Unless friend is also a cord cutter and you can't go in a bar because you're under 21 or your kid wants to watch with you.
Which is why I take my 2 year old to the family section of a local bar to watch college football on certain Saturdays in the fall because I'm not willing to pay for BTN to catch the games which aren't on ABC or ESPN.
TV just doesn't unite the culture like it once did
That might depend upon the culture of the water cooler you hang out at... the fact that Game of Thrones is said to still be the most pirated tv show in history suggests otherwise.
So I have to borrow someone's Apple device and make a change because Apple is unwilling/unable to offer... say a web based portal to manage this? Or simply not deliver messages to no longer existing devices?
Wow... I'm rather glad I've never owned an iPhone, I'd hate to live in that sort of world of forced buy in that exists even after you leave it.
When I was on the way to the airport to pick up my 65 year old father today, he texted me from his iPhone to say they had landed.
My mother and her Blackberry are the same.
Just because you may not text does not mean that there aren't plenty of people who do not have enough of an understanding to use alternative services and simply stick with what comes for 'free' and already on the device.
No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on.
So first you fail to support any of your arguments, and after being called on it, opt to instead break out personal ones which are even harder to prove? Well played!
You aren't worth my time.
Yet you just had to come back and spend your precious time to say that.
Doesn't that kind of demonstrate how little what you say is actually based on facts?
You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.
I'm still waiting for evidence of any of those... yet the existence of the above post proves the opposite of the last one... as you just had to come back one last time.
It's ok, I'll wait... I'm always quite patient with children.... or would you like to act like a rational and mature adult and specifically say how I am wrong in my claim that in fact the OP was correct (and you wrong), that "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners" based on the New Jersey law, as well as those proposed in other states?
Don't worry, I'll be back to check on this thread a today and tomorrow... and if you still find yourself unwilling or unable to answer... we'll know the truth.
The idea behind "one man one vote" principles is EXACTLY equality of speech. Nobody is supposed to have more or less say.
You are conflating two related, but not identical issues.
In an election each legal voter has but a single vote.
During the other 364.9998 days of the year when you are not voting, we have a good bit more freedom of speech.
Some speak more than others
Some speak more eloquently than others
Some speak louder than others
Some speak to more easily influenced people
Some speak to people whose influence carries more weight
If you do not like what others are saying, you are free to disagree, just as I am doing with you here. If you do not think you are being heard, you may use other mediums to get your message out, don't whine because someone is more eloquent than you, speaks louder than you or is seen/heard by more than you... as by doing so you demonstrate that you only seek equality of outcomes.
When did you get your/. account? When you were 6? Your UID suggests you've either been around for a while... or got it from someone older.
In either case, it's quite clear that the age of the UID is not a reflection of your own maturity.
I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.
I saw that... you assertion was incorrect, something I commented on.
Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise).
So not only do we have a reading completion fail on your part... but a failure to cite anything or give supportive arguments of your case.
This whole conversation can be pretty much boiled down to:
AC: "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners" You: These guns don't pose a threat to legal gun rights Me: They do, consider this law in New Jersey. You: What the fuck are talking about? I'm fucking full of myself Me: Smaller words explanation You: Fuck you've fuck not fuck refuted fuck a fuck word fuck of fuck my fuck argument.
You initially replied with a baseless claim which I disproved with a single link... then you go on to claim that it does not in fact refute your claim... interesting logic, care to explain how that works?
Yes, the existence of the iP1 gives the excuse to more states to pursue measures which would require that kind of technology is mandated in firearms going forward... which is a direct threat to those of us who prefer reliable firearms that we ourselves can easily service & control.
It is the same as if we had legislation being pushed in multiple states (and passed in one) which required DRM for all digital media after a certain date... and the understandable outrage from those who prefer to be in full control of what they purchase whenever a newer/better system is being pushed forward by this group or that... the reaction to is something that is on display on/. quite often.
What does this have to do with the woman? I don't know? She's a convenient target of those who wish to be more active/aggressive? Though again, you do not see me defending such actions here.
If you wish to attempt to move to the goal posts or change the context argument, that is your right, at least be honest enough about it.
The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay...
I don't think anyone is disputing that... other than perhaps Mr Bundy.
Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.
So because something has been done in past... it should be the first choice when more modern, reliable and less threat of violence prone means are commonly employed?
Nonsense!
