If the gun nuts didn't oppose any reasonable regulation on firearms, then the unreasonable ones wouldn't get as much traction.
Care to be more specific as to these bits of 'reasonable regulation on firearms' which the 'gun nuts' are opposing?
Are you talking about the system we have today which not only includes regulations on who can own one, who can be in the business of selling, manufacturing or importing them (not to mention which types at all levels), how one can buy one from a licensed seller, limits on where they can be possessed or used.
Are those the reasonable regulations you are referring to? Or is it additional and specific regulations which you claim are reasonable and that the gun nuts oppose?
It's rather hard to take anything you say seriously when you are so non-specific.
That is one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but by no means the only one.
You can debate it all you want... but for the moment at least, DC vs Heller & McDonald vs Chicago are the legal opinions that say that the second amendment does protect an individuals right to own firearms.
What gun nuts like you fail to understand is that anything we can do to make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible to use firearms outside of their intended purpose is a good thing.
What you anti-gun nuts don't understand is that few if any of the proposals you put forward short of a giant super-magnet in space that is set to 'gun' will do much of anything short of burden law-abiding citizens, provide a false sense of security, and transfer deaths from one tool to another.
There is no way of ensuring with perfect precision that nobody uses them illegally, but effective regulations do work. Australia went for over a decade without any mass murders before the recent one. And that, IIRC, didn't involve a firearm.
Perhaps then... Australia is just better at effective regulations... as it's been a long time since I've seen any such thing in the US.
And sure, they might be hacked, but it's far more difficult to hack one of these firearms than to use one that has not safety features at all. Plus, hacking the firearm cannot be done on the spur of the moment, it requires deliberate action, which means no shooting somebody with their own firearm.
Know what most of the mass shootings have in common in this country? Preparation. Take the Batman theater shooter last year... do you think he acquired his mass of weapons, body armor and ammo over night? No... he planned for months. The same goes for most of those sorts of people.
In most states where there is a waiting period in order to buy a handgun, possession of a CPL/CWL/etc (Concealed Pistol License) bypasses that. That's right... if you plan ahead in thinking one day you may need a pistol and in a hurry (without waiting)... simply getting a CPL enables that.
If you plan on using a 'smart' gun you don't have legit access to in a crime... I'm betting you'll either find a traditional working firearm, or spend the time needed to hack it.
Lastly, if you're that concerned with reliability, you wouldn't be using a semi-automatic, you'd stick with a simple revolver or a blunt instrument.
*facepalm* Yes... a simple revolver... because nothing can ever go wrong with a double or even single action revolver.
Lets just take cartridges and any kind of auto cycling/reloading mechanism out of it... go back to muskets and muzzleloaders... only I've had my muzzleloader FTF (fail to fire) once or twice... and that due to environmental conditions.
While it's true no semi (or fully) automatic weapon is perfect... with skill one can quickly work around most FTFs or jams... also known as "tap, rack, bang". Thankfully... Adam Lanza apparently did not know how to clear such a jam, which likely saved plenty of lives on the night of his spree.
It's just in the US where the gun nuts can't fathom the notion that we don't need perfect to make a difference where things aren't working.
Ignoring the second amendment for a moment... the bigger issue is that the knee-jerk reaction from the gun control advocates call for things that would in no way prevent such incidents.
It's not a matter of there being a no perfect solution... the issue is with attempts at trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they are simply burdening law abiding citizens.
While I do not advocate violence in such a way, it is not to difficult to imagine an armed resistance from those who are suddenly made ex-post-facto felons by virtue of them possessing suddenly illegal firearms.
Of course with there being no national registration scheme today... it also would not be difficult for one of these felons to simply not turn (or register) in their now illegal weapon.
After they got RROD'd, they ALL went out and bought another at full price. One of my friends is now on his 13th one.
Then your friend is either likes throwing away money, knows nothing about warranties, or is doing modding that invalidates his warranty (which could also be to blame for his HW failures).
