Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
I don't know if you saw, but they completely gutted and redid the UI a while back. It's just my opinion, but I think it's fantastic now. One of the few cases where a project listened and made a good, major change.
I lived in France for a little while, and I really enjoyed it, but everything about this seems perfectly obvious (and old) to me. The thing is, I'm not sure why anyone is bent out of shape over his having said it... it's exactly what you'd expect an american ceo to say on the subject.
In other news, asian cultures can be more group-oriented than individualistic, don't count on that 3pm call from eastern europe actually coming in at 3pm, and don't set your schedule so tight that you have to fly in to Italy on Tuesday, since there's a good chance they'll be on strike.
I absolutely believe you've had that experience. I'm a pretty conservative guy that isn't religious. I don't care if gay people want to get married and I really don't care about pot. My politics are framed pretty tightly around a smallish set of things I do think are important. So you can imagine the dust-ups I've had with friends and family.
Honestly, I look at most of those forums as if they're slashdot, but the other way 'round. There are things I know you can't say here. Not because I'm wrong or afraid someone will challenge my perspective, but because Slashdot is usually an echo chamber, reinforced by the karma system. It's similar with some of the gun forums. You've got goofs that live there, trying to make sure nobody challenges their opinions on anything. And they've definitely got more time to spend being stupid and angry than you do.
I have a Kindle Fire around here somewhere that runs aftermarket android roms. I see no reason why I should turn my nose up at a linux distro, if it works well. That part, of course, remains to be seen.
No, the left is using actual massacres and gun death statistics to oppose what actually is. It's not some fear of what might be.
As I discussed earlier, they're not, and that's a problem. This is politics fueled by fear.
It's impossible to tell which of the many value of "this" you mean here. What gun owners are afraid of is other gun owners. How do we square that circle?
My apologies. By "this", I meant this exact kind of showboating in gun legislation that does no good for society, plays fast and loose with constitutional rights, and makes political hay.
Magazine, not clips, unless we're talking about actual stripper clips in an old SKS or bloc clips in an M1 Garand. Which we're generally not.
And nobody is talking about automatics. You should know which kinds of firearms are legal and what today's gun debate refers to before forming your personal opinion on legislation.
Americans have had semi-autos in their homes for over 100 years. There's no escalation here. The scaaary AR is a less powerful firearm than the match garands people used to keep in the closet. The 1911 is as popular a model today as it was nearly a century ago. Your grandfather, or great-grandfather might have owned one. Most of our handguns are semi-auto. You may not have noticed, but single action revolvers and bolt action rifles haven't been popular for home defense in a long, long time. Longer than you've been alive.
The short version is, nothing anyone is talking about is any crazier than stuff you already know and aren't afraid of, except perhaps that you've seen pictures of superficially similar firearms in video games that are automatic with grenade launchers on them. Generally speaking you can't manufacture and sell those to civilians, and they're certainly not what we're talking about here.
And more important, we try not to ban things because "why not."
Conservatism is the politics of fear. What you describe is typical. They're not opposed to what's actually being proposed, they are opposed to where they fear it might lead. Their imaginations always follow the worst case imaginable, even if it's improbable, and assume that's what will be.
Interesting. I'd say the whole issue is defined by fear. The left is using fear, the only tool at their disposal, to sell changes to the constitution for political points. Gun owners are simply afraid, and it's because they've actually watched this happen before. In their lifetime.
So tell me again how it's a one-sided affair. Then tell me which is worse.
It's funny, I'm surrounded by mostly conservatives, and some (maybe most) don't object to the "universal background checks" so much as they object to what it'll really be. Most of us already go through background checks in our states. This is the sort of thing we might admit when nobody is listening, though of course I do not speak for the whole forty-something percent of the nation.;)
First, we know what happens when you have databases of people that possess firearms. You've probably seen the google maps plots of everyone's home addresses. If you're a gun owner in a state that has firearm licensing, you know that even when required by law, they can take months longer than allowed to process a one page form, and there's nothing you can do about it. During that time, all manner of nasty things can happen, not least of which is having your card expire and having your firearms suddenly become illegal. Now you're a felon. Imagine how that makes you feel if you live anywhere near this scumbag. We also know that people that shouldn't clear often do, while people that should clear often don't. They have to hire lawyers to help them through the process, and it's a nightmare. We'll skip past the really scary bits of national gun owner databases for the sake of brevity (too late, I know).
Straw purchases are a problem in some places. With handguns, specifically. And only around cities where handguns are already illegal (let's face it, the gun control laws don't actually work). But it's still a problem everyone wants solved. What we don't want is a running leap down the slippery slope, coupled with the issues listed above.
The magazine size thing is just bullshit. Almost no crime is committed with rifles, only a tiny subset of those are committed with "the black rifles", and you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that in any of those very, very rare cases, magazine size had anything to do with the commission of the crime. It's just another thing to ban, for no reason other than political points... and it's at the expense of lawful people.
Again, slippery slope with no benefit to society.
