Well, it's not really my "righteous cause", but I will quote you this:
What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
I would say the ploy is working, "righteousness" doesn't really enter the picture.
So propping up radical Islamists to fight the evil Soviet empire was the right thing to do? Is that your final answer?
You have a far FAR higher chance of dyingb y one of the drooling morons shooting guns than ever being even hurt by a terrorist. You really need to understand what are the REAL risks in the world.
TERRORISIM will motivate the easily panicked quickly.
Fixed your first sentence for you. You must have missed how right the rest was.
What is a coward? Somebody who kills thousands remotely with a drone, while sitting in an air-conditioned container in the Nevada desert, and get a medal of valour for it?
Funny thing is, all those evil Christians who were involved in the founding of this country voted for a Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion. It's that document all those evil Christians supported that guarantees the freedoms of Muslims and Hindus and Atheists in this country. And it's that very guarantee of religious freedom that so infuriates the radical Christians that dream of a world ruled under GOD Yahweh's laws
FTFY. And guess which group is actively trying to change those guarantees in the USA?
Muslims have had a beef with America as long as America has existed. Don't believe for a second that Muslims can't dish it out as good as they take it.
Yes, pretty much since Tripoli, where they made it abundantly clear that it was their divine duty to subjugate and pillage non believers.
While the Bible makes it clear that somebody has to tell Jews and Christians that GOD told them it was his will before they can do it.
Well, yeah, Muslim civilians were just the vast majority of casualties in those fights (at least several hundred times as many as dictators and extremists), almost exclusively killed by American strikes. But hey, they were only in the way of your righteous cause, so no harm done.
The problem is in America how are you going to tell the difference between this style of terrorist attack and all the other Spree Killings/Mass Murders?
Easy: if the shooter even remotely looks Muslim, it was terrorism, else it was unavoidable tragedy.
"Very liberal" was one of the many misspellings in his profile. He meant "very Libertarian". Also funny how your anti-Liberal source forgets to mention his dating profile also talked about how much he loved guns.
Nope. You establish criteria for classification reasons. If someone survives they were not killed, and the shooter faces a lesser charge. The criteria were established decades ago. It may seem heartless, but you have to set and stick to criteria.
So your definition of a mass shooting doesn't count how many people were shot, but killed. That's not heartless, that's fucking with the meaning of words to further an agenda.
Look, the Feds had all the information they needed to stop the Boston Marathon bombing. The problem was not surveillance. More or less surveillance would not have changed anything. The problem was, as you say, doing something with the information. Similarly, the appropriate Federal officials knew on September 10, 2001, that something involving aircraft was going to happen real soon.
GP was talking about spying, which you might want to reword as "surveillance". It's pointless to extend it, since we're getting more information than we can use as it is. We need to work on what we can do when we know of something going down.
So your argument is that what the US should do is arrest everybody that the Russians say is a dangerous terrorist with out any further checking and put them into a secret prison. Because "fact checking" aka spying would be in the way of true freedom.
just shows the current guns laws are shit and weak. i mean you can't even ask a customer to stop smoking in a restaurant with getting your head shot off any more. http://www.eater.com/2015/11/3...
As the gun nuts say: "Try taking it with your dead hands."
Properly worded so it makes actual sense - "started" - the USSR wouldn't be at the top of the list
The USSR did start the WW2 — by entering into the secret Pact with Hitler, and then collaborating with same in dividing up Poland. Fail.
So neither the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany nor the invasion in China by the Japanese count as the start of WW2? Or the first two weeks where Germany alone invaded Poland? Wow, that definition of when WW2 started is even odder than the "Pear Harbor, because that's when the US got involved" one.
I recently read an article on this, which unfortunately I can't find right now. But here was the summary:
There are 3 "mass shooting" counts. The 353 number from Reddit counts all incidents in which at least 4 people were shot. Whether they died from the gunshot wounds is not considered. An analysis showed that in 46% of these cases nobody died.
So no harm done then, ehh? "Guns don't kill people - not in 46% of cases anyway".
From what I know of the iPad, the first prototypes were Intel Atom based and got terrible battery life.
Yeah. Sure. The first iPad prototypes are actually older than the first iPhone prototypes, Yeah, I'm sure they used a CPU that came out after the iPhone. Snark aside, from TFA I just linked to:"The ARM chip looks like a variant of the Samsung S3C2410, which Ars Associate Writer Andrew Cunningham said is “a distant relative of the chip the first iPhone ended up using, just older and slower.”
And there's Apple creating that wonderful eco system again, by limiting useful features to their dying dinosaur of a browser, because that's the only reason safari even shows up in any browser lists, because apple forces you to use it.
