Chances are it does. Just because you're too stupid to believe there's no possible way a virus can get onto your phone, doesn't mean that there's someone out there with the know-how and the skill to do just that. There is (and has never been) anything that is 100% secure.
Really? I've got an HTC 8X on a wireless charger right in front of me (hence the Verizon version)... care to point to a virus or three (or just malware) that targets Window Phones?
Don't worry... I'll wait.
While I will admit that nothing is 100% secure... the protection model on Windows Phone does sure seem to keep malicious code away better than Android.
Technically, U.S. government is not a Sovereign. The States and The People, however, are.
Again I say: "Ideally yes... in practice... not so much."
While federal government was created by the states... and at the time there was much concern about the federal government having too much power (see anti-federalist papers for one great set of writings on the subject)... we are long since past a time where the states have any meaningful voice as their authority has largely been usurped by the feds.
Had the framers of the constitution had any inkling just how far the government system they created would stray from what they created... I suspect they may have stuck with the articles of confederation (as broken as they were (but still amazingly limiting)), been even more explicit with regards to the limitations on the federal government... or just abandoned the 'union' idea.
Even think of the verbiage we use today... at the founding people thought of themselves as a Virginian or a Carolinian the same way a German or Brit did prior to the EU... now you are no longer considered a citizen of your state or city... but instead a 'resident'... and your citizenship is ultimately derived from the federal government instead.
I don't believe sovereign immunity applies to government that violates its own Constitution.
Ideally yes... in practice... not so much.
This nation was founded on the idea of a limited central government with specific enumerated powers... alas that was quite some time ago.
Today... we have a system where a majority of a group of 9 lawyers who wear black robes are able to decree from the bench on previously undiscovered/unknown emanations and penumbras.
All you need is 5 of those lawyers to side with the government and the ‘violation’ is constitutional.
Korematsu, Plessey, (Dread) Scott, Wickard, Obamacare, large chunks of the New Deal... how long of a list would you like?
Oh I did look at your stats... which if you'd watched the video would are irrelevant to the discussion that was being had there or here... until you derailed it.
Like I said, talking with you is pointless as it is clear you've got a pretty big hate-filled mentality (a quick read of some of your more recent comments on this site confirm it).
Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom
Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.
Making sure use of their product is featured in movies
Big difference between smoking & guns in movies... While you rarely see explicit branding of either (it is easier to discern what sort of firearm is on screen with the help of sites like http://www.imfdb.org.../ smoking is rarely a necessary tool of the story... while without firearms there would be very few police, crime, action or military movies.
While there has no doubt been advertising which has, I'd be curious to know how many young people 'got into firearms' because they were even remotely influenced by some tv or movie program... vs those who had the tradition passed down to them my an older relative who wished to pass down the past time of hunting or target shooting. Even in the Cub and Boy Scouts... firearms are an optional component of it.
As far as my older guns... I mentioned it for three reasons:
1. Like the previous line... I'd actually not intended to post it (as the previous line was not completed:( ).
2. Unlike almost any other consumer product... firearms hold their value and functionality pretty well over the years provided they are stored properly. While it is not uncommon to buy a new deer rifle and use it 2-3 weekends a year for 50+ years (this year will be year 9 with mine)... the same cannot be said for purchasers of almost anything else. As a result... there is a massive secondary market for used firearms of all ages and types... and even if successful advertising were getting people to buy the latest and greatest items (granted the new buying is happening, but again, I'm not convinced it is done because of any explicit efforts on the part of the gun makers)... the shear amount of options in the secondary market makes it difficult to get folks to buy new. "I could buy new... or I could save $XXX and get this used but well cared for unit of the previous model" one would say... and possibly not even require the pointless hoop jumping of a 4473 and background check.
Heck... I go to one of the evil 'gun shows' every month or two... and a good 75%+ of the firearms for sale there are used and are purchased either because A) someone is trying to save a buck on something a little older, or B) someone is into collecting certain items that they may not have been alive or able to purchase when new (if it was even available to consumers then)... which is most of what I do, and that relates to #3:
3. When people like the President or others campaign against "weapons designed for the theater of war"... I have to laugh (and cry a bit)... because inside my safe I have quite a few "weapons designed for the theater of war" that were actually built exclusively for and carried by different foreign militaries... unlike the AR-15 which is simply a consumerized (and thus less fun) version of the M-16.