If memory serves... each 360 comes with a year hardware warranty... and if a unit dies and it's replaced under warranty... the replacement gets a fresh 1 year warranty.
Given the 360 hit the US 7 years, 6 months, 29 days ago... it's hard to believe that each of his 13 units died on day 366 (as there isn't enough time between then and now)... I'm more inclined to believe you are full of crap.
I refuse to pay for a texting plan you insensitive clod!
More so, why would I when I can do various messaging services from my phone via the data plan I'm already paying for? Anyone who needs to contact me has been taught that if they text me... I will yell and demand they pay me $0.25 per text sent... and that IM (or better yet email) is the best way to catch me.
None the less... you speak like a person who is... 25+? While SMSing used to be all the rage of the cool kids in Jr & Sr high... it later moved to Facebook messaging... and even now to 'other' IM services which are less obvious to parental inspection and even more 'cool'.
Judge not the world you do not understand ye still young'in who thinks they understand the world!
I stopped reading what you said when I got to where you said:
when it is the right taking away equal pay for women
Are you familiar with Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Obviously not... as it does noting to guarantee equal pay for women... instead it simply extends the amount of time someone has to bring a claim of discrimination related to their pay.
Or is there some other legislation being held up by the evil Republicans which would bring pay equality between men and women? Shame the White House doesn't adopt it on their own.
Of course people like you (and the president) gloss over why men tend to make more than women.
I'll tell you two quick reasons:
1. Men tend to pursue degrees/programs/work that pays higher (ie Computer Science vs Elementary Education had a 95/5 distribution at my college... 95% of students in CS classes were men... while 95% of students in Ed classes were women... and still the school graduated equal numbers from both programs).
2. While a man's career tends to remain on a relatively constant trajectory, many women's do not because of children... either because of leaving a job to be a stay at home parent, or working in a (usually part time) job that has more flexible hours (which usually means lower pay).
Now... if you want to propose legislation that mandates that employers count a year or ten spent raising a child or two as relevant work experience... and make sure that every elementary ed teacher (more often than not women) are paid as much as software developers (more often than not men)... then go for it... until then, it's remarkably shortsighted of you to speak of things you clearly do not understand.
I'd read more of your rant... but when you are so wrong on something like this so early... is there any reason for me to waste anymore of my time?
Of course any lawbreaking should not be tolerated.
Glad we can agree on something. In that case... do you support the idea of the president resigning from office over his unconstitutional NLRB appointments?
We may be getting into semantics here.
It's only semantics if you choose to limit the size of the dictionary you are using... and from your posts here it's clear you've got one that's only about 30 pages long.
But the implication of "persecution" here is that Obama/ The Government was mad at the tea partiers, and sicced the IRS on them to make the Tea partiers lives miserable.
You are free to draw that conclusion... that is not however what is being alleged (even though the Pres did in 09 joke about sic'ing the IRS on his opponents).
Your assumption is that because some low level person does something... that an order was passed down, person to person from top to bottom to do something... that is rarely the case.
Instead the senior folks set some broad policies... and leave it to those below to come up with more specific aspects... this process repeats until the final linemen down below who do what they are told.
Quite often though... environments are created where people at various levels are permitted a good degree of latitude to do their work (think cops who can choose to give you a ticket or not for speeding). In environments where policy is not rigiourly enforced and violators not punished... it's easy for people (at any level) to go off and do their own things... be it looking up peoples passport records or drivers licenses without permission... or choosing who to initiate an audit against for political reasons.
Did you ever look up the definition of 'persecution'? Bing tells me:
Definition of persecute (vt) persecute
[ púrss kyt ] 1.oppress people: to systematically subject a race or group of people to cruel or unfair treatment, e.g. because of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs 2.pester somebody: to make somebody the victim of continual pestering or harassment
Seems rather apt... doesn't it? Some low level employee took it upon themselves to systematically subject groups they didn't approve of to a form of legal harassment utilizing the tools at their disposal to bring down the force of the government upon them.
