Of course you can't forget that he was also on SSRI's apparently, which seems to be an overlapping theme in many of these cases too.
So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Armed civilians can't oppose the government if the government decides to get serious. What enforces the Third? The courts. Shoot someone entering your house in defiance of the Third and you will face murder charges.
Also, the DNC didn't rig the Democratic primary election because there wasn't one. There were dozens, with other states selecting delegates through caucuses. You'd expect the caucuses to be easier to rig, but Sanders did better in caucus states. More people voted for Clinton in the primaries than for Sanders, and she got more delegates not counting superdelegates. Finally, it's not possible for the DNC to disenfranchise people. The Democratic Party is a private institution, and can have its own rules for nominating candidates.
Show me where in the Constitution it forbids a standing army. Congress has explicit authority to raise an army, provided no appropriation bills are for more than two years, and to spend on the common defense.
As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?
That used to be true. The Fourteenth Amendment is what made those restrictions apply to state governments, which I consider an excellent idea.
If that's the way you feel, make some useful suggestions. Right now, you're fueling the demand for the "all" part of all-or-nothing. If you gun nuts could push for something that would reduce school shootings, a lot of the demand for additional gun control would go away.
Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.
What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.
If nobody offers good solutions, people are going to adopt bad ones. You probably wouldn't like that.
I don't know. Why are horses all purple with pink spots?
If the anti-gun lobby was that powerful, you wouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle with large magazine anywhere in the US. Since you can, you're being paranoid. This is not currently a good subject to be paranoid about.
The most perfect knowledge of how the Internet works won't help you distinguish between malware from a Russian government agency and malware from a Russian cyber criminal (if there's a real difference).
Let's see, so if a drug is keeping me alive I shouldn't complain about side effects? As in there are only two states, "not dead yet" and "dead", and the only important thing is what state you're in?
Listen, you young whippersnapper. I got used to saving all the time when I was using floppies that bent rather than floppies that were stiff. I got used to unreliable hardware and software a long time ago.
Too bad Microsoft hasn't made the necessary improvements since then so I wouldn't have to save all the time.
Twitter should be fine in this case, if they didn't ignore a DMCA takedown notice. It really doesn't matter what Twitter does with profiles and/or terms of service, since the person who uploaded the picture didn't have any right to do so, so Twitter can't offer any rights or follow instructions from the actual photographer's profile (if he has one).
A photograph is normally considered a creative work, and so it's under copyright (and not public domain) as soon as it's in a tangible form, which would be immediately on taking it. There advantages in registering the copyright, should your copyright be infringed, but registration costs a little money.
I'm a liberal, and I oppose people who claim that their particular reading of the Constitution is the one everyone should go by. I prefer reading the actual words for myself, and I'll happily argue interpretations.
As far as copyright law goes, the Constitution permits Congress to allow limited-time monopolies for purpose of the advancement of science and the useful arts. Therefore, how copyright law applies to computers and such depends on what Congress decides to do with this authority. There are laws about fixing creative works in tangible form, and that works with computers.
As I understand the law, the person who tweeted the photo is guilty of copyright infringement, almost certainly criminal copyright infringement. (Note: my understanding should NOT be taken as approval.) If the photographer did not send Twitter a DMCA notice, Twitter's fine. If Twitter were to ignore a DMCA takedown request, Twitter would be just as liable (and has deeper pockets). That applies to everyone who linked to it, and if the photographer wanted those photos taken down the photographer needed to send takedown notices.
News organizations and web hosts do not have to know whether a specific upload of a file infringes on copyright or not. (There can be multiple uploads of the same file, some legit, some infringing.) They do have to respond accordingly when informed.
I am not a lawyer, and I hope it doesn't show too horribly badly in this post. This isn't legal advice. It isn't even illegal advice. If any reference to the law in this post is important to you, follow what some pseudonymous person says on Slashdot while disclaiming real knowledge.
You do not write English like a native. I don't care what certificate you've got. I know how English speakers use the language and it's not like you do. Your English is good, but you are exaggerating it and doing things that you're not quite capable of doing clearly. If a highly competent native English speaker like me gets confused by something you wrote, guess what. It's probably not my problem. Try using simpler grammatical constructs, and you'll get your points across.
I never said anything about your intelligence. I pointed out that your history is wrong. I do not pretend to have expertise. When I say something about an issue of fact, I at least have good reason to believe it, and I have read a lot about WWII. I'm not as familiar with the history of Finland before the Twentieth Century, so if you would like to correct me there I'd appreciate it.