To a person like me (and most people who own more than a few firearms)... advertising firearms is a pretty big waste of time as I already know what I'm looking for (mostly old things)... and when looking for something new (to me or new from the factory), do the research ahead of time to choose well.
What rational person who has observed gun control politics in this country for the last 50 years thinks there will not be readily available guns for sale legally in the USA anytime in the foreseeable future?
One who recognizes that a sizeable # of those who seek additional controls are not concerned about the constitutionality of their prohibitions or their effectiveness... and have become more brazen in their attempts than their predecessors in past.
While Obama himself has not made any specific statements regarding seizing guns... countless person in his party have... either calling for doing so immediately or preventing the transfer of certain types of weapons to anyone but the government in future (ie you die, your kid can't inherit your AR-15)... and many prefer to err on the side of caution.
It's built on land stolen from the native population by a bunch of immigrants
I see you didn't even bother to watch the video... it's ok... when I hear people use emotional words like 'stolen' to refer to issues in the area I cease the discussion as it is clearly not possible to rationally discuss the issues.
'Zionist' & 'Zionism' also fall into that list.
Are you also one who when discussing abortion labels one side 'baby killers' and the other 'clinic-bombers'?
I'm confused... do you think Americans have a love of guns because Smith & Wesson, Remington, Lugar, Glock, etc all advertise heavily on tv, radio, billboards, bus benches, magazines, etc and that said advertising is so effective that (some) people rush into gun stores in order to buy?
With the exception of a few hunting or firearm related channels or magazines... I see far more advertising for beer or cigarettes on an average day than I do for firearms.
For the most part, firearms sales in this country have been pretty healthy for quite some time... they only spike in response to external stimuli (such as our currently slightly diminished push for additional 'gun control')... we see the same thing in plenty of other areas... grocery and home improvement stores tend to see pretty healthy sales though the year... then when there is news of an impending storm... both are cleaned out of supplies that people think they won't be able to get afterwards.
Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.
Personally speaking... I have a 'personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars'
I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.
The problem is not XP. The problem is speciality software vendors charging ten grand for a software update.
This kind of stuff is why it costs the rest of us $2120.14 to have a hangnail treated at our MD.
Yes... that has to be it.
You must be an Obama voter. You know, the sort who is incapable of independent thought or basic math.
Let me help you with the basics of the math involved, ok?
Lets assume that the Dr in question purchased their PC not 11.5 years ago (October 25, 2001) when XP first came up... but instead purchased it the day before Windows 7 came out (October 22, 2009)... which means as of today it's a 1280 day old install.
If we assume this Dr likes to take plenty of time off and works only 200 days a year, that means this PC is getting used on ~54.8% of those 1280 days... or 701.44 days total.
Lets call it 700 days.
Assuming this doctor is the only person in the office who bills using this PC... that means that each day it is used, in order to just break even with that $10,000 billing software they paid for back in 09 (under this assumption)... they need to bump their prices a whopping $14.29 A DAY in order to pay for the billing software.
Wanna assume they see... 10 patients a day? Each's share is $1.43 per visit. So clearly... it's all the fault of the billing SW makers!
Or... it's because this is specialty software with a limited market, which tends to bump up the prices involved so that the SW maker can recoup their costs.
War is when a country declares war on another and/or attacks them
Says who? The Barbary wars would disagree.. as would the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homelessness, etc.
We DO have a name for this event though: a bombing
I think the FBI would like to talk to you... as you obviously have more information that is publically known. If it is that simple... great, but do not treat a lack of claim of credit as an assurance that this was not a foreign run operation.
Why don't we wait to see what the facts say once they've been collected?
Organized terrorist attacks do not happen often in the US. In fact, it hasn't happened in 11 years.
Depends on how you define 'organized'... and sometimes they do not happen because we get lucky and stop them ahead of time (see Fort Dix six)
Nidal Malik Hasan may have pulled the trigger on his own, but was later discovered to be in communication and plotting with Al-Awlaki.
Oh right... the Obama administration refuses to call that a terrorist attack... only 'work place violence'.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn't exactly a lone wolf as someone gave him that bomb and put him on the plane, similar can be said for Richard Reid (ie not acting alone.
True to a point... but they have also created their own little walled garden (Windows 8 apps) without as many of the policy restrictions as Apple... granted they are starting off quite far behind.
There is a larger issue at hand I'd expect... subsequent billing... as services like SkyDrive, Office 365, Netflix, etc aren't just used on one device... and tend to be paid for on a regular cycle.