If you don't think that's persecution... then it's clear you need to go up stairs and ask mommy & daddy to buy you a new dictionary as the one you've been reading (if at all) is quite inaccurate.
Worse yet... if we believe reports that say that the person(s) responsible for this will not be punished... it sends signs through the organization that such misbehavior WILL BE TOLERATED... and will then likely happen in future.
Interesting how many people can do that. : ) Also interesting how you can assume a lot of things about me, what I hear and what I'm paying attention to.
Based on the quality of what you've written above... many things can be gleamed... such as the fact that you are not a lawyer... and probably not very good at whatever job you do ("Nyeh, but my boss says I do a good job"). Heck, a quick read of a number of your comments on this wider thread indicate a sort of "it seems reasonable to me if I don't agree with them" sort of mentality... typical for a less than bright leftist (an oxymoron I know).
Uh-huh, sure. But haven't you heard MORE tea-partiers be completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size?
And thus, since a randomly-selected tea partier is *more likely* to be completely anti-tax than a member of any other large political group I can think of, that's why the IRS would conceive of profiling them.
Ahh hearsay... so much fun!
You know... a black person is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to jail for a drug crime than a white... by your logic... or as you would say "and thus"... wouldn't any randomly selected black person be more likely to be engaged in the drug trade than a white "and thus" be fair game for further scrutiny?
As I said elsewhere... if that scrutiny is simply a second look... few would have a problem... if however that scrutiny enters the territory of being unduly invasive... then no, it's generally not permitted.
The lawyer of any person picked up under such a situation would first play the 'racial profiling' card and attempt to force the police to show that they are not randomly stopping/frisking/etc a disproportionate number of black people (or at least is smart enough to frisk enough white, yellow, green and blue people to make the black frisks not seem out of line) or that there was more than just the skin color of the person at play.
Of course this also ignores the fact that you are creating an interesting excuse for guilt by association... if a small number of people who choose to freely associate themselves with a larger group (ie Tea Party) and individually these small number of people spout a specific view ("taxing is unconstitutional, mkay!")... then the entire group is subject to further invasive attention because of the views of these people that the larger group did not strongly condemn and exercise from the larger group.
"But Muslims! What about how we treat Muslims! Only a small fraction of Muslims purport radical ideology and an acceptance of violence" some would say... which would be a fair point... if we required a good number of Muslim groups (or individuals) to jump through the same hoops that these Tea Party groups were illegally required to based on nothing more than the view of some cop or IRS agent.
And oddly enough... the # of people running planes into buildings, setting off bombs near the finish lines of marathons, attempt to set off car bombs in times square, plot to blow up airports, or engaging in 'work place violence' on a military base and who espouse anti-tax ideas is remarkably low.
Gitmo is a bad example to throw in, as the President signed a EO to close it - but got snared in red tape on the "how-to" part
By his own choice.
How often do we here him pat his chest and proclaim "If congress won't act... then I will"?... and often about things he doesn't have the authority to act on alone (which doesn't stop him (see illegal NLRB appointments as one example)).
You'd think a man with such a mentality could find a way to cut through the red tape (after ignoring it since early 2010).
Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution.
That would depend on the degree of 'profiling'... and how much secondary work is involved.
Given the amount of data that was being requested from these groups (and the costs involved in complying)... some of it illegally... yes, this is an act of persecution, not profiling.
Or would you not say that a person who is profiled every time they fly into a secondary strip and cavity search before being allowed on the plane isn't being persecuted (vs just being wanded)?
"Nope! Still just profiling, now bend over and cough!" - jbeach?
Correct... they didn't explicitly target the Tea Party Patriots of Golden Valley, MN (to make up a name off the top of my head)... they did something far more sinister, as you say:
they did a keyword search to find anything with the words, "tea party" or related and audited that
They targeted specific words of their target group they sought to punish.
Try that another way... would you still be saying "the IRS didn't target a specific race!" if the tax guy doing keyword searches for people named Juan, Jose, Jesus, Javier, Maria, or Consuelo?
