I'm left handed and wear my watch on my left hand.
As a fellow lefty, I used to do that. After about 10 years of smashed watch crystals, I finally figured out why people don't do that. Its always been on my right for the last three decades.
One of the biggest problems as I see it is that many customers don't seem to understand where their responsibilities end and the company providing the services begins. In the case of a service provider, as far as I see it no matter what the service is, if it is reaching your home, they are doing their job. The fact that we provided free general (but not specific) assistance for our customers equipment shouldn't mean that if we couldn't find the exact problem with their piece of equipment, but could prove it was the equipment causing the issue, that it was some how a failing on our end, but many customers see it exactly that way.
I personally appreciate this attitude. In general, I don't want my cable company poking into my equipment. However, I'm a guy who knows networking enough that he's written his own realtime UDP/IP stack, clear down to the hardware. And hell a lot of this still confuses ME.
Take the average Joe Blow, who might have gotten a cable-modem wireless router combo set up and working for them once, but has no understanding of how it works. If something has gone wrong in there, and you can't help them past the signal into their cable-modem being good, they are quite frankly fucked.
Plus, frankly I've gone through this a lot, and the problem is always on the cable company's side. Their most common screw-up is their DNS server dying. That looks to their first 2 tiers of support like their signal is just fine (because it is). All my computers use Google's DNS servers now, thanks to how often that happens. Can't do that with mobile devices, sadly.
Look, it's clear you don't understand the law about handling classified information.
The projection never ends, does it? You are talking with someone who has in the past held clearances at multiple levels over a cumulative period of about 20 years. Someone who knows from experience just how often mishandling happens, and what levels of it are routine and what tend to get brought to authorities. I'm not a lawyer though. So even with all my experience (perhaps because of it?) where criminality is concerned I will defer to the wisdom of those who are. Whenever asked, they will tell you there's no obvious crime here. But you don't have to even listen to or believe their words, look at their actions. She's not charged with any crime, it doesn't appear she's going to be charged with any crime. Our justice system isn't a computer program. Its run by people, and those people get to decide what's a violation of the law and what isn't. They clearly have decided. On every level here, you are just wrong.
So I'd submit it is clearly (as born out by events) you who does not understand how the laws about handling classified information work in practice
Everyone has a point of view (bias). What really amazes me is how often people self-righteously accuse others of doing the exact thing they are engaged in. I was sticking to generalized facts in everything I said, unlike the post I was responding to, which was entirely unproven opposition-sourced claims about a specific person.
Facts are stubborn things and Hillary CLEARLY broke the law and lied about it multiple times with this E-mail thing,
OK, lets engage in some of those stubborn facts then.
FACT: Clinton has been charged with nothing.
FACT: its NOT clear that she broke any law. If it were "clear" there would be charges, and thereafter most likely a conviction. Our litmus test for such things is the court system, and the fact that nobody has even bothered to submit all this to it tells you unequivocally that there's no good case for an illegal action on her part here.
FACT: Such a sequence of events would be far less useful for a political opponent than some nebulous claims about same, because then she wouldn't have been elected to represent her party, and they'd have to dig up/make up dirt about somebody else. Doing same is inarguably the standard MO of an opposition campaign, and arguably its responsibility.
Unlike what I was responding to, the above is non-partisan and factual.
He has less money today that he would if he'd invested his inheritance in a S&P 500 mutual fund. Beating the S&P 500 is pretty much THE standard for an investment. If you can't do that, you are wasting time and money. Face it, he's just a rich guy playing with what his daddy left him.
I was in the building trades and he was very well liked by both union men (which I was) and professional men (which I became).
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
I get the impression he'd be OK with that. The reason he gave for fleeing was not that he was afraid of doing jail time. There's a long history in this country of accepting punishment in jail as a matter of conscience. No, he was afraid of being put to death for treason, or worse put into the Bush-era torture system. If he thought he could be guaranteed neither of those would happen, I suspect he'd love to come back to the USA and face trial. Particularly a nice big public one.
Now granting a pardon for Hillary? I'm pretty sure he won't do that because...
...there's nothing to pardon. She hasn't actually broken any laws. If she had, that would actually have been inconvenient for her opponents, because real lawbreaking requires annoying things like speedy trials. However, pretend lawbreaking, ethically shaky behavior if you squint and hold your head juuuust right, deaths of friends that can be twisted to look "suspicious", that crap can be made up and touted endlessly. If there's nothing real to it, that's actual way better because you can keep harping on the made-up crap for years, and claim the lack of prosecutions on your made-up crap is proof not that you are full of it, but that there's a big conspiracy and oodles of corruption.
