at worst. They focus on weapons that LOOK DANGEROUS A. They are dangerous. There is no such thing as a safe assault rifle. B. That's politics. It may not always be fair, but we can either allow everything, nothing, or we can have rules like we have now.
Sure, they CAN be used in crime, but they are also used in so few crimes as to be considered anomalies on a case of scale. I can agree with that. And, it is illogical that when one guy goes into a bell tower and kills 20 people, that incidents like that must stop, but things that kills thousands per year are ignored because the flashier incident gets the most attention. I'm not here to say that every gun law is fair in every situation.
If you think that weapons are only capable of mass murder, then realize that with a simple revolver, there are shooters out there that can fire 16 shots (2 guns) in under 2 seconds and hit man sized targets at 10 yards with them. The issue is not what the tool is capable of, but rather what the person using that tool is capable of. That person is capable of much more when given a better weapon. Yes, I could kill a man with chopsticks, or rocket launchers. That doesn't make them the same thing.
In short, computers are capable of ruining people's lives, but that does not mean computers are evil. I have three of them, and I can tell you, they most certainly are.
But seriously, the issue isn't "what is the worst they can do". The issue is "what is the best they can do?" What can a fully-automatic assault rifle do that is legal? Do we each have the right to own enough weaponry to overthrow the US government? I don't think the second amendment supported unregulated gun ownership, and the court decision goes out of its way to argue that it does not apply with semiautomatic or fully automatic weapons, or with most classes of weapons that did not exist 200 years ago.
You get to call it an assault rifle when you can tell me exactly what about it constitutes it as an assault rifle, as well as the corollary of what it assaults.
A warning. Please be prepared. Coming into an argument like this without knowing (Not citing from some source that an assault weapon has X features of Y) will simply make you look foolish.
So you are going to argue semantics? I do not know much about specific models of firearms, so if the word assault rifle can also be used to describe a hunting rifle, small pistol, or tasty bagel, then I would like to point out that I was referring to military-grade weaponry. I define Assault Rifles as powerful weapons that are too destructive to be used for home protection, too bulky to be carried, and too destructive to be used for hunting, as we know it. (theoretically, I suppose you can use an atom bomb for hunting, but that is not how the typical person defines the word.)
In short, I was referring to a weapon that is only useful for mass-murder. If you want to argue about what such a weapon would be called, then you are missing the point.
If I understand correctly, the primary difference is that assault rifles are fully automatic. I don't care about color, so much as the ability to mow down a small army of something.
The annoying part is when the government starts acting this way is when you may actually need the those guns. Are you going to overthrow the government with pistols? I'm pretty sure that the ruling does not protect your right to own assault rifles, hand grenades, military class vehicles, or rocket launchers.
These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear. So what has Bill Gates been using for the past twenty years? A Mac? Does he have Linux on his home PC? I have trouble imagining that Bill Gates would be confused by a Windows directory structure that has been in place for decades.
Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff. So Bill Gates has made a conscious decision not to use Automatic Updates and he is now asking "why do I have to update"? I personally have had the opposite problem: you turn automatic updates off and somehow it switches itself back on, or updates anyway. (That annoys me because of the mandatory reboot)
I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again. Whose grandmother wrote this? The letter is littered with Microsoft bashing, and comments that sound like they were written by someone who barely knows anything about computers, and who seems to dislike everything Microsoft has ever done.
Slashdot Mirror
There are other ways to spin what you just said:
It requires users to be smart - It is difficult to work with.
A 35k/year employee cannot do it - What you save in software costs will more than be absorbed in labor costs.
Others Get To See the Code - There are security concerns.
It doesn't make the management look good - If you go this direction, you will have to fight your boss to give you a product that makes your job more difficult.
Are you fucking kidding me about RIM. Blackberrys which are the defacto in the business world. Not everyone uses their phone to text each other about the cool new hangout spot. RIM mostly caters to the no-nonsense business world but has appealed to people who do want a quality product. Also how about the Blackberry Bold?
I still believe that the hype surrounding these products is about promotion, cool features, and maybe a little slashdot bias toward Google and FOSS.
You seem to be responding with "but this is a solid product". I don't deny that (mostly because I own a cheap phone and have little basis to make such a judgement), but if you want to know why Apple and Google make headlines, while RIM and blackberry don't, I think it is because Apple is better with mainstream promotion, and, "Blackberry releases a solid product: great for no-nonsense people who don't like text messaging" is not a very good headline.