Maybe because groups like MoveOn.Org and co are *gasp* actually following the rules!
You seem to be implying that the tea party groups investigated were not doing so.
Care to cite some specific evidence of both?
Oh right... the fact that the police haven't come knocking at the door of MoveOn.Org proves they've done nothing wrong... and obviously every Tea Party group is guilty as sin because they got an angry letter from the IRS... even requesting information in violation of IRS policy.
It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.
MLK said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character
And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.
If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?
Interesting how you hear what you want to hear... or simply aren't paying attention.
I can't say I've heard all that many tea-partiers (and I've known and protested with quite a few) who are absolutely anti-tax in all forms... or uniformly claim that they are unconstitutional.
The beef has long been about the degree of taxation and how that money (along with what is printed) is spent.
Lemme guess... you also heard that there were tons of racists and tea party events with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache... without ever knowing that the bulk of them are Lyndon LaRouche fans.
Security by obscurity works in that it'll take longer before vulns are discovered in rare devices.
I remember that being said about Linux devices round the parts for so long... which are obviously still (like Oracle DBs) unhackable/unbreakable.
Just be patient, those W8 things aren't exactly interesting to tech-heads.
How much longer should I wait? My old HTC Trophy (running Windows Phone 7.x) also (as far as I am aware) never had any major exploits against it.
While it's easy to say "no one cares about targeting an OS with a.0000000002% market share"... call be silly... but I'm still kind of surprised no one wanted to make a name for themselves as the first person to hack Windows Phone.
Nobody targets Windows phone because nobody cares about windows phone. Nobody uses it. Microsoft is constantly striving to be even relevant, let alone get a remarkably sized userbase.
I seem to recall that as an excuse around these parts for a decade or so regarding Linux... as well as the claim that "many eyes make bugs shallow"... and yet quite often we hear about a bug in the Linux kernel, or Bind, or some other major component that has been undiscovered for years and years.
How'd that work out? Oh right... Android (Linux based) is the most easily hackable mobile phone OS out there!
It was possible on WP7, at least in the earlier patch versions. I'm not aware of any malware anybody actually created, but there were a few known vulns in most devices that could be exploited for elevation of privilege.
Citation please.
As I recall... the initial 'exploit' used by the ChevronWP7 folks involved running a local web server on your PC... then tricking your phone into developer unlocking against it... rather than the official Microsoft servers.
I wouldn't exactly call this a vector for virus infiltration.
Ditto when it comes to homebrew apps (which could only run on developer unlocked device (legit or not unlocked))... and required manual side-loading of the app.
Claiming malware was possible on WP7 is like claiming it's possible to infect the Pentagon with your super-l33t virus... provided you can trick someone into going into one of the secure server rooms, logging in as a local administrator, accessing your hax0red website... then clicking "Yes, I want to run configure; make; make install".
Slashdot Mirror
Care to be more specific as to these bits of 'reasonable regulation on firearms' which the 'gun nuts' are opposing?
Are you talking about the system we have today which not only includes regulations on who can own one, who can be in the business of selling, manufacturing or importing them (not to mention which types at all levels), how one can buy one from a licensed seller, limits on where they can be possessed or used.
Are those the reasonable regulations you are referring to? Or is it additional and specific regulations which you claim are reasonable and that the gun nuts oppose?
It's rather hard to take anything you say seriously when you are so non-specific.
You can debate it all you want... but for the moment at least, DC vs Heller & McDonald vs Chicago are the legal opinions that say that the second amendment does protect an individuals right to own firearms.
What you anti-gun nuts don't understand is that few if any of the proposals you put forward short of a giant super-magnet in space that is set to 'gun' will do much of anything short of burden law-abiding citizens, provide a false sense of security, and transfer deaths from one tool to another.
Perhaps then... Australia is just better at effective regulations... as it's been a long time since I've seen any such thing in the US.
Know what most of the mass shootings have in common in this country? Preparation. Take the Batman theater shooter last year... do you think he acquired his mass of weapons, body armor and ammo over night? No... he planned for months. The same goes for most of those sorts of people.
