There's this utterly stupid notion that passwords can be cracked online in a vacuum, unencumbered by real life safeguards to prevent exactly that kind of thing.
I've been visiting Slashdot for quite a number of years now, and I don't agree with this assessment. Slashdot used to be a bunch of cranky Linux / Open Source guys, mixed with some unix graybeards. Now the place is overrun with foaming-at-the-mouth Android fans, intent on berating anything that isn't Android.
I realize that this sounds ridiculous when applied to Slashdot, but truth be told, the quality of discourse around these parts has gone into the shitter in the last two years or so.
Now they have a patent on a store-presentation that they ripped off 5000 other stores? I keep checking my calendar, and it keeps failing to be April 1st.
I keep waiting for this to be National Reading Comprehension Day, but it keeps failing to materialize. But for the record (and I realize this is slashdot, so the standards are low) if you will carefully examine TFS you will notice that a patent has not, in fact, been issued on the Apple store.
Of course it's easy for criminals to get their hands on guns today. That's the whole point. Close the loopholes, make gun show sales traceable, and that problem starts to disappear.
My AR10 will take out a fully armored military personnel easily. and remember, the military fires FMJ rounds. I'll be firing hunting rounds that when I hit his arm, it will blow off.
Sounds like a good reason to start limiting the weapons you can buy, then.
They're also armed with an irrational belief that God is on their side, and a death wish. Small arms and IEDs in the hands of an insurgent force who ISN'T fighting out of insanity?
Wait, are we still talking about the Middle East, or gun nuts?
Sarcasm aside, it means they require extra effort for the bad guys to get their hands on. The point is to deter, not eliminate entirely. The notion that one has to eliminate 100% of something in order for the effort to be effective is a straw-man argument.
According to your rationale, blacks should still be forced to use seperate facilities for everything, and women shouldn't have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Do you really think that way? I doubt it; rather, I think you're trying to act like this issue is somehow different, even though armament ownership is protected under the same document as equal rights and free speech.
That's a specious argument. The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons. Again, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about what kind of arms.
By your logic, the Second Amendment should allow for every citizen (mentally ill or not) to own a fully-automatic military-grade firearm. Since we know that there are in fact legal limits in place regarding fully-automatic weapons, we can conclude that your logic is faulty. The right to bear arms is not, in fact, an unlimited right. This is an inconvenient truth for the gun nuts out there, but the fact is that there is NOT an unconditional right to own any arms that you choose. The only question, then, is where the line is. Given the current climate, coupled with the unrepentant defiance of the idiots who are currently running the NRA, I think it's a fair bet that the line is about to be moved. I would even go so far as to say that the NRA's position has convinced many Americans that the time to eliminate assault rifles is now. They've hurt their cause. Way to go, NRA.
Namely, ensuring that coddled, idiot suburbanites who are under the impression that every American lives in a situation identical to their own do not take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.
Your constitutional right to protect yourself doesn't have to include assault weapons. And anyway, I hold it as self-evident that situations all over America would be improved if there were no assault weapons AND no handguns available.
Ever been to bear country? I'm guessing no. Had you have, you would realize that, in certain areas of this nation, there is a need for high caliber, semi-automatic rifles in order to protect our families and livelihoods from apex predator attack.
That exception (if it's really even a legitimate exception -- a casual web search says that you've grossly exaggerated the reality) doesn't mean that all Americans, everywhere, need unfettered access to assault weapons with no background checks. All rights -- even the right to free speech -- have limits. To argue that the Second Amendment gives you unlimited rights is just stupid to the point of being able to discount everything else you've said. Of course it has limits. Get over it.
I know it's asking a lot to expect people to realize that opinions are subjective, and that your living arrangements do not accurately reflect the situations of all 360,000,000 Americans, but that won't ever stop me from trying to enlighten.
By the same token, I don't think you realize that the easy access to guns has made living in a large city a nightmare. What you're probably not realizing is that there are more of us in cities than there are those of you out in the hinterlands, and that demographic is increasingly moving toward concentration of the population in cities. At this point, our need to limit access to guns is far more dire than for your narrow exceptions regarding bobcats and bears. Sorry if that doesn't bode well for you and your family, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Might want to invest in some pepper spray.
Sorry, man. You're going to lose this one. And there's really nothing you can do about it. Assault weapons are going to be eliminated. If not now, then soon.
Poll title: CNN Poll: Majority approve of Obama and Biden in advance of gun control announcement
You should try reading the article. You might find it has a bit more to say than that.
Let me guess, you went to Google, punched in something like "Majority approve gun control poll," and C&P'd the first legitimate looking link you saw, without even taking 2 seconds to read the damn page title.
Actually, I found the article this morning on the front page of CNN during my morning reading.
Let me guess: you read the title and didn't read any farther than that. Amiright?
Brilliant work there, Hoss. Tell ya what, you keep living a fantasy, reveling in your narcissistic, falsely inflated sense of mental superiority, and I'll keep laughing my ass off at your pathetic attempts to denigrate me.
My motivation is entirely on eliminating assault rifles from the hands of lunatics.