Let's ignore the "dying dinosaur" bit (because while it is utter bullshit, is also just off-topic fluff)
Yes, Apple created a new content block feature for iOS 9 that is so much faster than what the others are doing, people actually find it a useful feature. Yes, it is (currently) limited just to Safari, because Apple wants to iron out the majority of bugs without having the bugs of other programs influence how those bugs actually show up - just like they did with the vastly improved Nitro JavaScript Engine in iOS 4.3. So just like with Nitro, they didn't take anything away from users of other browsers (or WebView apps). And like with Nitro, they will make the feature available to other browsers in later iOS versions.
But unlike Nitro, nobody needs Apple to include content blocking into their browser - iCab Mobile has been filtering stuff since it came to iOS in 2009 (IOW 2 years before Firefox for mobile even came out). So Mozilla's whining only wants to sidestep the issue why their browser still isn't able to do what a browser from a single guy can.
BTW, can anybody tell me what's so fucking special about Mozilla's blocker compared to the many hundreds already available?
Which content blocker for iOS 9 is the best? I have no clue, but I did test a bunch to find out which one is the fastest.... When I tried with all blockers on, I did not get the performance of the fastest blocker, and instead got performance on the slower side of the blockers tested. It is my recommendation that you only use one blocker at a time.
Technologically speaking I am not sure why they haven't done so yet. I can only imagine there is some reason like logistics that prevent them from doing so. Or is it a technological limit like contrast ratio that OLEDs are now starting to overcome.
Even if todays OLEDs have actually finally overcome their flaws, they still don't yield enough to feed Apple's production numbers.
You fail at math. 2/3 of 100, rounded up, is 67, not 60.
The last time any party had a 2/3 super-majority in the US senate was in 1965-67 (the Democrats.)
Not to mention that the Republicans were the same dicks back in 2008 they are now, so they wouldn't even had gotten one of them to agree with anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not really my "righteous cause", but I will quote you this:
What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
I would say the ploy is working, "righteousness" doesn't really enter the picture.
So propping up radical Islamists to fight the evil Soviet empire was the right thing to do? Is that your final answer?
I doubt, Hitler would've gone further without securing either British or Soviet support or, at the least, "neutrality" first.
Well, just like the British would have stopped Hitler after bringing Austria home into the Reich.
You have a far FAR higher chance of dyingb y one of the drooling morons shooting guns than ever being even hurt by a terrorist. You really need to understand what are the REAL risks in the world.
TERRORISIM will motivate the easily panicked quickly.
Fixed your first sentence for you. You must have missed how right the rest was.
because a fine young man is not a coward.
What is a coward? Somebody who kills thousands remotely with a drone, while sitting in an air-conditioned container in the Nevada desert, and get a medal of valour for it?
Funny thing is, all those evil Christians who were involved in the founding of this country voted for a Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion. It's that document all those evil Christians supported that guarantees the freedoms of Muslims and Hindus and Atheists in this country. And it's that very guarantee of religious freedom that so infuriates the radical Christians that dream of a world ruled under GOD Yahweh's laws
FTFY. And guess which group is actively trying to change those guarantees in the USA?
Muslims have had a beef with America as long as America has existed. Don't believe for a second that Muslims can't dish it out as good as they take it.
Yes, pretty much since Tripoli, where they made it abundantly clear that it was their divine duty to subjugate and pillage non believers.
While the Bible makes it clear that somebody has to tell Jews and Christians that GOD told them it was his will before they can do it.
Oh brother! So that's your game, eh?
Americans haven't waged war against Islam and Muslims per se; they have, however, fought dictators and extremists ...
Wanna keep playing?
Well, yeah, Muslim civilians were just the vast majority of casualties in those fights (at least several hundred times as many as dictators and extremists), almost exclusively killed by American strikes. But hey, they were only in the way of your righteous cause, so no harm done.
The problem is in America how are you going to tell the difference between this style of terrorist attack and all the other Spree Killings/Mass Murders?
Easy: if the shooter even remotely looks Muslim, it was terrorism, else it was unavoidable tragedy.
Also, I will point out that Syed Farook claimed to be politically "very liberal". That kinds of throws a monkey wrench into your "right-wing second amendment gun nut" idea, doesn't it?
"Very liberal" was one of the many misspellings in his profile. He meant "very Libertarian". Also funny how your anti-Liberal source forgets to mention his dating profile also talked about how much he loved guns.
Nope. You establish criteria for classification reasons. If someone survives they were not killed, and the shooter faces a lesser charge. The criteria were established decades ago. It may seem heartless, but you have to set and stick to criteria.
So your definition of a mass shooting doesn't count how many people were shot, but killed. That's not heartless, that's fucking with the meaning of words to further an agenda.
More people have died falling out of trees this year than from Islamic terrorism in the U.S. Get a fucking grip.
Well, Washington already knew what to do with those dangerous trees...
Look, the Feds had all the information they needed to stop the Boston Marathon bombing. The problem was not surveillance. More or less surveillance would not have changed anything. The problem was, as you say, doing something with the information. Similarly, the appropriate Federal officials knew on September 10, 2001, that something involving aircraft was going to happen real soon.