A real scandal like with John Edwards or William J. Jefferson (of $ in the freezer fame) burns out way too quickly.
The only pardon of Clinton that would do anything to stop the BS would be something along the lines of "I hereby pardon HRC for any and all fabricated charges the right-wing Republican mind could possibly invent in the next 4, or the past 20 years. This includes but is not limited to activities relating to, making money, losing money, being wrong while Sec of State, being right while Sec. of State, receiving email from other people, firing barbers, murdering suicidal friends, torturing interns, molesting puppies, and murdering the Pope."
Have you done C++ recently, with all the warnings turned on (as one should)? It will complain about any implicit numeric conversions that might potentially lose bits of information, forcing you perform an explicit conversion to prove to the compiler you really mean to do that, just like in Ada. This includes formerly everyday conversions like size_t to unsigned (or int). The typical syntax is even the same ( "typename(object)" ). It will also complain about any pointer conversion to different pointer target types, also forcing you to perform an explicit conversion, just like in Ada. In this case the Ada-ese is "function reinterpret is new system.unchecked_conversion(newptr_type); newptr:= reinterpret(oldptr);", and the C++-ese is "newptr = std::reinterpret_cast<newptr_type>(oldptr);". The difference is only a minor matter of syntax.
Well, that and that with C++ its warnings instead of errors, which most C++ people I bump into argue is actually a bad thing. They'd really rather it was proper errors like with Ada, but they've got the legacy problem. So the typical advice is "compile with all checks on, and treat all warnings as errors".
I enjoyed the hell out of that show. Still, I'm not sure about doing it in class, as just watching a video isn't all that interactive. It would perhaps be a good project for a kid to make a Civ-style tech tree poster out of an episode or two.
That being said, the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Always has been, always will be.
Also the most mythical. A real dictatorship is like being forced to support a football team whose coach can never be replaced, no matter how badly the team performs. Sure, sometimes coaches get replaced over things that aren't their fault. But sometimes they just suck.
If you don't have a peaceful way to replace a leader who has become unacceptable to the people, eventually violence is assured. A government run by dictatorship is inherently unstable.
I don't know how you'd model this in-game though. I always pictured my role in the Civ series as sort of the personification of the collective will of the country (which is an evolving but immortal thing). You aren't really the "ruler". That's "Genghis Khan" or whoever you picked at the start.
That one's really a sort of crypto-programming game, isn't it? I like the idea of those for teaching programming skills. However, I'd rather see ones that are a bit more creative, like movie creators. I like the idea of violent robots as much as the next guy (OK, perhaps a bit more than the next guy...), but they aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Too much speed-clicking for my taste, but otherwise cool. That's the problem with RTS games, it tends to come down to who can scroll around the board and keep track of things at the most frenetic pace, not actual strategy.
The only one I ever played that I thought got the management level right was Majesty. In that one, you couldn't actually control your units, just build them. You could encourage them to go certain places with bounties, but really city structure placement had as much influence over that as your bounties did. So your job was just to build structures and units intelligently.
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
That's interesting. I lived in NOLA for 4 years back in the late 80's, and heard the same thing. The reason was supposedly that cops would almost never show up for the court date, and you'd win by default. Had a guy on my hall arrested for jaywalking (in actuality, for bumping into a cop and apologizing in a New England accent), who did exactly this.
I'd figured in the intervening years, particularly with the post-Katrina police force, things would have changed. Chalk one up for the endurance of culture, I guess.
While I generally agree, Ada's type system was too strong at the same time, thereby making it harder to do some things.
Its actually very similar to the type-enforcement level modern C++ has if you use the industry-standard level of warnings. The only reason it got that reputation is because people were comparing it with C, which basically has none. Back in the day K&R C didn't even require you to define your functions. The compiler would just assume all parameters were "int" (God help you if one was supposed to be float). People used to that level of laxity couldn't deal with Ada, but a modern C++ programmer who is religious about fixing warnings today wouldn't bat an eyelash at it.
Nope. Ada has all that, and has had it since before C++ existed. It even has an organization set up to validate Ada compilers, so that lazy vendors (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) can't plausibly put out supposed Ada compilers that aren't even close to conformant.