When you default on your student loan, credit card or child support payments... the government *generally* doesn't come kicking down your door and seizing the property from your home or business... they tend to garnish your wages... or even march down to the court house, get a court order, fetch the local Sherriff, then go into your local bank and have your bank account frozen and it's contents seized up to the level of the order.
Maybe Bundy is a cash only man, or doesn't actually have a penny to his name either in a bank or under his mattress... I don't know.
The attempted seizure of his assets (which by some estimates would have cost the BLM about as much as they were hoping to get out of it) was poorly executed and even more poorly thought out. Period. Quit trying to make excuses.
Did I mention the women? Did I say she was to blame for anything? Did I attempt to justify the actions of those who posted her info (assuming you wish to throw this out there as well)? No, I simply cited news of a law which you ignored which runs contrary to part of your initial statement... that no one is being forced to buy this type of firearm. A law which is similar to others being pushed in other states that would one day require purchase of such items.
Would you like me to spell it out again... and using smaller words?
Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.
The Georgia law is nothing new, here in Washington state I can legally carry concealed (or open) in a bar or restaurant which services alcohol... so long as I stay on the right side of a magical little line that separates the area which is restricted to those over 21 and where under 21ers can be.
The funny thing about the 'family' sections of such places is you can still get a drink there as well... assuming you are of age... and do so legally even when carrying.
This is the same faux outrage we see over 'stand your ground' laws... which exist in all but 16 states, and people forget what already exists elsewhere and seems to be working ok as is.
Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.
Such wonderful hypotheticals with so little reality.
Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.
It's not because women come to regret their decision sooner and call for help... it's because more often than not men use more effective and deterministic means to off themselves than women.
Nobody is forcing them to buy one. Nobody is forcing them to give back the guns they already own. Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.
Today at least, New Jersey already has one such law on the books which has yet to go into effect... something that you would have noticed if you look at the summary of this article... which linked to a previous/. article: http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/...
And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one.
The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.
And some post paid plans... I'm on Verizon and demand a quarter from the sender for each text message they send me.
I can do all of the IP based messaging services I care about on my phone (and tablet, and laptop, and desktop)... so when someone reverts to SMS and costs me money (because I refuse to get a texting plan given my unlimited data plan and access to far more services via it)... I insist they reimburse me for the expense they caused.
Does that mean that President Obama was actually a secret Kenyan born Muslim socialist until he finally produced his birth certificate to the public?
Be careful when you get into the "what are the hiding" line of thinking... because while sometimes you are right... other times you can be wrong... and in the case of the birth certificate, it was played quite well... not producing it made the birthers look rather crazy.
Still not equivalent... states require persons to minimally have insurance to cover the other guy if you are at fault... you do not have to have insurance to cover repairs to your own vehicle... as you are now with health insurance for your own body.
If we had national driver licence rules and national standards, it would be easier to put something in place like a middle licence, such as a "part time taxi" licence that was somewhere in-between a full one and a private driver.
But with 50 states to work with, it is very hard to get that sort of thing done.
So lets repeal the Constitution and implement a new one with a national (vs federal) governmental system.
Oh right... we rather have that today and not quite through legal means...
All that safety technology is starting to make a difference. People crap and required airbags and antilock brakes, but they do save lives.
Required auto emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, blind zone alert, electronic stability control, traction control, and the like will reduce it even further.
Compared to similar vehicles without... yes... compared to the generation of ultra small vehicles we see more and more of on the road? God no. Physics doesn't care what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle, it does care when you start replacing stronger materials for lighter alternatives and reducing overall size.
As a 6'5" individual, I will never drive many of the new small/economy cars today, not just because I value my life, but also because I also value my knees & head in case of a collapse of ANY of the passenger compartment in a collision.
At the state level yes... but was overturned later... what's your point?
Plunging thousands of gay and lesbian couples who had already married into years of legal limbo?
If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that same sex couples who were already married prior to Prop 8 being passed were grandfathered in... so there was no legal limbo, they were married before it passed and married after it passed.
Based on your inability to conduct basic research (while accusing someone else of the same), I shall unfortunately refrain from responding to anymore of your post as it clearly involves similarly misinformed facts.
Because presumably gays do not choose to be gay. Gun owners choose to be gun owners.
Apples & oranges... unless you are citing specific legislation which criminalizes being gay (let alone marrying someone with the same genitalia)... which is not the issue at hand, instead it is the acting upon ones desires... be it for same (or opposite) genitalia... or to lawfully own & use a firearm.
Irrelevant. All of it.
Once again trying to shut down debate, well played!
If anything... same-sex marriage is equivalent to concealed weapons laws.