My apologies, I did not realize I was talking to a child, or rather, a person with the reasoning skills of a child. From now on, I'll do my best to stick to monosyllabics, so that maybe you'll be able to comprehend some of the big-boy topics being discussed.
I'm fairly confident that anyone who reads this exchange will know who the adult is. Not worried one bit.
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough". Assault rifles have no place in the hands of amateurs. Arguments to the contrary, though they may be shrill and frequent, are pitiful in their desperation.
The First Amendment guarantees you Free Speech and Free Press. It certainly doesn't guarantee you an uncensored Internet. So let's restrict the definition of "free press" to manually typeset and operated printing presses, and "free speech" to anything you can say with NO artificial aids (no loudspeakers, no radio, no telephone, no tv, no internet).
That work for you?
When you can prove that free speech is responsible for slaughtering children, sure. Go for it. The right to speak and the right to assault rifles aren't exactly on equal ground, and I think you will find shortly that most of the residents of the United States agree.
So you want to eliminate 2/3rds of the self-defense situations out there (not counting military because mostly that's not self-defense) before granting us the privilege of proving to you we *need* something the bill of rights guarantees???
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that you can bear arms. It certainly doesn't guarantee you assault rifles or high-capacity clips. You're guaranteed the right to bear arms, alright. So lets restrict the definition of "arms" to muzzle-loading black powder long rifles.
See, that's where you're wrong. It's not what the government wants, it's what the people want. We want less guns on the streets. We want an absolute end to assault rifles. We are not afraid of our government. Just because you're paranoid and delusional does not mean the rest of us have to be armed to the teeth.
Personally, I find academic code -- that found in textbooks and other teaching materials -- to be poor specimens. These are examples that teach methods and concepts, but utterly fail to account for edge cases and real-world scenarios. Real-world code may not always be pretty, but it is a lot more comprehensive than what you will find in textbooks.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
There's this utterly stupid notion that passwords can be cracked online in a vacuum, unencumbered by real life safeguards to prevent exactly that kind of thing.
I defer to your four-digit ID. What do you think Slashdot was like five years ago. What do you think of it today? Do you think it's better, or worse?
Nah. Life is too short to spend time listening to the rantings of a lunatic.
I've been visiting Slashdot for quite a number of years now, and I don't agree with this assessment. Slashdot used to be a bunch of cranky Linux / Open Source guys, mixed with some unix graybeards. Now the place is overrun with foaming-at-the-mouth Android fans, intent on berating anything that isn't Android.
I realize that this sounds ridiculous when applied to Slashdot, but truth be told, the quality of discourse around these parts has gone into the shitter in the last two years or so.
Now they have a patent on a store-presentation that they ripped off 5000 other stores? I keep checking my calendar, and it keeps failing to be April 1st.
I keep waiting for this to be National Reading Comprehension Day, but it keeps failing to materialize. But for the record (and I realize this is slashdot, so the standards are low) if you will carefully examine TFS you will notice that a patent has not, in fact, been issued on the Apple store.
Please go back and re-read TFS. We'll wait.
The summary gives the impression this is a patent
No, it doesn't. Read it again.
Of course it's easy for criminals to get their hands on guns today. That's the whole point. Close the loopholes, make gun show sales traceable, and that problem starts to disappear.
Duh!
*Cough*Bullshit*Cough*
Enough with the Fantasy Warrior schtick. You sound utterly ridiculous at this point.
My AR10 will take out a fully armored military personnel easily. and remember, the military fires FMJ rounds. I'll be firing hunting rounds that when I hit his arm, it will blow off.
Sounds like a good reason to start limiting the weapons you can buy, then.
They're also armed with an irrational belief that God is on their side, and a death wish. Small arms and IEDs in the hands of an insurgent force who ISN'T fighting out of insanity?
Wait, are we still talking about the Middle East, or gun nuts?
Sarcasm aside, it means they require extra effort for the bad guys to get their hands on. The point is to deter, not eliminate entirely. The notion that one has to eliminate 100% of something in order for the effort to be effective is a straw-man argument.
Have you actually listened to the two songs, side by side?
Go listen, then come back. We'll be here.
According to your rationale, blacks should still be forced to use seperate facilities for everything, and women shouldn't have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Do you really think that way? I doubt it; rather, I think you're trying to act like this issue is somehow different, even though armament ownership is protected under the same document as equal rights and free speech.
That's a specious argument. The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons. Again, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about what kind of arms.
By your logic, the Second Amendment should allow for every citizen (mentally ill or not) to own a fully-automatic military-grade firearm. Since we know that there are in fact legal limits in place regarding fully-automatic weapons, we can conclude that your logic is faulty. The right to bear arms is not, in fact, an unlimited right. This is an inconvenient truth for the gun nuts out there, but the fact is that there is NOT an unconditional right to own any arms that you choose. The only question, then, is where the line is. Given the current climate, coupled with the unrepentant defiance of the idiots who are currently running the NRA, I think it's a fair bet that the line is about to be moved. I would even go so far as to say that the NRA's position has convinced many Americans that the time to eliminate assault rifles is now. They've hurt their cause. Way to go, NRA.