It'll be interesting to watch the clean, sleak and confined iPhone go against the more likely open and flexible Android.
Depends. It will be a short race if we're watching the clean, sleek and confined iPhone go against the clean, sleek, open and flexible Android....
Frankly tho', I'm surprised at the number of posters on this site who seem to believe we're going to be looking at a contest between Apple & Google for the smartphone king crown.
Is it American chauvinism that makes so many here discount RIM & Nokia?
No. If Americans were chauvinistic in that way, then Wal-Mart would still be selling American products. Apple knows how to design and promote a beautiful product, and Google seems to dominate the IT market, and has ingratiated themselves with the FOSS community. As for RIM and Nokia, they make closed/proprietary products that are not as well promoted in the US and do not have the "cool factor" of the IPhone.
I think it's purely about promotion, and cool features.
It's NOT just you my friend.
The moment I read it... I felt this enormous pain in my stomach. It got worse and worse to the point where I was heaving with my face on the keyboard. I felt my cheeks ripping apart and out came this little winged monkey. With a fez hat. He just handed me the game, gave me the thumbs up signal and flew out the window.
Unfortunately the game was Duke Nukem 3D. You went through that for the wrong game. At least it wasn't Kid Chameleon or Sewer Shark, but still, you must be disappointed.
I know the point you're trying to make, but... are you someone who believes once a criminal, always a criminal? What about the ones who have done the time (or other penalty) that society has assessed legally for the crime for which they were convicted?
No. I absolutely believe that once reformed, someone should have opportunities.(I would argue that the "once a criminal always a criminal" approach pushes former convicts into a life of crime by depriving them of other options). The point which I should have made more clearly is that A)> No law should be so strict that only a small minority can adhere to it, and B). It is hypocrisy to have a system where most people are criminals in their youth, and then defend that status quo when they get older.
Colbert asked Kevin Costner if he would run for office and Costner laughed and said something like, 'No... I've lead a colorful life."
I think that would probably be the issue with *most* people like Colbert and John Stewart. The facts of Bush's "colorful" youth were largely ignored when he was running for election. I couldn't believe he got away with "I haven't used cocaine since January of 1987." but more power to him since i think cocaine and pot should be legal.
It's unfortunate, however, that our status quo is one which makes a large portion of our culture into criminals, and then, they can get elected to office, so long as they claim that's how it should be.
I'd never do cocaine-- taking something that has a 1/100,000 chance of killing you the first time you use it isn't my thing. But wise men throughout history have altered their conciousness. And suddenly we disallow it and insist that only the most prissy, straight-laced people who don't even match 90% of the population in actual behavior should be our political leaders. Basically-- PRIESTS should be our leaders. The kings and lords and barons of industry had strong passions and lead bold lives and it gave them the strength of character needed to truly do the right thing.
Umm...Priests have gotten away with things no politician could ever be forgiven for. Make no doubt about it, our politicians have to live up to a much higher standard than our clergy.
For the debate over whether viruses are "alive" to make any sense, there has to be some literally essential difference between things that are alive and things that are not. The past 200 years or so of biology ought to have taught us that, contrary to what seemed evident to the ancients, there isn't any such essential difference. Organic matter is just a form of organization of inorganic manner. From the point of view of what the ancients knew, there was a huge gulf between everyday living beings and inert objects. From the point of view of what we know, there are many intermediate cases.
So, instead of wasting time trying to decide whether viruses are "really" alive or not, you should just accept the fact that our knowledge today is advanced enough to show that the question--which we inherited from people who knew less than we do--is flawed.
I'm wondering if this, (as well as the question of whether Pluto is a planet), it is more about coming up with an objective and internally consistent definition of what the word means.
So, no, there may not be a great difference between one classification and another, but the argument is more about coming up with a logical way of thinking about the two.
Of the man who said the Internet is a series of tubes, being indicted for making false statements?
I suppose by that logic, the internet was invented when bit torrent came out...And ten years from now, we can say "it wasn't invented until technology X was released."
The internet worked, even when it was gopher. HTML may have been a useful concept, but it is bullshit to redefine the internet as HTML, just so you don't have to give credit to those who worked to get it started.
I recently tried to write my first real AJAX page (a small and simple page with a date-publication selector, and I had a time getting the page to work on IE7, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, and Safari. (Maybe it was because I was just trying to retrieve HTML, containing tables, and dynamically embed it into the current page).