In most states where there is a waiting period in order to buy a handgun, possession of a CPL/CWL/etc (Concealed Pistol License) bypasses that. That's right... if you plan ahead in thinking one day you may need a pistol and in a hurry (without waiting)... simply getting a CPL enables that.
If you plan on using a 'smart' gun you don't have legit access to in a crime... I'm betting you'll either find a traditional working firearm, or spend the time needed to hack it.
*facepalm* Yes... a simple revolver... because nothing can ever go wrong with a double or even single action revolver.
Lets just take cartridges and any kind of auto cycling/reloading mechanism out of it... go back to muskets and muzzleloaders... only I've had my muzzleloader FTF (fail to fire) once or twice... and that due to environmental conditions.
While it's true no semi (or fully) automatic weapon is perfect... with skill one can quickly work around most FTFs or jams... also known as "tap, rack, bang". Thankfully... Adam Lanza apparently did not know how to clear such a jam, which likely saved plenty of lives on the night of his spree.
Ignoring the second amendment for a moment... the bigger issue is that the knee-jerk reaction from the gun control advocates call for things that would in no way prevent such incidents.
It's not a matter of there being a no perfect solution... the issue is with attempts at trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they are simply burdening law abiding citizens.
Good luck with that.
While I do not advocate violence in such a way, it is not to difficult to imagine an armed resistance from those who are suddenly made ex-post-facto felons by virtue of them possessing suddenly illegal firearms.
Of course with there being no national registration scheme today... it also would not be difficult for one of these felons to simply not turn (or register) in their now illegal weapon.
No... we call that a semi-automatic rifle.
If we accepted your definition... every single semi-automatic pistol, shotgun or rifle would be classified as an assault pistol/shotgun/rifle.
Tis a horrifying world where a Ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle!
Then your friend is either likes throwing away money, knows nothing about warranties, or is doing modding that invalidates his warranty (which could also be to blame for his HW failures).
If memory serves... each 360 comes with a year hardware warranty... and if a unit dies and it's replaced under warranty... the replacement gets a fresh 1 year warranty.
Given the 360 hit the US 7 years, 6 months, 29 days ago... it's hard to believe that each of his 13 units died on day 366 (as there isn't enough time between then and now)... I'm more inclined to believe you are full of crap.
I refuse to pay for a texting plan you insensitive clod!
More so, why would I when I can do various messaging services from my phone via the data plan I'm already paying for? Anyone who needs to contact me has been taught that if they text me... I will yell and demand they pay me $0.25 per text sent... and that IM (or better yet email) is the best way to catch me.
None the less... you speak like a person who is... 25+? While SMSing used to be all the rage of the cool kids in Jr & Sr high... it later moved to Facebook messaging... and even now to 'other' IM services which are less obvious to parental inspection and even more 'cool'.
Judge not the world you do not understand ye still young'in who thinks they understand the world!
That sounds more like a management issue than it does an H1-B problem.
If someone is churning out substandard code and causing schedules to slip... be they an American or H1-B holder... replace them... it's that simple.
Who says the contract needs to say anything?
Washington is an 'at will' state for employment... I can be fired on Monday morning for wearing a color of shirt that my boss doesn't like.
I stopped reading what you said when I got to where you said:
Are you familiar with Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Obviously not... as it does noting to guarantee equal pay for women... instead it simply extends the amount of time someone has to bring a claim of discrimination related to their pay.
Or is there some other legislation being held up by the evil Republicans which would bring pay equality between men and women? Shame the White House doesn't adopt it on their own.
Of course people like you (and the president) gloss over why men tend to make more than women.
I'll tell you two quick reasons:
1. Men tend to pursue degrees/programs/work that pays higher (ie Computer Science vs Elementary Education had a 95/5 distribution at my college... 95% of students in CS classes were men... while 95% of students in Ed classes were women... and still the school graduated equal numbers from both programs).