Assuming we lump 'being' gay, straight or a firearm interested person/enthusiast into a given tier... and put exercising ones non-criminal desires in limited way (fooling around, buying/shooting a firearm)on a higher tier... the final tier is official state sanctioning and recognition of a given activity via a 'license' or 'permit'.
The issue with SSM has long been not just about recognition in a given state, but ubiquitous recognition across all states (though not that full faith & credit applies as it is well misunderstood( unless you want to claim that a search warrant (for instance) which is issued in one state court is valid in another state)... so too has been a battle for CPL carriers not to have to deal with overlapping jurisdictions as to in which locals they are legal and which they are acting unlawfully... vs simply being 'unrecognized' in the case of SSM in a non accepting state.
No it isn't. Gun laws impact all people in the country equally.
Seriously, you like to lie and deceive, don't you?
Aside from the fact that from the start, gun laws only affect purchasers or owners of guns (already a subset of the US population)... gun laws have this odd tendency of singling out firearms based on looks, how they are configured, where they are carried, let alone by who... so you are right in a way, gun laws are more strict!
Prop 8 and similar laws impose an explicit and unjustified inequality on the execution of marriage laws.
Only if you view it through rose colored glasses with ample blinders attached.
Like it or not, 'marriage' in the US has been long understood to be between a 'man' and a 'woman' for quite some time (right or wrong). That 'right' existed, regardless of what sort of genitalia one had or what sort of genitalia one preferred... even one wasn't interested in exercising their 'right'.
Some people opted not to get married because they chose to go into the priesthood/nunhood, or preferred the single life, or just couldn't woo someone they desired, or any number of other reasons... all largely by choice.
The fight against Prop 8 was not about fighting those who sought to 'limit' 'rights', but expanding them to a direction not previously widely recognized in the state.
I'm not going to get into the polygamy, incest, juvenile or bestiality arguments regarding marriage other than to say that the anti-prop 8 folks sought to move a line a little ways in a given direction and no further... purposely excluding those may think the 'right' to marriage should be extended to their desires as well.
Well... I'll add one... do you support laws which prohibit me from having a line marriage? Discrimination!!!
Reprehensible? Like what? Most of what I've seen in terms of gun legislation is idiotic and poorly thought out, but hardly "reprehensible" on the level of Prop 8.
Again we see your reading comprehension/attention span issue at work.
How many states do you know of which require a license to engage in 'opposite-sex sex'? What about those that require 'gay' registration?
I don't even have to take off my socks to get to that #... as the answer is ZERO... yet in 9 states + DC (based on last look at Wikipedia) you are required to have a license of some kind to simply to purchase certai
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can make sure your wife likes the same college sports as you... then have epic battles over the professional level...
Which is why I take my 2 year old to the family section of a local bar to watch college football on certain Saturdays in the fall because I'm not willing to pay for BTN to catch the games which aren't on ABC or ESPN.
That might depend upon the culture of the water cooler you hang out at... the fact that Game of Thrones is said to still be the most pirated tv show in history suggests otherwise.
I am aware of such trends with many a youth, but that does not mean that 'nobody' != 'Everyone I know'.
As said by myself and others... texting remains an important thing to many a person who may be outside of your circle as well as mine.
Hell, I demand that anyone sending me a text message reimburse me the 25 cent cost for me to receive it (as I have no texting plan).
So I have to borrow someone's Apple device and make a change because Apple is unwilling/unable to offer... say a web based portal to manage this? Or simply not deliver messages to no longer existing devices?
Wow... I'm rather glad I've never owned an iPhone, I'd hate to live in that sort of world of forced buy in that exists even after you leave it.
Who is this 'nobody'?
When I was on the way to the airport to pick up my 65 year old father today, he texted me from his iPhone to say they had landed.
My mother and her Blackberry are the same.
Just because you may not text does not mean that there aren't plenty of people who do not have enough of an understanding to use alternative services and simply stick with what comes for 'free' and already on the device.
So first you fail to support any of your arguments, and after being called on it, opt to instead break out personal ones which are even harder to prove? Well played!
Yet you just had to come back and spend your precious time to say that.
Doesn't that kind of demonstrate how little what you say is actually based on facts?
I'm still waiting for evidence of any of those... yet the existence of the above post proves the opposite of the last one... as you just had to come back one last time.
It's ok, I'll wait... I'm always quite patient with children. ... or would you like to act like a rational and mature adult and specifically say how I am wrong in my claim that in fact the OP was correct (and you wrong), that "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners" based on the New Jersey law, as well as those proposed in other states?