What's more, its actually a more capable language. Every update of C++ since its inception has been adding more features that Ada had for decades. Range-based for loops? Had 'em in 1983. Strongly-typed enums? Had 'em in 1983. Even with this new update, C++ still doesn't have an analog to Ada's features for record layout specification and concurrent programming from the 1983 version of the language. That means its still inferior both for portable low-level programming (which is supposed to be C++'s forte) and concurrent programming.
However, it is still way way way more complex than Ada. So its got that going for it. If you wanna write an API using generic programming techniques that presents the client with a 6-screen error message for a simple one-character typo, C++ is your language.
I'm not terribly convinced that Civilization... is a particularly good choice: it is 'history themed'; but fundamentally designed around being a fun game;
I was just playing it a bit last night. Still a fun game. But other than a little blurb on the start screen when you pick your Civ, there isn't a lot of real history content. I guess the tech tree does enforce the point that all inventions are built on the foundation of previous ones, but you could do that just as well by tacking the tech tree poster to the classroom wall, and moving on with your life.
Note that Civ VI is coming out this year. So my guess for what is going on here is that they know from past experience that sales for the previous game will disappear the instant that happens. So this is their marketing department trying to find a way get to still in some bucks from an otherwise obsolete property. Their name IS Take Two after all...
It's the same thing with people like Magellan or your very own Columbus. So much of what we were taught about these people was so very wrong it's appalling
That's the thing: How history as taught to schoolkids is and has always been completely political. Its about teaching kids the "proper" foundational mythology. If that makes it so whitewashed that its boring, more's the better. Then kids won't go off on their own and learn about the bad things their ancestors did (or worse yet, their government is still doing).
On the plus side, the result tends to be so boring that kids don't actually learn much of this BS. I think kids are actually a lot smarter here than we give them credit for. Those of us who got interested in History in general did so off of our own research, not through school.
Obligatory plug: Wikipedia today is a great resource, but if you have questions about history, check out the History StackExchange site
As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs
Technically speaking, Poles would be "second worlders". The original formulation was a Cold War thing, and Poland was in the Russian "Second world" block.
Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation. As desirable as a more lenient approach from Germany and others would be, it won't change Greek history of the 2000s.
The Greeks managed their country in the 2000s the same way they always have. If Germany and the rest of the EU didn't like that, and weren't willing to accept the risk that represented, they shouldn't have let them join the club during their boom years.
There is no chance that Northern Ireland would choose to join the Republic of Ireland. There are deep seated sectarian divisions that make this impossible.
Perhaps, but there's a very good chance there will be a vote on the subject. If you thought the Brexit campaigning was ugly, racist, and violent before, just wait until you see that campaign in Northern Ireland. They only stopped murdering each other over this same issue a decade or so ago. What happens when that scab is ripped off?
The democrats do not want to get rid of the no-fly rule; they do not want to make the list public and YOU KNOW THAT
Actually, rather a lot of them do. I "KNOW THAT", because I have Twitter and I read what they actually say. They would actually like to debate the no-fly list, and make it less problematic, (yes, along with preventing people on it from buying guns).
The point is that list, with all its problems, exists today. Refusing to do anything is endorsing it. The only way to fix those problems is to debate, amend, and pass a bill on the subject. A Congress from my youth would have worked out a compromise to do both, and thus make a majority of its members happy enough to vote for it. Republicans are refusing to do anything like that. Yes, its true that they don't want guns restricted in this way (or in any other way). However, they also don't want the authoritarian and (IMHO anti-American) aspects of the no-fly list changed. They just flat out like the status-quo.
You see, it turns out voter registration database are a matter of Public Record. Not only are they not private, but states are legally required to provide them to citizens upon request.
Note that a state's voter registration records are NOT private data. Its public record, and anybody has a right to ask for it. For example, here's a link to where you can get the entire registration database for my state.
Voter registration records include voters' name, address, date of birth, political affiliation, voter ID number, precinct and voting history, technology center district, school district and municipality.
I used to have a copy for my precinct on my hard-drive. A candidate just up and emailed it to me, unasked.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm left handed and wear my watch on my left hand.
As a fellow lefty, I used to do that. After about 10 years of smashed watch crystals, I finally figured out why people don't do that. Its always been on my right for the last three decades.
I may be slow, but I can learn.