Anyway, GWT has some strong competition. How does it, and it's competitors, do when it comes to cross-platform compatibility? If I just want to retrieve a table or widget, or piece of HTML and place it in the current page, are some better than others?
(Please don't tell me that web 2.0 is based on the idea that everything involves encoding all data as XML or JSON, and writing an XML/JSON-to-HTML interpretor that runs on the web page).
Hello world will get old after a while. You need something easy, that can produce something that would interest him. For that, I would suggest either VB, because it is very easy to get a GUI app up and running, Java, or HTML, with php/asp/J2EE, all for similar reasons.
What I don't understand is, why was Dent unable to forgive so many people for letting the Joker kill his girlfriend, when he was able to forgive the Joker for killing his girlfriend?
I don't think "almost anybody" fakes the age, name, and romantic interest in order to harass a minor into suicide. There is specific language in the law being applied, and the acts this woman committed are within those words.
I am not a lawyer, but TFA states that she is being charged only for violating the site's EULA (which makes her an unauthorized user). If this interpretation is correct, then everyone who signs up for a website using a fake email address is just as guilty, of the same thing, as her.
As for the harassment, I'm surprised they can't get her for that, or for stalking. My problem is with the approach, that we make everyone a criminal and the let judges arbitrarily decide who goes to prison.
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
Most laws are not written with the intent to oppress others. Many of the worst ones in non-totalitarian states are written like this one: an overly broad law that can be used to arrest nearly anybody, and gives a well-meaning authority figure an unprecedented amount of power.
If we allow someone to have this power now, then we cannot take it back, if and when it becomes abused. (See the patriot act for an example)
(Al Gore)
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
(Noren)
While he did not use the word 'invent',
He did not use the word or even try to imply that he invented the internet.
he was nonetheless was arrogant as hell in this statement,
Politicians are supposed to be leaders. If he had the vision to recognize the potential in this technology, long before anybody else, and fight for it in congress, then why shouldn't he be able to brag about it?
and well deserving of mockery.
If he was deserving of mockery, then why do Republicans have to lie about the reason?
Yes, I know he got some funding legislation passed. Politicians who think they deserve all the credit for the things they spend the people's money on are deeply arrogant and mistaken, and should be held to account.
If it was a good decision, then why doesn't a politician deserve credit for having made the decision? Sure, it would be nice if a politician said "I passed a bill to create this road and the hard-working construction crew built it", but, that's never been how politics work.
When we see George W. Bush mocked for taking all the credit for test scores in Texas improving, Bill Clinton mocked for economic improvements during his administration, and Ronald Reagan supporters mocked for giving him credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall, then it may make sense to go after people like Al Gore, for his comment.
I know that the "Al Gore Claimed to Invent the Internet" thing is used in a lighthearted way, but he never made that claim
You have been told that your idea of what an assault rifle is was incorrect.
Then I looked it up and found that my definition holds true from most sources. But the issue of how it was classified still has nothing to do with my original statement that Assault rifles are regulated and the Supreme court decision does not change that, and, if you can think of a gun that has been wrongly outlawed simply because it looks cool, then I don't give a fuck. So, you can't feel like a commando when you're holed up in your mom's basement jerking off to a Ron Paul speech. If the gun is no different from perfectly legal guns that are on the market already, then why should I care?
As for those that are designed for military, terrorism, and insane militia guy use, I'm ok with them being regulated. Of course, you have been telling me that those guns don't exist.
However, you don't let facts get in the way of your deluded little world.
The hypocrisy of that statement astounds me. The next time you feel the need to reply to something, do me a couple of favors.
You let other people define what is and is not acceptable to you.
That's part of living in a society. People make laws, and you have to follow them, whether you like it or not.
Not once was anybody talking about a "Bullet Spraying Machine" and yet you insist that is the topic of discussion.
Someone mentioned that we need handguns to fight off the government when they get too oppressive, and I may not have been perfectly clear in implying that you would need a hell of a lot more than that. As for my insistence, I insist that I was stating that some weapons, including "bullet spraying machines" are illegal. Then you start on your rant about how the classification system is too subjective for your tastes. That is changing the subject, and putting words in my mouth.
In short, you are a narcissistic moron with whom I do not want to have a discussion.
And you are a paranoid retard with no grip on reality.
You are not going to budge on your assumptions and I will not bend my facts.