Don't worry, I'll be back to check on this thread a today and tomorrow... and if you still find yourself unwilling or unable to answer... we'll know the truth.
It's been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And despite the ramblings of Harry Reid, hardly half of the country knows who they are.
You may need to work on picking better boogie men.
You are conflating two related, but not identical issues.
In an election each legal voter has but a single vote.
During the other 364.9998 days of the year when you are not voting, we have a good bit more freedom of speech.
If you do not like what others are saying, you are free to disagree, just as I am doing with you here. If you do not think you are being heard, you may use other mediums to get your message out, don't whine because someone is more eloquent than you, speaks louder than you or is seen/heard by more than you... as by doing so you demonstrate that you only seek equality of outcomes.
When did you get your /. account? When you were 6? Your UID suggests you've either been around for a while... or got it from someone older.
In either case, it's quite clear that the age of the UID is not a reflection of your own maturity.
I saw that... you assertion was incorrect, something I commented on.
So not only do we have a reading completion fail on your part... but a failure to cite anything or give supportive arguments of your case.
This whole conversation can be pretty much boiled down to:
AC: "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners"
You: These guns don't pose a threat to legal gun rights
Me: They do, consider this law in New Jersey.
You: What the fuck are talking about? I'm fucking full of myself
Me: Smaller words explanation
You: Fuck you've fuck not fuck refuted fuck a fuck word fuck of fuck my fuck argument.
You initially replied with a baseless claim which I disproved with a single link... then you go on to claim that it does not in fact refute your claim... interesting logic, care to explain how that works?
Yes, the existence of the iP1 gives the excuse to more states to pursue measures which would require that kind of technology is mandated in firearms going forward... which is a direct threat to those of us who prefer reliable firearms that we ourselves can easily service & control.
It is the same as if we had legislation being pushed in multiple states (and passed in one) which required DRM for all digital media after a certain date... and the understandable outrage from those who prefer to be in full control of what they purchase whenever a newer/better system is being pushed forward by this group or that... the reaction to is something that is on display on /. quite often.
What does this have to do with the woman? I don't know? She's a convenient target of those who wish to be more active/aggressive? Though again, you do not see me defending such actions here.
If you wish to attempt to move to the goal posts or change the context argument, that is your right, at least be honest enough about it.
I don't think anyone is disputing that... other than perhaps Mr Bundy.
So because something has been done in past... it should be the first choice when more modern, reliable and less threat of violence prone means are commonly employed?
Nonsense!
When you default on your student loan, credit card or child support payments... the government *generally* doesn't come kicking down your door and seizing the property from your home or business... they tend to garnish your wages... or even march down to the court house, get a court order, fetch the local Sherriff, then go into your local bank and have your bank account frozen and it's contents seized up to the level of the order.
Maybe Bundy is a cash only man, or doesn't actually have a penny to his name either in a bank or under his mattress... I don't know.
The attempted seizure of his assets (which by some estimates would have cost the BLM about as much as they were hoping to get out of it) was poorly executed and even more poorly thought out. Period. Quit trying to make excuses.
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so poor.
You made a statement, I replied to some of it.
Did I mention the women? Did I say she was to blame for anything? Did I attempt to justify the actions of those who posted her info (assuming you wish to throw this out there as well)? No, I simply cited news of a law which you ignored which runs contrary to part of your initial statement... that no one is being forced to buy this type of firearm. A law which is similar to others being pushed in other states that would one day require purchase of such items.
Would you like me to spell it out again... and using smaller words?
The Georgia law is nothing new, here in Washington state I can legally carry concealed (or open) in a bar or restaurant which services alcohol... so long as I stay on the right side of a magical little line that separates the area which is restricted to those over 21 and where under 21ers can be.
The funny thing about the 'family' sections of such places is you can still get a drink there as well... assuming you are of age... and do so legally even when carrying.
This is the same faux outrage we see over 'stand your ground' laws... which exist in all but 16 states, and people forget what already exists elsewhere and seems to be working ok as is.
Such wonderful hypotheticals with so little reality.
Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.
It's not because women come to regret their decision sooner and call for help... it's because more often than not men use more effective and deterministic means to off themselves than women.
Today at least, New Jersey already has one such law on the books which has yet to go into effect... something that you would have noticed if you look at the summary of this article... which linked to a previous /. article: http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/...
The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.
And if wishes were horses beggars would ride, if turnips were bayonets I would wear one by my side.