One of the biggest problems as I see it is that many customers don't seem to understand where their responsibilities end and the company providing the services begins. In the case of a service provider, as far as I see it no matter what the service is, if it is reaching your home, they are doing their job. The fact that we provided free general (but not specific) assistance for our customers equipment shouldn't mean that if we couldn't find the exact problem with their piece of equipment, but could prove it was the equipment causing the issue, that it was some how a failing on our end, but many customers see it exactly that way.
I personally appreciate this attitude. In general, I don't want my cable company poking into my equipment. However, I'm a guy who knows networking enough that he's written his own realtime UDP/IP stack, clear down to the hardware. And hell a lot of this still confuses ME.
Take the average Joe Blow, who might have gotten a cable-modem wireless router combo set up and working for them once, but has no understanding of how it works. If something has gone wrong in there, and you can't help them past the signal into their cable-modem being good, they are quite frankly fucked.
Plus, frankly I've gone through this a lot, and the problem is always on the cable company's side. Their most common screw-up is their DNS server dying. That looks to their first 2 tiers of support like their signal is just fine (because it is). All my computers use Google's DNS servers now, thanks to how often that happens. Can't do that with mobile devices, sadly.
Look, it's clear you don't understand the law about handling classified information.
The projection never ends, does it? You are talking with someone who has in the past held clearances at multiple levels over a cumulative period of about 20 years. Someone who knows from experience just how often mishandling happens, and what levels of it are routine and what tend to get brought to authorities. I'm not a lawyer though. So even with all my experience (perhaps because of it?) where criminality is concerned I will defer to the wisdom of those who are. Whenever asked, they will tell you there's no obvious crime here. But you don't have to even listen to or believe their words, look at their actions. She's not charged with any crime, it doesn't appear she's going to be charged with any crime. Our justice system isn't a computer program. Its run by people, and those people get to decide what's a violation of the law and what isn't. They clearly have decided. On every level here, you are just wrong. So I'd submit it is clearly (as born out by events) you who does not understand how the laws about handling classified information work in practice
Oh. Not one of those games where robots fight each other then?
You do realize how partisan you are right?
Everyone has a point of view (bias). What really amazes me is how often people self-righteously accuse others of doing the exact thing they are engaged in. I was sticking to generalized facts in everything I said, unlike the post I was responding to, which was entirely unproven opposition-sourced claims about a specific person.
Facts are stubborn things and Hillary CLEARLY broke the law and lied about it multiple times with this E-mail thing,
OK, lets engage in some of those stubborn facts then.
FACT: Clinton has been charged with nothing.
FACT: its NOT clear that she broke any law. If it were "clear" there would be charges, and thereafter most likely a conviction. Our litmus test for such things is the court system, and the fact that nobody has even bothered to submit all this to it tells you unequivocally that there's no good case for an illegal action on her part here.
FACT: Such a sequence of events would be far less useful for a political opponent than some nebulous claims about same, because then she wouldn't have been elected to represent her party, and they'd have to dig up/make up dirt about somebody else. Doing same is inarguably the standard MO of an opposition campaign, and arguably its responsibility.
Unlike what I was responding to, the above is non-partisan and factual.
He didn't make it simply by Daddy's money.
He has less money today that he would if he'd invested his inheritance in a S&P 500 mutual fund. Beating the S&P 500 is pretty much THE standard for an investment. If you can't do that, you are wasting time and money. Face it, he's just a rich guy playing with what his daddy left him.
I was in the building trades and he was very well liked by both union men (which I was) and professional men (which I became).
...while building with illegal immigrant labor.
Do not take this as me being a Donald Trump supporter for his presidential run
When you are defending him against 100% correct charges, you call it what you will, and we will call it what we will.
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
I get the impression he'd be OK with that. The reason he gave for fleeing was not that he was afraid of doing jail time. There's a long history in this country of accepting punishment in jail as a matter of conscience. No, he was afraid of being put to death for treason, or worse put into the Bush-era torture system. If he thought he could be guaranteed neither of those would happen, I suspect he'd love to come back to the USA and face trial. Particularly a nice big public one.
Now granting a pardon for Hillary? I'm pretty sure he won't do that because ...