Letâ(TM)s take MS out of it... letâ(TM)s say you buy an iPad, download the Netflix app and sign up for an account (something I do not believe the app supports)... by doing so Apple gets it's 30% cut... each month in theory.
A year or three goes by and you decide to wipe your iPad and buy a non iOS device... in fact, you no longer have any Apple device in your home and now watch Netflix through a Roku or PS3... should Apple still be getting a 30% cut each and every month until you cancel the subscription and re-subscribe?
You must be one of those who thinks that privacy is an absolute that no other person may infringe upon unless you explicitly sign away limited access to you.
Bad news... you do not live in that world, nor have you ever, if you did you would have been outfitted with a cloaking device at birth and every single fact about you in every persons mind or database would be triggered to a self destruct command that you could selectively kick off.
If you don't want your information being posted to Facebook by "OTHER people"... then you should probably have a talk with "OTHER people"... the same way you would with your aunt Stella (who is a bit of a blabber) nothing at all (so as to avoid any disclosures at all)... or that you don't appreciate her sharing the information about that rash you had treated last year, you did go to her after all about it... and probably had some suspicion that they had a memory and might repeat it someday.
What I object to, is being put in the porno against my wishes, because somebody else supplied the director with footage.
If you'd care to point out a few cases where this has happened... I'm sure some/. readers would enjoy it... but it is still irrelevant.
If you grant a license to information (your name, phone number, address, hobbies, interests, etc) to ANYONE... you no longer control that data.
Even before the PC age, nothing stopped a friend from signing you up for a free subscription to "Paranoid for Privacy Monthly", just the same way as nothing prevented a religious group from staking out porn shops or strip clubs and noting the license plates of the people who went in and out.
You have either implicitly or explicitly released such information through your actions... and now you belly ache that someone saw you at a restaurant making out with a woman who wasn't your wife.
Waaaaaaaa!
If you care that much about privacy than it is up to you to protect it.
In many states... it's perfectly legal to walk down a public sidewalk and use a pair of binoculars to look in the windows of near by homes and businesses. Don't want people doing that? Maybe you should protect what is visible through your open windows.
In many states... it's perfectly legal to rent a helicopter or airplane and circle the backyard of that girl you like (from a distance so as not to directly be disturbing) who you suspect may be sunbathing in the nude.
If you expose something to the public, you have only yourself to blame, not those who hear it, not those who repeat it, not those who sell it, and not those who aggregate it.
It's no different from whipping out a camera, photographing people who didn't sign a model release, and then lucratizing the photos in ways the people photoed don't endorse, just because they happened to be outside, or were wearing a certain brand of clothing.
Actually it's quite different... go read the membership agreement at your average dating or social networking site... you tend to give up quite a few rights, including to the use of the photos and content you post.
Unlike the people walking around in public, you have chosen to given your information to others online.
While we are at it... perhaps you should read through the 'privacy policy' on various websites you frequent... see what your use of the site obliges you to accept... then see all of the gaps that you are not aware of and that are being used by many a tracking company to know what you do and where you go. Sure you can opt out... but today it is up to you to tell them to leave you alone, not for you to 'opt-in'.
All you need is a damn regex for your data and you're done. What BS are they feeding these guys?
I agree fully <insert your real screen name here>, but have you considered the fact that even if your regex wiped out your post above (assuming you posted it with a real name), that your regex should not modify my reply which very well may contain not just your post... but additional information? Why should your right to be forgotten override my right to speak?
Because "reasonably believe" is an extremely weak requirement when it comes to dealing with a complete stranger.
You say that... but then I see what you did there... you removed the part from the quote where I said:
I've seen plenty of undercover 'stings' about such things (to try to paint the picture that buying a gun at a gun show is too easy)
In such stings... the undercover cop tends to say things like "I don't know if I could pass a background check" or "I'm buying this for a friend who has had some problems with the law"
Even if such statements do not make the seller believe they are dealing with someone seeking to act illegally, they are still prosecutable (which again,just doesn't happen much) because in court, a 'reasonable' person would believe the person is not able to own/buy.
Basically the only thing that you're required to do is to ask for their driver license or other state ID, to ensure that they are the residents of the state where the transaction is taking place.
Depends on the state... here in Washington state I can buy a handgun or long gun out of the back of someone's trunk with not even a handshake, hell, we saw just this during a recent Seattle gun buy back program... it was a veritable street bonanza of private buyers outbidding the police on city streets. Of course doing so is rather silly (for both parties), but it is perfectly legal.