2. While a man's career tends to remain on a relatively constant trajectory, many women's do not because of children... either because of leaving a job to be a stay at home parent, or working in a (usually part time) job that has more flexible hours (which usually means lower pay).
Now... if you want to propose legislation that mandates that employers count a year or ten spent raising a child or two as relevant work experience... and make sure that every elementary ed teacher (more often than not women) are paid as much as software developers (more often than not men)... then go for it... until then, it's remarkably shortsighted of you to speak of things you clearly do not understand.
I'd read more of your rant... but when you are so wrong on something like this so early... is there any reason for me to waste anymore of my time?
Glad we can agree on something. In that case... do you support the idea of the president resigning from office over his unconstitutional NLRB appointments?
It's only semantics if you choose to limit the size of the dictionary you are using... and from your posts here it's clear you've got one that's only about 30 pages long.
You are free to draw that conclusion... that is not however what is being alleged (even though the Pres did in 09 joke about sic'ing the IRS on his opponents).
Your assumption is that because some low level person does something... that an order was passed down, person to person from top to bottom to do something... that is rarely the case.
Instead the senior folks set some broad policies... and leave it to those below to come up with more specific aspects... this process repeats until the final linemen down below who do what they are told.
Quite often though... environments are created where people at various levels are permitted a good degree of latitude to do their work (think cops who can choose to give you a ticket or not for speeding). In environments where policy is not rigiourly enforced and violators not punished... it's easy for people (at any level) to go off and do their own things... be it looking up peoples passport records or drivers licenses without permission... or choosing who to initiate an audit against for political reasons.
Did you ever look up the definition of 'persecution'? Bing tells me:
Seems rather apt... doesn't it? Some low level employee took it upon themselves to systematically subject groups they didn't approve of to a form of legal harassment utilizing the tools at their disposal to bring down the force of the government upon them.
If you don't think that's persecution... then it's clear you need to go up stairs and ask mommy & daddy to buy you a new dictionary as the one you've been reading (if at all) is quite inaccurate.
Worse yet... if we believe reports that say that the person(s) responsible for this will not be punished... it sends signs through the organization that such misbehavior WILL BE TOLERATED... and will then likely happen in future.
Based on the quality of what you've written above... many things can be gleamed... such as the fact that you are not a lawyer... and probably not very good at whatever job you do ("Nyeh, but my boss says I do a good job"). Heck, a quick read of a number of your comments on this wider thread indicate a sort of "it seems reasonable to me if I don't agree with them" sort of mentality... typical for a less than bright leftist (an oxymoron I know).
Ahh hearsay... so much fun!
You know... a black person is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to jail for a drug crime than a white... by your logic... or as you would say "and thus"... wouldn't any randomly selected black person be more likely to be engaged in the drug trade than a white "and thus" be fair game for further scrutiny?
As I said elsewhere... if that scrutiny is simply a second look... few would have a problem... if however that scrutiny enters the territory of being unduly invasive... then no, it's generally not permitted.
The lawyer of any person picked up under such a situation would first play the 'racial profiling' card and attempt to force the police to show that they are not randomly stopping/frisking/etc a disproportionate number of black people (or at least is smart enough to frisk enough white, yellow, green and blue people to make the black frisks not seem out of line) or that there was more than just the skin color of the person at play.
Of course this also ignores the fact that you are creating an interesting excuse for guilt by association... if a small number of people who choose to freely associate themselves with a larger group (ie Tea Party) and individually these small number of people spout a specific view ("taxing is unconstitutional, mkay!")... then the entire group is subject to further invasive attention because of the views of these people that the larger group did not strongly condemn and exercise from the larger group.
"But Muslims! What about how we treat Muslims! Only a small fraction of Muslims purport radical ideology and an acceptance of violence" some would say... which would be a fair point... if we required a good number of Muslim groups (or individuals) to jump through the same hoops that these Tea Party groups were illegally required to based on nothing more than the view of some cop or IRS agent.