...there's nothing to pardon. She hasn't actually broken any laws. If she had, that would actually have been inconvenient for her opponents, because real lawbreaking requires annoying things like speedy trials. However, pretend lawbreaking, ethically shaky behavior if you squint and hold your head juuuust right, deaths of friends that can be twisted to look "suspicious", that crap can be made up and touted endlessly. If there's nothing real to it, that's actual way better because you can keep harping on the made-up crap for years, and claim the lack of prosecutions on your made-up crap is proof not that you are full of it, but that there's a big conspiracy and oodles of corruption.
A real scandal like with John Edwards or William J. Jefferson (of $ in the freezer fame) burns out way too quickly.
The only pardon of Clinton that would do anything to stop the BS would be something along the lines of "I hereby pardon HRC for any and all fabricated charges the right-wing Republican mind could possibly invent in the next 4, or the past 20 years. This includes but is not limited to activities relating to, making money, losing money, being wrong while Sec of State, being right while Sec. of State, receiving email from other people, firing barbers, murdering suicidal friends, torturing interns, molesting puppies, and murdering the Pope."
Have you done C++ recently, with all the warnings turned on (as one should)? It will complain about any implicit numeric conversions that might potentially lose bits of information, forcing you perform an explicit conversion to prove to the compiler you really mean to do that, just like in Ada. This includes formerly everyday conversions like size_t to unsigned (or int). The typical syntax is even the same ( "typename(object)" ). It will also complain about any pointer conversion to different pointer target types, also forcing you to perform an explicit conversion, just like in Ada. In this case the Ada-ese is "function reinterpret is new system.unchecked_conversion(newptr_type); newptr := reinterpret(oldptr);", and the C++-ese is "newptr = std::reinterpret_cast<newptr_type>(oldptr);". The difference is only a minor matter of syntax.
Well, that and that with C++ its warnings instead of errors, which most C++ people I bump into argue is actually a bad thing. They'd really rather it was proper errors like with Ada, but they've got the legacy problem. So the typical advice is "compile with all checks on, and treat all warnings as errors".
I enjoyed the hell out of that show. Still, I'm not sure about doing it in class, as just watching a video isn't all that interactive. It would perhaps be a good project for a kid to make a Civ-style tech tree poster out of an episode or two.
That being said, the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Always has been, always will be.
Also the most mythical. A real dictatorship is like being forced to support a football team whose coach can never be replaced, no matter how badly the team performs. Sure, sometimes coaches get replaced over things that aren't their fault. But sometimes they just suck.
If you don't have a peaceful way to replace a leader who has become unacceptable to the people, eventually violence is assured. A government run by dictatorship is inherently unstable.
I don't know how you'd model this in-game though. I always pictured my role in the Civ series as sort of the personification of the collective will of the country (which is an evolving but immortal thing). You aren't really the "ruler". That's "Genghis Khan" or whoever you picked at the start.
That one's really a sort of crypto-programming game, isn't it? I like the idea of those for teaching programming skills. However, I'd rather see ones that are a bit more creative, like movie creators. I like the idea of violent robots as much as the next guy (OK, perhaps a bit more than the next guy...), but they aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Too much speed-clicking for my taste, but otherwise cool. That's the problem with RTS games, it tends to come down to who can scroll around the board and keep track of things at the most frenetic pace, not actual strategy.
The only one I ever played that I thought got the management level right was Majesty. In that one, you couldn't actually control your units, just build them. You could encourage them to go certain places with bounties, but really city structure placement had as much influence over that as your bounties did. So your job was just to build structures and units intelligently.
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
That's interesting. I lived in NOLA for 4 years back in the late 80's, and heard the same thing. The reason was supposedly that cops would almost never show up for the court date, and you'd win by default. Had a guy on my hall arrested for jaywalking (in actuality, for bumping into a cop and apologizing in a New England accent), who did exactly this.
I'd figured in the intervening years, particularly with the post-Katrina police force, things would have changed. Chalk one up for the endurance of culture, I guess.
While I generally agree, Ada's type system was too strong at the same time, thereby making it harder to do some things.
Its actually very similar to the type-enforcement level modern C++ has if you use the industry-standard level of warnings. The only reason it got that reputation is because people were comparing it with C, which basically has none. Back in the day K&R C didn't even require you to define your functions. The compiler would just assume all parameters were "int" (God help you if one was supposed to be float). People used to that level of laxity couldn't deal with Ada, but a modern C++ programmer who is religious about fixing warnings today wouldn't bat an eyelash at it.