A smart person will often ask to see a WA CPL or WAC membership (a local gun club) to demonstrate the person has had a semi-recent background check... but again, what does showing a drivers license prove? Oh yes... that they can drive!
Why should there be prosecutions for failed purchases?
It depends on the reason for the failure.
Again... local police are very rarely involved in such rejections to determine of the failed buyer was learning this for the first time or just keeps trying.
In many cases, people don't even fully understand that they're banned from owning a gun, until a background check fails on them.
I'll tell that to my system administrator... next time we detect a few failed attempts to enter our systems, I'll ask them not even to look to see if the source is known or not, plus tell them they should not not involve police... we'll just assume the person doing so was not doing so malicously.
Either way, the transaction doesn't go ahead when the check fails, and so they don't get the gun - so no crime has occurred.
Not always... and for two reasons:
1) There are three different responses NICS gives... "Proceed", "Delayed", and "Denied"... only in the case of an explicit "Denied" does the transaction stop right there. Should a "Delayed" be the response, a waiting game begins and if the ATF doesn't get back to the FFL within 3 business days, the FFL can treat it as a "Proceed" and make the transfer.
So again... it depends upon WHY a person is denied (or delayed).
2) It is a felony to provide false information on a 4473. Even if we were to say... 50% of of NICS checks did not result in an immediate "Proceed", a good chunk actually come back as good eventually (either because checkee couldn't be immediately identified but later is, or a "Delayed" times out)... what % do you think of those are honest to goodness people who know they cannot buy a gun, but are too stupid to not to realize that the check very well may flag them? I can't give it a %, but a quick look at a newspaper from time to time indicates it is a a non-zero # where someone who was denied at an FFL (for cause) find a firearm another way.
I'd like to know that number... but again, because local PD are not involved and we see virtually no prosecutions for such a thing, or attempts to make sure they do not get one later.
So why implement additional laws when we aren't enforcing the existing ones?
It is already illegal to sell to someone you reasonable believe not able to legally own a firearm. I've seen plenty of undercover 'stings' about such things (to try to paint the picture that buying a gun at a gun show is too easy)... and yet so few prosecutions.
The President himself touted numbers as to how many people have been denied purchasing a firearm under the NICS system (we'll assume for the moment that his # was accurate and that not a single denial was overturned or saw the prospective buyer buy a firearm elsewhere)... where are the prosecutions for all of those failed purchases as well?
When you think about just how many firearms there are in this country... and how easy it is to buy just about any illegal drug... do you really think there would be much fear of illegally selling a firearm?... unless you don't care about the law in which case it again becomes a burden on law abiding persons and creates more work for those tasked with enforcing laws... which they already ignore.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I've got an HTC 8X on a wireless charger right in front of me (hence the Verizon version)... care to point to a virus or three (or just malware) that targets Window Phones?
Don't worry... I'll wait.
While I will admit that nothing is 100% secure... the protection model on Windows Phone does sure seem to keep malicious code away better than Android.
Again I say: "Ideally yes... in practice... not so much."
While federal government was created by the states... and at the time there was much concern about the federal government having too much power (see anti-federalist papers for one great set of writings on the subject)... we are long since past a time where the states have any meaningful voice as their authority has largely been usurped by the feds.
Had the framers of the constitution had any inkling just how far the government system they created would stray from what they created... I suspect they may have stuck with the articles of confederation (as broken as they were (but still amazingly limiting)), been even more explicit with regards to the limitations on the federal government... or just abandoned the 'union' idea.
Even think of the verbiage we use today... at the founding people thought of themselves as a Virginian or a Carolinian the same way a German or Brit did prior to the EU... now you are no longer considered a citizen of your state or city... but instead a 'resident'... and your citizenship is ultimately derived from the federal government instead.
Ideally yes... in practice... not so much.
This nation was founded on the idea of a limited central government with specific enumerated powers... alas that was quite some time ago.
Today... we have a system where a majority of a group of 9 lawyers who wear black robes are able to decree from the bench on previously undiscovered/unknown emanations and penumbras.
All you need is 5 of those lawyers to side with the government and the ‘violation’ is constitutional.
Korematsu, Plessey, (Dread) Scott, Wickard, Obamacare, large chunks of the New Deal... how long of a list would you like?
Sovereign immunity... and it has existed for far longer than this nation has.