Funny how you have not stated one single fact. You stated that assault rifles are defined as scary looking guns, and WERE DEAD WRONG! If i recall, that is the whole gist of the nutty rant you're been trying to drag me into. Then the rest of the conversation has been name-calling and rhetoric.
So what was your point? Is it that you don't like the word "assault rifle?" Since the first word, you have been off in your own little world rambling about bullshit that doesn't have a thing in the world to do with anything I said, other than the word "assault rifle".
And you should stop being such a dick, by the way. I'm trying to figure out whether you have a point or if you're just a lunatic with a gun obsession. All this "you're ignorant" talk, makes me think it's the latter.
I spent several years working with people with Mental Retardation. Granted, these were not considered "mild cases", and as such, may be beyond the help of this drug, but I have to tell you, if I had a choice between their life, or having to spend half my income on drugs, even with the possibility of long-term liver damage, I would still take the drugs.
I was going to suggest that we put it in the water coolers in the House of Representatives and the Senate, for BOTH sides of the aisle.
Then they'd realize what they've been doing these past several years and commit mass suicide. What are you, some kind of terrorist?
Why does anyone get to regulate anything? Because we live in a country with laws. We get to decide what behavior is illegal. We get to decide which possessions are too harmful. If someone builds a nuclear weapon in his basement, we get to say "no you can't have that"
The rules regarding assault weapons is arbitrary at best and horribly preposterous at worst. They focus on weapons that LOOK DANGEROUS A. They are dangerous. There is no such thing as a safe assault rifle.B. That's politics. It may not always be fair, but we can either allow everything, nothing, or we can have rules like we have now. Sure, they CAN be used in crime, but they are also used in so few crimes as to be considered anomalies on a case of scale. I can agree with that. And, it is illogical that when one guy goes into a bell tower and kills 20 people, that incidents like that must stop, but things that kills thousands per year are ignored because the flashier incident gets the most attention. I'm not here to say that every gun law is fair in every situation. If you think that weapons are only capable of mass murder, then realize that with a simple revolver, there are shooters out there that can fire 16 shots (2 guns) in under 2 seconds and hit man sized targets at 10 yards with them. The issue is not what the tool is capable of, but rather what the person using that tool is capable of. That person is capable of much more when given a better weapon. Yes, I could kill a man with chopsticks, or rocket launchers. That doesn't make them the same thing. In short, computers are capable of ruining people's lives, but that does not mean computers are evil. I have three of them, and I can tell you, they most certainly are.
But seriously, the issue isn't "what is the worst they can do". The issue is "what is the best they can do?" What can a fully-automatic assault rifle do that is legal? Do we each have the right to own enough weaponry to overthrow the US government? I don't think the second amendment supported unregulated gun ownership, and the court decision goes out of its way to argue that it does not apply with semiautomatic or fully automatic weapons, or with most classes of weapons that did not exist 200 years ago.
A warning. Please be prepared. Coming into an argument like this without knowing (Not citing from some source that an assault weapon has X features of Y) will simply make you look foolish.
So you are going to argue semantics? I do not know much about specific models of firearms, so if the word assault rifle can also be used to describe a hunting rifle, small pistol, or tasty bagel, then I would like to point out that I was referring to military-grade weaponry. I define Assault Rifles as powerful weapons that are too destructive to be used for home protection, too bulky to be carried, and too destructive to be used for hunting, as we know it. (theoretically, I suppose you can use an atom bomb for hunting, but that is not how the typical person defines the word.)
In short, I was referring to a weapon that is only useful for mass-murder. If you want to argue about what such a weapon would be called, then you are missing the point.
If I understand correctly, the primary difference is that assault rifles are fully automatic. I don't care about color, so much as the ability to mow down a small army of something.
Yeah. Here are some curious quotes:
These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear. So what has Bill Gates been using for the past twenty years? A Mac? Does he have Linux on his home PC? I have trouble imagining that Bill Gates would be confused by a Windows directory structure that has been in place for decades. Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff. So Bill Gates has made a conscious decision not to use Automatic Updates and he is now asking "why do I have to update"? I personally have had the opposite problem: you turn automatic updates off and somehow it switches itself back on, or updates anyway. (That annoys me because of the mandatory reboot) I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again. Whose grandmother wrote this? The letter is littered with Microsoft bashing, and comments that sound like they were written by someone who barely knows anything about computers, and who seems to dislike everything Microsoft has ever done.