GP was talking about spying, which you might want to reword as "surveillance". It's pointless to extend it, since we're getting more information than we can use as it is. We need to work on what we can do when we know of something going down.
So your argument is that what the US should do is arrest everybody that the Russians say is a dangerous terrorist with out any further checking and put them into a secret prison. Because "fact checking" aka spying would be in the way of true freedom.
just shows the current guns laws are shit and weak. i mean you can't even ask a customer to stop smoking in a restaurant with getting your head shot off any more. http://www.eater.com/2015/11/3...
As the gun nuts say: "Try taking it with your dead hands."
Because the number of people dying a violent death in the US is declining .
Then terrorism shouldn't be reason to do anything different either.
The USSR did start the WW2 — by entering into the secret Pact with Hitler, and then collaborating with same in dividing up Poland. Fail.
So neither the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany nor the invasion in China by the Japanese count as the start of WW2? Or the first two weeks where Germany alone invaded Poland? Wow, that definition of when WW2 started is even odder than the "Pear Harbor, because that's when the US got involved" one.
I recently read an article on this, which unfortunately I can't find right now. But here was the summary:
There are 3 "mass shooting" counts. The 353 number from Reddit counts all incidents in which at least 4 people were shot. Whether they died from the gunshot wounds is not considered. An analysis showed that in 46% of these cases nobody died.
So no harm done then, ehh? "Guns don't kill people - not in 46% of cases anyway".
From what I know of the iPad, the first prototypes were Intel Atom based and got terrible battery life.
Yeah. Sure. The first iPad prototypes are actually older than the first iPhone prototypes, Yeah, I'm sure they used a CPU that came out after the iPhone. Snark aside, from TFA I just linked to:"The ARM chip looks like a variant of the Samsung S3C2410, which Ars Associate Writer Andrew Cunningham said is “a distant relative of the chip the first iPhone ended up using, just older and slower.”
And there's Apple creating that wonderful eco system again, by limiting useful features to their dying dinosaur of a browser, because that's the only reason safari even shows up in any browser lists, because apple forces you to use it.
Let's ignore the "dying dinosaur" bit (because while it is utter bullshit, is also just off-topic fluff)
Yes, Apple created a new content block feature for iOS 9 that is so much faster than what the others are doing, people actually find it a useful feature. Yes, it is (currently) limited just to Safari, because Apple wants to iron out the majority of bugs without having the bugs of other programs influence how those bugs actually show up - just like they did with the vastly improved Nitro JavaScript Engine in iOS 4.3. So just like with Nitro, they didn't take anything away from users of other browsers (or WebView apps). And like with Nitro, they will make the feature available to other browsers in later iOS versions.
But unlike Nitro, nobody needs Apple to include content blocking into their browser - iCab Mobile has been filtering stuff since it came to iOS in 2009 (IOW 2 years before Firefox for mobile even came out). So Mozilla's whining only wants to sidestep the issue why their browser still isn't able to do what a browser from a single guy can.
BTW, can anybody tell me what's so fucking special about Mozilla's blocker compared to the many hundreds already available?
Which content blocker for iOS 9 is the best? I have no clue, but I did test a bunch to find out which one is the fastest. ... When I tried with all blockers on, I did not get the performance of the fastest blocker, and instead got performance on the slower side of the blockers tested. It is my recommendation that you only use one blocker at a time.
Wow, I was wrong after all - it was the evidence you just pulled out of your ass, not a monkey. A monkey would have been better though.
Technologically speaking I am not sure why they haven't done so yet. I can only imagine there is some reason like logistics that prevent them from doing so. Or is it a technological limit like contrast ratio that OLEDs are now starting to overcome.
Even if todays OLEDs have actually finally overcome their flaws, they still don't yield enough to feed Apple's production numbers.
For those who don't know, Samsung marketed this digital picture frame in 2006, long before the iPad was even a rumor, and even pre-dating the iPhone.
But not before what would be the iPad was sold as a Tablet Mac rumor (or rather Patent) in 2005. Note that the Samsung picture frame is not a copy of that patent, because it actually doesn't look all that much like it.
Apple takes a VERY long view or things, at least when Steve was around.
The recent report that Apple would be "using OLEDs In iPhone Models From 2018" would indicate they still do.
You fail at math. 2/3 of 100, rounded up, is 67, not 60.
The last time any party had a 2/3 super-majority in the US senate was in 1965-67 (the Democrats.)
Not to mention that the Republicans were the same dicks back in 2008 they are now, so they wouldn't even had gotten one of them to agree with anything.
"Robert Dear, Allen Lawrence Scarsella, Nathan Gustavsson, Daniel Macey, Joseph Backman, and Timothy McVeigh"
What organized group did they all belong to other than Crackpot?
Citizens of the United States. So yeah, Crackpot is a synonym judging by the posters here.