Namely, ensuring that coddled, idiot suburbanites who are under the impression that every American lives in a situation identical to their own do not take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.
Your constitutional right to protect yourself doesn't have to include assault weapons. And anyway, I hold it as self-evident that situations all over America would be improved if there were no assault weapons AND no handguns available.
Ever been to bear country? I'm guessing no. Had you have, you would realize that, in certain areas of this nation, there is a need for high caliber, semi-automatic rifles in order to protect our families and livelihoods from apex predator attack.
That exception (if it's really even a legitimate exception -- a casual web search says that you've grossly exaggerated the reality) doesn't mean that all Americans, everywhere, need unfettered access to assault weapons with no background checks. All rights -- even the right to free speech -- have limits. To argue that the Second Amendment gives you unlimited rights is just stupid to the point of being able to discount everything else you've said. Of course it has limits. Get over it.
I know it's asking a lot to expect people to realize that opinions are subjective, and that your living arrangements do not accurately reflect the situations of all 360,000,000 Americans, but that won't ever stop me from trying to enlighten.
By the same token, I don't think you realize that the easy access to guns has made living in a large city a nightmare. What you're probably not realizing is that there are more of us in cities than there are those of you out in the hinterlands, and that demographic is increasingly moving toward concentration of the population in cities. At this point, our need to limit access to guns is far more dire than for your narrow exceptions regarding bobcats and bears. Sorry if that doesn't bode well for you and your family, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Might want to invest in some pepper spray.
Sorry, man. You're going to lose this one. And there's really nothing you can do about it. Assault weapons are going to be eliminated. If not now, then soon.
Poll title:
CNN Poll: Majority approve of Obama and Biden in advance of gun control announcement
You should try reading the article. You might find it has a bit more to say than that.
Let me guess, you went to Google, punched in something like "Majority approve gun control poll," and C&P'd the first legitimate looking link you saw, without even taking 2 seconds to read the damn page title.
Actually, I found the article this morning on the front page of CNN during my morning reading.
Let me guess: you read the title and didn't read any farther than that. Amiright?
Brilliant work there, Hoss. Tell ya what, you keep living a fantasy, reveling in your narcissistic, falsely inflated sense of mental superiority, and I'll keep laughing my ass off at your pathetic attempts to denigrate me.
My motivation is entirely on eliminating assault rifles from the hands of lunatics.
What's your motivation?
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough".
Bull. Shit.
Oh look, how timely: a poll showing that a majority of Americans want stricter gun controls:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnn-poll-majority-approve-of-obama-biden-in-advance-of-gun-control-announcement/?hpt=hp_t1
Me and the mouse in my pocket will be over here, with the rest of the adults.
My apologies, I did not realize I was talking to a child, or rather, a person with the reasoning skills of a child. From now on, I'll do my best to stick to monosyllabics, so that maybe you'll be able to comprehend some of the big-boy topics being discussed.
I'm fairly confident that anyone who reads this exchange will know who the adult is. Not worried one bit.
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough". Assault rifles have no place in the hands of amateurs. Arguments to the contrary, though they may be shrill and frequent, are pitiful in their desperation.
The First Amendment guarantees you Free Speech and Free Press. It certainly doesn't guarantee you an uncensored Internet. So let's restrict the definition of "free press" to manually typeset and operated printing presses, and "free speech" to anything you can say with NO artificial aids (no loudspeakers, no radio, no telephone, no tv, no internet).
That work for you?
When you can prove that free speech is responsible for slaughtering children, sure. Go for it. The right to speak and the right to assault rifles aren't exactly on equal ground, and I think you will find shortly that most of the residents of the United States agree.
So you want to eliminate 2/3rds of the self-defense situations out there (not counting military because mostly that's not self-defense) before granting us the privilege of proving to you we *need* something the bill of rights guarantees???
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that you can bear arms. It certainly doesn't guarantee you assault rifles or high-capacity clips. You're guaranteed the right to bear arms, alright. So lets restrict the definition of "arms" to muzzle-loading black powder long rifles.
TWX never said anything resembling what you labeled as "Statement 2". Either you are mistaken, or you were being deliberately deceitful. Which is it?
See, that's where you're wrong. It's not what the government wants, it's what the people want. We want less guns on the streets. We want an absolute end to assault rifles. We are not afraid of our government. Just because you're paranoid and delusional does not mean the rest of us have to be armed to the teeth.
Get help. This is no way to live your life.
You could also try not to give the bad guys guns.
You're making the rash assumption that a Dunkin Donuts customer will ever return again after their first visit.
Do you even know what a design patent is?
Guess what: they're not the kind of patents that you usually find subject to FRAND obligations.
Personally, I find academic code -- that found in textbooks and other teaching materials -- to be poor specimens. These are examples that teach methods and concepts, but utterly fail to account for edge cases and real-world scenarios. Real-world code may not always be pretty, but it is a lot more comprehensive than what you will find in textbooks.
The author of the TFA is, IMHO, misguided.