Oh I did look at your stats... which if you'd watched the video would are irrelevant to the discussion that was being had there or here... until you derailed it.
Like I said, talking with you is pointless as it is clear you've got a pretty big hate-filled mentality (a quick read of some of your more recent comments on this site confirm it).
Get help.
Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.
Big difference between smoking & guns in movies... While you rarely see explicit branding of either (it is easier to discern what sort of firearm is on screen with the help of sites like http://www.imfdb.org.../ smoking is rarely a necessary tool of the story... while without firearms there would be very few police, crime, action or military movies.
While there has no doubt been advertising which has, I'd be curious to know how many young people 'got into firearms' because they were even remotely influenced by some tv or movie program... vs those who had the tradition passed down to them my an older relative who wished to pass down the past time of hunting or target shooting. Even in the Cub and Boy Scouts... firearms are an optional component of it.
As far as my older guns... I mentioned it for three reasons:
1. Like the previous line... I'd actually not intended to post it (as the previous line was not completed :( ).
2. Unlike almost any other consumer product... firearms hold their value and functionality pretty well over the years provided they are stored properly. While it is not uncommon to buy a new deer rifle and use it 2-3 weekends a year for 50+ years (this year will be year 9 with mine)... the same cannot be said for purchasers of almost anything else. As a result... there is a massive secondary market for used firearms of all ages and types... and even if successful advertising were getting people to buy the latest and greatest items (granted the new buying is happening, but again, I'm not convinced it is done because of any explicit efforts on the part of the gun makers)... the shear amount of options in the secondary market makes it difficult to get folks to buy new. "I could buy new... or I could save $XXX and get this used but well cared for unit of the previous model" one would say... and possibly not even require the pointless hoop jumping of a 4473 and background check.
Heck... I go to one of the evil 'gun shows' every month or two... and a good 75%+ of the firearms for sale there are used and are purchased either because A) someone is trying to save a buck on something a little older, or B) someone is into collecting certain items that they may not have been alive or able to purchase when new (if it was even available to consumers then)... which is most of what I do, and that relates to #3:
3. When people like the President or others campaign against "weapons designed for the theater of war"... I have to laugh (and cry a bit)... because inside my safe I have quite a few "weapons designed for the theater of war" that were actually built exclusively for and carried by different foreign militaries... unlike the AR-15 which is simply a consumerized (and thus less fun) version of the M-16.
To a person like me (and most people who own more than a few firearms)... advertising firearms is a pretty big waste of time as I already know what I'm looking for (mostly old things)... and when looking for something new (to me or new from the factory), do the research ahead of time to choose well.
One who recognizes that a sizeable # of those who seek additional controls are not concerned about the constitutionality of their prohibitions or their effectiveness... and have become more brazen in their attempts than their predecessors in past.
While Obama himself has not made any specific statements regarding seizing guns... countless person in his party have... either calling for doing so immediately or preventing the transfer of certain types of weapons to anyone but the government in future (ie you die, your kid can't inherit your AR-15)... and many prefer to err on the side of caution.
Riiiight.
Lets just ignore the fact that their claims to legitimacy pre-date the existence of the UN: The Legal Case for Israel
But why let facts and history get in the way?
I'm confused... do you think Americans have a love of guns because Smith & Wesson, Remington, Lugar, Glock, etc all advertise heavily on tv, radio, billboards, bus benches, magazines, etc and that said advertising is so effective that (some) people rush into gun stores in order to buy?
With the exception of a few hunting or firearm related channels or magazines... I see far more advertising for beer or cigarettes on an average day than I do for firearms.
For the most part, firearms sales in this country have been pretty healthy for quite some time... they only spike in response to external stimuli (such as our currently slightly diminished push for additional 'gun control')... we see the same thing in plenty of other areas... grocery and home improvement stores tend to see pretty healthy sales though the year... then when there is news of an impending storm... both are cleaned out of supplies that people think they won't be able to get afterwards.
Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.
Personally speaking... I have a 'personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars'
I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.
Yes... that has to be it.
You must be an Obama voter. You know, the sort who is incapable of independent thought or basic math.
Let me help you with the basics of the math involved, ok?
Lets assume that the Dr in question purchased their PC not 11.5 years ago (October 25, 2001) when XP first came up... but instead purchased it the day before Windows 7 came out (October 22, 2009)... which means as of today it's a 1280 day old install.