Good luck with your impossible dreams.
And some post paid plans... I'm on Verizon and demand a quarter from the sender for each text message they send me.
I can do all of the IP based messaging services I care about on my phone (and tablet, and laptop, and desktop)... so when someone reverts to SMS and costs me money (because I refuse to get a texting plan given my unlimited data plan and access to far more services via it)... I insist they reimburse me for the expense they caused.
Does that mean that President Obama was actually a secret Kenyan born Muslim socialist until he finally produced his birth certificate to the public?
Be careful when you get into the "what are the hiding" line of thinking... because while sometimes you are right... other times you can be wrong... and in the case of the birth certificate, it was played quite well... not producing it made the birthers look rather crazy.
Still not equivalent... states require persons to minimally have insurance to cover the other guy if you are at fault... you do not have to have insurance to cover repairs to your own vehicle... as you are now with health insurance for your own body.
So lets repeal the Constitution and implement a new one with a national (vs federal) governmental system.
Oh right... we rather have that today and not quite through legal means...
Compared to similar vehicles without... yes... compared to the generation of ultra small vehicles we see more and more of on the road? God no. Physics doesn't care what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle, it does care when you start replacing stronger materials for lighter alternatives and reducing overall size.
As a 6'5" individual, I will never drive many of the new small/economy cars today, not just because I value my life, but also because I also value my knees & head in case of a collapse of ANY of the passenger compartment in a collision.
At the state level yes... but was overturned later... what's your point?
If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that same sex couples who were already married prior to Prop 8 being passed were grandfathered in... so there was no legal limbo, they were married before it passed and married after it passed.
Based on your inability to conduct basic research (while accusing someone else of the same), I shall unfortunately refrain from responding to anymore of your post as it clearly involves similarly misinformed facts.
Apples & oranges... unless you are citing specific legislation which criminalizes being gay (let alone marrying someone with the same genitalia)... which is not the issue at hand, instead it is the acting upon ones desires... be it for same (or opposite) genitalia... or to lawfully own & use a firearm.
Once again trying to shut down debate, well played!
If anything... same-sex marriage is equivalent to concealed weapons laws.
Assuming we lump 'being' gay, straight or a firearm interested person/enthusiast into a given tier... and put exercising ones non-criminal desires in limited way (fooling around, buying/shooting a firearm)on a higher tier... the final tier is official state sanctioning and recognition of a given activity via a 'license' or 'permit'.
The issue with SSM has long been not just about recognition in a given state, but ubiquitous recognition across all states (though not that full faith & credit applies as it is well misunderstood( unless you want to claim that a search warrant (for instance) which is issued in one state court is valid in another state)... so too has been a battle for CPL carriers not to have to deal with overlapping jurisdictions as to in which locals they are legal and which they are acting unlawfully... vs simply being 'unrecognized' in the case of SSM in a non accepting state.
Seriously, you like to lie and deceive, don't you?
Aside from the fact that from the start, gun laws only affect purchasers or owners of guns (already a subset of the US population)... gun laws have this odd tendency of singling out firearms based on looks, how they are configured, where they are carried, let alone by who... so you are right in a way, gun laws are more strict!
Only if you view it through rose colored glasses with ample blinders attached.
Like it or not, 'marriage' in the US has been long understood to be between a 'man' and a 'woman' for quite some time (right or wrong). That 'right' existed, regardless of what sort of genitalia one had or what sort of genitalia one preferred... even one wasn't interested in exercising their 'right'.
Some people opted not to get married because they chose to go into the priesthood/nunhood, or preferred the single life, or just couldn't woo someone they desired, or any number of other reasons... all largely by choice.
The fight against Prop 8 was not about fighting those who sought to 'limit' 'rights', but expanding them to a direction not previously widely recognized in the state.
I'm not going to get into the polygamy, incest, juvenile or bestiality arguments regarding marriage other than to say that the anti-prop 8 folks sought to move a line a little ways in a given direction and no further... purposely excluding those may think the 'right' to marriage should be extended to their desires as well.
Well... I'll add one... do you support laws which prohibit me from having a line marriage? Discrimination!!!
Again we see your reading comprehension/attention span issue at work.
How many states do you know of which require a license to engage in 'opposite-sex sex'? What about those that require 'gay' registration?
I don't even have to take off my socks to get to that #... as the answer is ZERO... yet in 9 states + DC (based on last look at Wikipedia) you are required to have a license of some kind to simply to purchase certai