There's probably common ground to be had on some of this stuff, somewhere, but it's obscured by decades of awful politics perpetrated by liberals in office against normal, law-abiding citizens. Those of us who are old enough know better have noticed that the President has been using the phrase "common sense" over and over and over. There's a reason for that... nothing about it is "common sense." He's selling BS legislation.
And so we fight. Some of us even give money to groups we may not particularly love, like the NRA. When you know you have to do something to defend your constitutional rights, and there's a good chance you're about to lose the battle to the 24hr news cycle. Remember, we live among a population that would trade their own children if you promised it would make them safer.
Remember how easy it was to sell everyone on bogus wars over "tururrism"? Yeah, we remember too. Tell people you're going to "Stop the senseless bloodshed by banning these ultra-mega-high-capacity magazines for ruthless killers", and they'll sign on the dotted line, even if it doesn't make any sense.
We did exactly this, already, just a few years ago. If you don't remember, go hit the wiki. It did absolutely nothing, for anyone except the politicians that pushed it. But memories are short, and it's possible we'll end up doing this dance again. That's the feeling that makes people belt out some pretty silly stuff about the direction this country is headed.
Besides which, they already have this. You take your card, put it in a machine at the ride or show, and it gives you a "come back at X time" ticket. This is doing that with rfid.
It works great. You come back and go in a second line, pass all the suckers in the regular line, virtually no wait.:)
The problem is (and I haven't read the bill) that these things are seldom what they're sold as. Discrimination in hiring? Not cool. But if it's designed to protect a shill that's using a paid position as a scientist to under-represent good science and promote religious ideas in the classroom... that's another altogether.
I don't get the sense that any of us have read it though, so I'll reserve judgement.
I'm not sure that's appropriate. IIRC, CE is a superset that includes more product lines than Windows Phone 7 (which apparently is the preferred name). So I guess WP7 really was the logical way to go. Oh well.
Funny, I did dwell a moment on reusing the parent's 'WP7'. I figured it makes sense though, and avoids lumping it in with previous iterations of windows mobile with WinMo7 or similar.
True, WP7 does get an unfair rap due to MS's previous attempts at the mobile OS, and it's arguably far better than its predecessors. And it was wise of them to take the Android approach, as we've seen what happens when they market a complete package (see: Zune, Kin, etc).
That said, they're fighting an uphill battle and only time will tell if they can really get back in the fray. They really need compelling "look what we've got" stuff to win any mindshare, and I don't think the XBL integration is going to do the job. It'll be interesting to see though.
Yeah the whole mega-hydra-facefucker-viral-trojan-worm he wrote in 3d modelling software while drunk and standing up... that's somewhere near the top of my list of all-time worst movie depictions of technology use.
Second only to the 60 second, gun pointed at him with a hooker blowing him under the table hack of some DOD server somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll stick with the following interpretation, courtesy of the Supreme Court, thanks...
https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
I don't know if you saw, but they completely gutted and redid the UI a while back. It's just my opinion, but I think it's fantastic now. One of the few cases where a project listened and made a good, major change.
Of course you might disagree.
I lived in France for a little while, and I really enjoyed it, but everything about this seems perfectly obvious (and old) to me. The thing is, I'm not sure why anyone is bent out of shape over his having said it... it's exactly what you'd expect an american ceo to say on the subject.
In other news, asian cultures can be more group-oriented than individualistic, don't count on that 3pm call from eastern europe actually coming in at 3pm, and don't set your schedule so tight that you have to fly in to Italy on Tuesday, since there's a good chance they'll be on strike.
Shit in different places is different.
The fact that it uses the largely meaningless and sensationalistic "cloud computing" buzzword also harms its credibility.
That's a hard case to make nowadays, whether we like it or not. Not having heard of Python is ridiculous though.
I absolutely believe you've had that experience. I'm a pretty conservative guy that isn't religious. I don't care if gay people want to get married and I really don't care about pot. My politics are framed pretty tightly around a smallish set of things I do think are important. So you can imagine the dust-ups I've had with friends and family.
Honestly, I look at most of those forums as if they're slashdot, but the other way 'round. There are things I know you can't say here. Not because I'm wrong or afraid someone will challenge my perspective, but because Slashdot is usually an echo chamber, reinforced by the karma system. It's similar with some of the gun forums. You've got goofs that live there, trying to make sure nobody challenges their opinions on anything. And they've definitely got more time to spend being stupid and angry than you do.
They had multiple working hardware prototypes. Here's an early, early prototype from long before you saw that video. It should look familiar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=049_U-0C9qU
I have a Kindle Fire around here somewhere that runs aftermarket android roms. I see no reason why I should turn my nose up at a linux distro, if it works well. That part, of course, remains to be seen.
No, the left is using actual massacres and gun death statistics to oppose what actually is. It's not some fear of what might be.
As I discussed earlier, they're not, and that's a problem. This is politics fueled by fear.
It's impossible to tell which of the many value of "this" you mean here. What gun owners are afraid of is other gun owners. How do we square that circle?
My apologies. By "this", I meant this exact kind of showboating in gun legislation that does no good for society, plays fast and loose with constitutional rights, and makes political hay.