If we assume this Dr likes to take plenty of time off and works only 200 days a year, that means this PC is getting used on ~54.8% of those 1280 days... or 701.44 days total.
Lets call it 700 days.
Assuming this doctor is the only person in the office who bills using this PC... that means that each day it is used, in order to just break even with that $10,000 billing software they paid for back in 09 (under this assumption)... they need to bump their prices a whopping $14.29 A DAY in order to pay for the billing software.
Wanna assume they see... 10 patients a day? Each's share is $1.43 per visit. So clearly... it's all the fault of the billing SW makers!
Or... it's because this is specialty software with a limited market, which tends to bump up the prices involved so that the SW maker can recoup their costs.
And are also paid for by taxpayers.
Says who? The Barbary wars would disagree.. as would the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homelessness, etc.
I think the FBI would like to talk to you... as you obviously have more information that is publically known. If it is that simple... great, but do not treat a lack of claim of credit as an assurance that this was not a foreign run operation.
Why don't we wait to see what the facts say once they've been collected?
Depends on how you define 'organized'... and sometimes they do not happen because we get lucky and stop them ahead of time (see Fort Dix six)
Nidal Malik Hasan may have pulled the trigger on his own, but was later discovered to be in communication and plotting with Al-Awlaki.
Oh right... the Obama administration refuses to call that a terrorist attack... only 'work place violence'.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn't exactly a lone wolf as someone gave him that bomb and put him on the plane, similar can be said for Richard Reid (ie not acting alone.
True to a point... but they have also created their own little walled garden (Windows 8 apps) without as many of the policy restrictions as Apple... granted they are starting off quite far behind.
There is a larger issue at hand I'd expect... subsequent billing... as services like SkyDrive, Office 365, Netflix, etc aren't just used on one device... and tend to be paid for on a regular cycle.
Letâ(TM)s take MS out of it... letâ(TM)s say you buy an iPad, download the Netflix app and sign up for an account (something I do not believe the app supports)... by doing so Apple gets it's 30% cut... each month in theory.
A year or three goes by and you decide to wipe your iPad and buy a non iOS device... in fact, you no longer have any Apple device in your home and now watch Netflix through a Roku or PS3... should Apple still be getting a 30% cut each and every month until you cancel the subscription and re-subscribe?
They are leaving you alone... Or at least as far as you know :)
Actually the absurdity is trying to try to draw any parallel between this and rape.
Seriously... turn off the PC and take your meds.
On second thought... I opted to look through some of your recent posts... and up, they do demonstrate a rather poor grasp on reality.
You must be running for office! So are you Todd Akin... or are you Ashley Judd?
While I am not the AC... you sir would seem to need that a wee bit more, as this and many of your other posts are clearly that of a deranged mind.
Forget to take your meds today?
Good job miss characterizing what I said, as it's pretty hard to claim that I said anything along the lines of:
In fact... I put it all on you.
While I'm at it... care to point out where I said anything about:
Or 'pizza' for that matter? That word doesn't even appear in my post.
Given your complete inability (or unwillingness) to address what I actually said... I see no reason to continue this or the above, good day.
You must be one of those who thinks that privacy is an absolute that no other person may infringe upon unless you explicitly sign away limited access to you.
Bad news... you do not live in that world, nor have you ever, if you did you would have been outfitted with a cloaking device at birth and every single fact about you in every persons mind or database would be triggered to a self destruct command that you could selectively kick off.
If you don't want your information being posted to Facebook by "OTHER people"... then you should probably have a talk with "OTHER people"... the same way you would with your aunt Stella (who is a bit of a blabber) nothing at all (so as to avoid any disclosures at all)... or that you don't appreciate her sharing the information about that rash you had treated last year, you did go to her after all about it... and probably had some suspicion that they had a memory and might repeat it someday.
If you'd care to point out a few cases where this has happened... I'm sure some /. readers would enjoy it... but it is still irrelevant.
If you grant a license to information (your name, phone number, address, hobbies, interests, etc) to ANYONE... you no longer control that data.
Even before the PC age, nothing stopped a friend from signing you up for a free subscription to "Paranoid for Privacy Monthly", just the same way as nothing prevented a religious group from staking out porn shops or strip clubs and noting the license plates of the people who went in and out.
You have either implicitly or explicitly released such information through your actions... and now you belly ache that someone saw you at a restaurant making out with a woman who wasn't your wife.
Waaaaaaaa!
If you care that much about privacy than it is up to you to protect it.