And oddly enough... the # of people running planes into buildings, setting off bombs near the finish lines of marathons, attempt to set off car bombs in times square, plot to blow up airports, or engaging in 'work place violence' on a military base and who espouse anti-tax ideas is remarkably low.
By his own choice.
How often do we here him pat his chest and proclaim "If congress won't act... then I will"? ... and often about things he doesn't have the authority to act on alone (which doesn't stop him (see illegal NLRB appointments as one example)).
You'd think a man with such a mentality could find a way to cut through the red tape (after ignoring it since early 2010).
That would depend on the degree of 'profiling'... and how much secondary work is involved.
Given the amount of data that was being requested from these groups (and the costs involved in complying)... some of it illegally... yes, this is an act of persecution, not profiling.
Or would you not say that a person who is profiled every time they fly into a secondary strip and cavity search before being allowed on the plane isn't being persecuted (vs just being wanded)?
"Nope! Still just profiling, now bend over and cough!" - jbeach?
Correct... they didn't explicitly target the Tea Party Patriots of Golden Valley, MN (to make up a name off the top of my head)... they did something far more sinister, as you say:
They targeted specific words of their target group they sought to punish.
Try that another way... would you still be saying "the IRS didn't target a specific race!" if the tax guy doing keyword searches for people named Juan, Jose, Jesus, Javier, Maria, or Consuelo?
You seem to be implying that the tea party groups investigated were not doing so.
Care to cite some specific evidence of both?
Oh right... the fact that the police haven't come knocking at the door of MoveOn.Org proves they've done nothing wrong... and obviously every Tea Party group is guilty as sin because they got an angry letter from the IRS... even requesting information in violation of IRS policy.
Riiight.
Well said!
It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.
MLK said:
And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.
Interesting how you hear what you want to hear... or simply aren't paying attention.
I can't say I've heard all that many tea-partiers (and I've known and protested with quite a few) who are absolutely anti-tax in all forms... or uniformly claim that they are unconstitutional.
The beef has long been about the degree of taxation and how that money (along with what is printed) is spent.
Lemme guess... you also heard that there were tons of racists and tea party events with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache... without ever knowing that the bulk of them are Lyndon LaRouche fans.
Sounds good in theory... and yet groups like Organizing for America and MoveOn.org remain unmolested... funny that?
I was referring to the 800k they are spending to move as the 'lot of money'.
TFA says it will still cost the city ~$800k to make the move... the $280k is reported to be the savings from dropping what they are currently doing.
That's a whole lot of money to what? Move a large bit of data to the cloud, retire a number of on-prem servers and re-train people?
I remember that being said about Linux devices round the parts for so long... which are obviously still (like Oracle DBs) unhackable/unbreakable.
How much longer should I wait? My old HTC Trophy (running Windows Phone 7.x) also (as far as I am aware) never had any major exploits against it.
While it's easy to say "no one cares about targeting an OS with a .0000000002% market share"... call be silly... but I'm still kind of surprised no one wanted to make a name for themselves as the first person to hack Windows Phone.
I seem to recall that as an excuse around these parts for a decade or so regarding Linux... as well as the claim that "many eyes make bugs shallow"... and yet quite often we hear about a bug in the Linux kernel, or Bind, or some other major component that has been undiscovered for years and years.
How'd that work out? Oh right... Android (Linux based) is the most easily hackable mobile phone OS out there!
Citation please.
As I recall... the initial 'exploit' used by the ChevronWP7 folks involved running a local web server on your PC... then tricking your phone into developer unlocking against it... rather than the official Microsoft servers.
I wouldn't exactly call this a vector for virus infiltration.
Ditto when it comes to homebrew apps (which could only run on developer unlocked device (legit or not unlocked))... and required manual side-loading of the app.
Claiming malware was possible on WP7 is like claiming it's possible to infect the Pentagon with your super-l33t virus... provided you can trick someone into going into one of the secure server rooms, logging in as a local administrator, accessing your hax0red website... then clicking "Yes, I want to run configure; make; make install".