The DNC favored the mainstream candidate. I don't think Sanders would have fared any better. No primaries were rigged. Clinton did better in the primaries than she did in the caucus states, which I'd figure would be easier to rig. Clinton got more delegates than Sanders even not counting superdelegates. At least the Democrat nominee wasn't anybody like Trump.
And then you start going way beyond the evidence. You claim the information used was from a biased dossier. It was used, but apparently used properly. Law enforcement officers and judges have to work with biased information. You don't specify what other information was used.
The Nunes memo picked through hundreds of pages and couldn't find a smoking gun. That speaks for a high level of FBI professionalism. If Nunes had known that the FBI warrant requests were improper, he could have shown it plainly, but apparently he couldn't. He talks about certain specific things about the Steele dossier that were not in the warrant application, and doesn't say what the application did say about it. He mentions an article that doesn't actually corroborate the dossier, but not that it was supposed to be corroborating it. Nunes had plenty of time and plenty of incentive to come up with some actual misconduct on the part of the FBI, and failed.
Oh, and Watergate was about the Republicans rigging the Democratic nomination process to put forth the candidate of their choice. It wasn't just about spying on the other campaign, although that happened. Watergate was conducted by people close to the President, not the somewhat independent FBI. Assuming everything you said without supporting evidence was correct, it isn't nearly as bad as Watergate.
And Trump has strong business ties to Russia, which I don't believe he divested from, and lots of Trump supporters lied about talking to the Russians. I find that suspicious.
Poison is poison. And it makes little sense to put it in your body regardless of quantity.
Anything is safe at sufficiently low dosages, and sufficiently much of anything will kill you. Vitamin A will trash your liver if you eat too much of it, so it's a poison. You also need it in lower dosages.
That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.
One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.
Considering that GP needs 10-15 minutes to heat the pans, I'd say that 12 minutes for a dinner is a touch optimistic. Does the boiling and frying at the same time each require full-sized burners, which GP has one of?
You've also neglected cleanup time. The pan you boil the noodles with won't take long to clean once it's cool enough, but I'm not nearly so confident of the fry pan.
Now, consider a prepackaged meal. You take it out of the freezer and stick it in the oven or microwave, then throw away the packaging. Much, much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.
I see the Russians are succeeding with you. Let's remember that we're all Americans and figure out what to do.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Armed civilians can't oppose the government if the government decides to get serious. What enforces the Third? The courts. Shoot someone entering your house in defiance of the Third and you will face murder charges.
Also, the DNC didn't rig the Democratic primary election because there wasn't one. There were dozens, with other states selecting delegates through caucuses. You'd expect the caucuses to be easier to rig, but Sanders did better in caucus states. More people voted for Clinton in the primaries than for Sanders, and she got more delegates not counting superdelegates. Finally, it's not possible for the DNC to disenfranchise people. The Democratic Party is a private institution, and can have its own rules for nominating candidates.
Show me where in the Constitution it forbids a standing army. Congress has explicit authority to raise an army, provided no appropriation bills are for more than two years, and to spend on the common defense.
That used to be true. The Fourteenth Amendment is what made those restrictions apply to state governments, which I consider an excellent idea.
If that's the way you feel, make some useful suggestions. Right now, you're fueling the demand for the "all" part of all-or-nothing. If you gun nuts could push for something that would reduce school shootings, a lot of the demand for additional gun control would go away.
Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.
What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.
If nobody offers good solutions, people are going to adopt bad ones. You probably wouldn't like that.
I don't know. Why are horses all purple with pink spots?
If the anti-gun lobby was that powerful, you wouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle with large magazine anywhere in the US. Since you can, you're being paranoid. This is not currently a good subject to be paranoid about.
The most perfect knowledge of how the Internet works won't help you distinguish between malware from a Russian government agency and malware from a Russian cyber criminal (if there's a real difference).
What you seem to mean is that it's trivial in terms of techniques to copy an image. That doesn't affect whether you should or not.
Let's see, so if a drug is keeping me alive I shouldn't complain about side effects? As in there are only two states, "not dead yet" and "dead", and the only important thing is what state you're in?
And, of course, we're expected to know every single misleadingly named Windows setting, no matter where it's buried, or we're clueless.
This is Slashdot!
Listen, you young whippersnapper. I got used to saving all the time when I was using floppies that bent rather than floppies that were stiff. I got used to unreliable hardware and software a long time ago.
Too bad Microsoft hasn't made the necessary improvements since then so I wouldn't have to save all the time.
Twitter should be fine in this case, if they didn't ignore a DMCA takedown notice. It really doesn't matter what Twitter does with profiles and/or terms of service, since the person who uploaded the picture didn't have any right to do so, so Twitter can't offer any rights or follow instructions from the actual photographer's profile (if he has one).