After all, C++ is the one language that
Nope. Ada has all that, and has had it since before C++ existed. It even has an organization set up to validate Ada compilers, so that lazy vendors (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) can't plausibly put out supposed Ada compilers that aren't even close to conformant.
What's more, its actually a more capable language. Every update of C++ since its inception has been adding more features that Ada had for decades. Range-based for loops? Had 'em in 1983. Strongly-typed enums? Had 'em in 1983. Even with this new update, C++ still doesn't have an analog to Ada's features for record layout specification and concurrent programming from the 1983 version of the language. That means its still inferior both for portable low-level programming (which is supposed to be C++'s forte) and concurrent programming.
However, it is still way way way more complex than Ada. So its got that going for it. If you wanna write an API using generic programming techniques that presents the client with a 6-screen error message for a simple one-character typo, C++ is your language.
I'm not terribly convinced that Civilization ... is a particularly good choice: it is 'history themed'; but fundamentally designed around being a fun game;
I was just playing it a bit last night. Still a fun game. But other than a little blurb on the start screen when you pick your Civ, there isn't a lot of real history content. I guess the tech tree does enforce the point that all inventions are built on the foundation of previous ones, but you could do that just as well by tacking the tech tree poster to the classroom wall, and moving on with your life.
Note that Civ VI is coming out this year. So my guess for what is going on here is that they know from past experience that sales for the previous game will disappear the instant that happens. So this is their marketing department trying to find a way get to still in some bucks from an otherwise obsolete property. Their name IS Take Two after all...
It's the same thing with people like Magellan or your very own Columbus. So much of what we were taught about these people was so very wrong it's appalling
That's the thing: How history as taught to schoolkids is and has always been completely political. Its about teaching kids the "proper" foundational mythology. If that makes it so whitewashed that its boring, more's the better. Then kids won't go off on their own and learn about the bad things their ancestors did (or worse yet, their government is still doing).
On the plus side, the result tends to be so boring that kids don't actually learn much of this BS. I think kids are actually a lot smarter here than we give them credit for. Those of us who got interested in History in general did so off of our own research, not through school.
Obligatory plug: Wikipedia today is a great resource, but if you have questions about history, check out the History StackExchange site
As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs
Technically speaking, Poles would be "second worlders". The original formulation was a Cold War thing, and Poland was in the Russian "Second world" block.
Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation. As desirable as a more lenient approach from Germany and others would be, it won't change Greek history of the 2000s.
The Greeks managed their country in the 2000s the same way they always have. If Germany and the rest of the EU didn't like that, and weren't willing to accept the risk that represented, they shouldn't have let them join the club during their boom years.
There is no chance that Northern Ireland would choose to join the Republic of Ireland. There are deep seated sectarian divisions that make this impossible.
Perhaps, but there's a very good chance there will be a vote on the subject. If you thought the Brexit campaigning was ugly, racist, and violent before, just wait until you see that campaign in Northern Ireland. They only stopped murdering each other over this same issue a decade or so ago. What happens when that scab is ripped off?
The democrats do not want to get rid of the no-fly rule; they do not want to make the list public and YOU KNOW THAT
Actually, rather a lot of them do. I "KNOW THAT", because I have Twitter and I read what they actually say. They would actually like to debate the no-fly list, and make it less problematic, (yes, along with preventing people on it from buying guns).
The point is that list, with all its problems, exists today. Refusing to do anything is endorsing it. The only way to fix those problems is to debate, amend, and pass a bill on the subject. A Congress from my youth would have worked out a compromise to do both, and thus make a majority of its members happy enough to vote for it. Republicans are refusing to do anything like that. Yes, its true that they don't want guns restricted in this way (or in any other way). However, they also don't want the authoritarian and (IMHO anti-American) aspects of the no-fly list changed. They just flat out like the status-quo.
Sounds like your car stereo just sucks.
I guess that would make sense, as your momma installed it.
Tell me when the schoolyard insult phase of the discussion is over. I can hang, but my heart isn't really in it.
OMG! I found another breach! Right here: ON THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA'S OWN WEBSITE!
You see, it turns out voter registration database are a matter of Public Record. Not only are they not private, but states are legally required to provide them to citizens upon request.
Voter registration records include voters' name, address, date of birth, political affiliation, voter ID number, precinct and voting history, technology center district, school district and municipality.
I used to have a copy for my precinct on my hard-drive. A candidate just up and emailed it to me, unasked.