In many states... it's perfectly legal to walk down a public sidewalk and use a pair of binoculars to look in the windows of near by homes and businesses. Don't want people doing that? Maybe you should protect what is visible through your open windows.
In many states... it's perfectly legal to rent a helicopter or airplane and circle the backyard of that girl you like (from a distance so as not to directly be disturbing) who you suspect may be sunbathing in the nude.
If you expose something to the public, you have only yourself to blame, not those who hear it, not those who repeat it, not those who sell it, and not those who aggregate it.
Actually it's quite different... go read the membership agreement at your average dating or social networking site... you tend to give up quite a few rights, including to the use of the photos and content you post.
Unlike the people walking around in public, you have chosen to given your information to others online.
While we are at it... perhaps you should read through the 'privacy policy' on various websites you frequent... see what your use of the site obliges you to accept... then see all of the gaps that you are not aware of and that are being used by many a tracking company to know what you do and where you go. Sure you can opt out... but today it is up to you to tell them to leave you alone, not for you to 'opt-in'.
I agree fully <insert your real screen name here>, but have you considered the fact that even if your regex wiped out your post above (assuming you posted it with a real name), that your regex should not modify my reply which very well may contain not just your post... but additional information? Why should your right to be forgotten override my right to speak?
You say that... but then I see what you did there... you removed the part from the quote where I said:
In such stings... the undercover cop tends to say things like "I don't know if I could pass a background check" or "I'm buying this for a friend who has had some problems with the law"
Even if such statements do not make the seller believe they are dealing with someone seeking to act illegally, they are still prosecutable (which again,just doesn't happen much) because in court, a 'reasonable' person would believe the person is not able to own/buy.
Depends on the state... here in Washington state I can buy a handgun or long gun out of the back of someone's trunk with not even a handshake, hell, we saw just this during a recent Seattle gun buy back program... it was a veritable street bonanza of private buyers outbidding the police on city streets. Of course doing so is rather silly (for both parties), but it is perfectly legal.
A smart person will often ask to see a WA CPL or WAC membership (a local gun club) to demonstrate the person has had a semi-recent background check... but again, what does showing a drivers license prove? Oh yes... that they can drive!
It depends on the reason for the failure.
Again... local police are very rarely involved in such rejections to determine of the failed buyer was learning this for the first time or just keeps trying.
I'll tell that to my system administrator... next time we detect a few failed attempts to enter our systems, I'll ask them not even to look to see if the source is known or not, plus tell them they should not not involve police... we'll just assume the person doing so was not doing so malicously.
Not always... and for two reasons:
1) There are three different responses NICS gives... "Proceed", "Delayed", and "Denied"... only in the case of an explicit "Denied" does the transaction stop right there. Should a "Delayed" be the response, a waiting game begins and if the ATF doesn't get back to the FFL within 3 business days, the FFL can treat it as a "Proceed" and make the transfer.
So again... it depends upon WHY a person is denied (or delayed).
2) It is a felony to provide false information on a 4473. Even if we were to say... 50% of of NICS checks did not result in an immediate "Proceed", a good chunk actually come back as good eventually (either because checkee couldn't be immediately identified but later is, or a "Delayed" times out)... what % do you think of those are honest to goodness people who know they cannot buy a gun, but are too stupid to not to realize that the check very well may flag them? I can't give it a %, but a quick look at a newspaper from time to time indicates it is a a non-zero # where someone who was denied at an FFL (for cause) find a firearm another way.
I'd like to know that number... but again, because local PD are not involved and we see virtually no prosecutions for such a thing, or attempts to make sure they do not get one later.
So why implement additional laws when we aren't enforcing the existing ones?
It is already illegal to sell to someone you reasonable believe not able to legally own a firearm. I've seen plenty of undercover 'stings' about such things (to try to paint the picture that buying a gun at a gun show is too easy)... and yet so few prosecutions.
The President himself touted numbers as to how many people have been denied purchasing a firearm under the NICS system (we'll assume for the moment that his # was accurate and that not a single denial was overturned or saw the prospective buyer buy a firearm elsewhere)... where are the prosecutions for all of those failed purchases as well?
When you think about just how many firearms there are in this country... and how easy it is to buy just about any illegal drug... do you really think there would be much fear of illegally selling a firearm? ... unless you don't care about the law in which case it again becomes a burden on law abiding persons and creates more work for those tasked with enforcing laws... which they already ignore.