A photograph is normally considered a creative work, and so it's under copyright (and not public domain) as soon as it's in a tangible form, which would be immediately on taking it. There advantages in registering the copyright, should your copyright be infringed, but registration costs a little money.
I'm a liberal, and I oppose people who claim that their particular reading of the Constitution is the one everyone should go by. I prefer reading the actual words for myself, and I'll happily argue interpretations.
As far as copyright law goes, the Constitution permits Congress to allow limited-time monopolies for purpose of the advancement of science and the useful arts. Therefore, how copyright law applies to computers and such depends on what Congress decides to do with this authority. There are laws about fixing creative works in tangible form, and that works with computers.
As I understand the law, the person who tweeted the photo is guilty of copyright infringement, almost certainly criminal copyright infringement. (Note: my understanding should NOT be taken as approval.) If the photographer did not send Twitter a DMCA notice, Twitter's fine. If Twitter were to ignore a DMCA takedown request, Twitter would be just as liable (and has deeper pockets). That applies to everyone who linked to it, and if the photographer wanted those photos taken down the photographer needed to send takedown notices.
News organizations and web hosts do not have to know whether a specific upload of a file infringes on copyright or not. (There can be multiple uploads of the same file, some legit, some infringing.) They do have to respond accordingly when informed.
I am not a lawyer, and I hope it doesn't show too horribly badly in this post. This isn't legal advice. It isn't even illegal advice. If any reference to the law in this post is important to you, follow what some pseudonymous person says on Slashdot while disclaiming real knowledge.
You do not write English like a native. I don't care what certificate you've got. I know how English speakers use the language and it's not like you do. Your English is good, but you are exaggerating it and doing things that you're not quite capable of doing clearly. If a highly competent native English speaker like me gets confused by something you wrote, guess what. It's probably not my problem. Try using simpler grammatical constructs, and you'll get your points across.
I never said anything about your intelligence. I pointed out that your history is wrong. I do not pretend to have expertise. When I say something about an issue of fact, I at least have good reason to believe it, and I have read a lot about WWII. I'm not as familiar with the history of Finland before the Twentieth Century, so if you would like to correct me there I'd appreciate it.
The DNC favored the mainstream candidate. I don't think Sanders would have fared any better. No primaries were rigged. Clinton did better in the primaries than she did in the caucus states, which I'd figure would be easier to rig. Clinton got more delegates than Sanders even not counting superdelegates. At least the Democrat nominee wasn't anybody like Trump.
And then you start going way beyond the evidence. You claim the information used was from a biased dossier. It was used, but apparently used properly. Law enforcement officers and judges have to work with biased information. You don't specify what other information was used.
The Nunes memo picked through hundreds of pages and couldn't find a smoking gun. That speaks for a high level of FBI professionalism. If Nunes had known that the FBI warrant requests were improper, he could have shown it plainly, but apparently he couldn't. He talks about certain specific things about the Steele dossier that were not in the warrant application, and doesn't say what the application did say about it. He mentions an article that doesn't actually corroborate the dossier, but not that it was supposed to be corroborating it. Nunes had plenty of time and plenty of incentive to come up with some actual misconduct on the part of the FBI, and failed.
Oh, and Watergate was about the Republicans rigging the Democratic nomination process to put forth the candidate of their choice. It wasn't just about spying on the other campaign, although that happened. Watergate was conducted by people close to the President, not the somewhat independent FBI. Assuming everything you said without supporting evidence was correct, it isn't nearly as bad as Watergate.
And Trump has strong business ties to Russia, which I don't believe he divested from, and lots of Trump supporters lied about talking to the Russians. I find that suspicious.
Anything is safe at sufficiently low dosages, and sufficiently much of anything will kill you. Vitamin A will trash your liver if you eat too much of it, so it's a poison. You also need it in lower dosages.
One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.
And If I don't want to be shot by someone else's gun, I don't have to get...what was that again?
As an amateur historian, I'd be interested in finding out about that link. I haven't encountered any in my reading.
Are you saying I was bad at programming when I had that COBOL job? I blamed that language all the time.
Considering that GP needs 10-15 minutes to heat the pans, I'd say that 12 minutes for a dinner is a touch optimistic. Does the boiling and frying at the same time each require full-sized burners, which GP has one of?
You've also neglected cleanup time. The pan you boil the noodles with won't take long to clean once it's cool enough, but I'm not nearly so confident of the fry pan.
Now, consider a prepackaged meal. You take it out of the freezer and stick it in the oven or microwave, then throw away the packaging. Much, much faster.
Ah, thank you very much.