Semi-automatic is not equal to high power.
Magazine, not clips, unless we're talking about actual stripper clips in an old SKS or bloc clips in an M1 Garand. Which we're generally not.
And nobody is talking about automatics. You should know which kinds of firearms are legal and what today's gun debate refers to before forming your personal opinion on legislation.
Americans have had semi-autos in their homes for over 100 years. There's no escalation here. The scaaary AR is a less powerful firearm than the match garands people used to keep in the closet. The 1911 is as popular a model today as it was nearly a century ago. Your grandfather, or great-grandfather might have owned one. Most of our handguns are semi-auto. You may not have noticed, but single action revolvers and bolt action rifles haven't been popular for home defense in a long, long time. Longer than you've been alive.
The short version is, nothing anyone is talking about is any crazier than stuff you already know and aren't afraid of, except perhaps that you've seen pictures of superficially similar firearms in video games that are automatic with grenade launchers on them. Generally speaking you can't manufacture and sell those to civilians, and they're certainly not what we're talking about here.
And more important, we try not to ban things because "why not."
Conservatism is the politics of fear. What you describe is typical. They're not opposed to what's actually being proposed, they are opposed to where they fear it might lead. Their imaginations always follow the worst case imaginable, even if it's improbable, and assume that's what will be.
Interesting. I'd say the whole issue is defined by fear. The left is using fear, the only tool at their disposal, to sell changes to the constitution for political points. Gun owners are simply afraid, and it's because they've actually watched this happen before. In their lifetime.
So tell me again how it's a one-sided affair. Then tell me which is worse.
It's funny, I'm surrounded by mostly conservatives, and some (maybe most) don't object to the "universal background checks" so much as they object to what it'll really be. Most of us already go through background checks in our states. This is the sort of thing we might admit when nobody is listening, though of course I do not speak for the whole forty-something percent of the nation. ;)
First, we know what happens when you have databases of people that possess firearms. You've probably seen the google maps plots of everyone's home addresses. If you're a gun owner in a state that has firearm licensing, you know that even when required by law, they can take months longer than allowed to process a one page form, and there's nothing you can do about it. During that time, all manner of nasty things can happen, not least of which is having your card expire and having your firearms suddenly become illegal. Now you're a felon. Imagine how that makes you feel if you live anywhere near this scumbag. We also know that people that shouldn't clear often do, while people that should clear often don't. They have to hire lawyers to help them through the process, and it's a nightmare. We'll skip past the really scary bits of national gun owner databases for the sake of brevity (too late, I know).
Straw purchases are a problem in some places. With handguns, specifically. And only around cities where handguns are already illegal (let's face it, the gun control laws don't actually work). But it's still a problem everyone wants solved. What we don't want is a running leap down the slippery slope, coupled with the issues listed above.
The magazine size thing is just bullshit. Almost no crime is committed with rifles, only a tiny subset of those are committed with "the black rifles", and you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that in any of those very, very rare cases, magazine size had anything to do with the commission of the crime. It's just another thing to ban, for no reason other than political points... and it's at the expense of lawful people.
Again, slippery slope with no benefit to society.
There's probably common ground to be had on some of this stuff, somewhere, but it's obscured by decades of awful politics perpetrated by liberals in office against normal, law-abiding citizens. Those of us who are old enough know better have noticed that the President has been using the phrase "common sense" over and over and over. There's a reason for that... nothing about it is "common sense." He's selling BS legislation.
And so we fight. Some of us even give money to groups we may not particularly love, like the NRA. When you know you have to do something to defend your constitutional rights, and there's a good chance you're about to lose the battle to the 24hr news cycle. Remember, we live among a population that would trade their own children if you promised it would make them safer.
Remember how easy it was to sell everyone on bogus wars over "tururrism"? Yeah, we remember too. Tell people you're going to "Stop the senseless bloodshed by banning these ultra-mega-high-capacity magazines for ruthless killers", and they'll sign on the dotted line, even if it doesn't make any sense.
We did exactly this, already, just a few years ago. If you don't remember, go hit the wiki. It did absolutely nothing, for anyone except the politicians that pushed it. But memories are short, and it's possible we'll end up doing this dance again. That's the feeling that makes people belt out some pretty silly stuff about the direction this country is headed.
Besides which, they already have this. You take your card, put it in a machine at the ride or show, and it gives you a "come back at X time" ticket. This is doing that with rfid.
It works great. You come back and go in a second line, pass all the suckers in the regular line, virtually no wait. :)
I imagine what most of us would want to know is if Google Play would do the same.
There is, of course, the outside option with Android devices. I question only the part about curated stores, and if it's at-all specific to Apple.
Couldn't help but think of this...
http://xkcd.com/695/
I'm sure others will too.
"Normal urine color ranges from pale yellow to deep amber"
Mayo Clinic.
Maybe, maybe not.
More important, cops will know who to question directly, same as if they'd had an anonymous tip. They can do that.
Apply pressure to the people involved, one will flip. Everyone goes down, one with a lesser charge.
Consider yourself lucky. Providers can charge that much for HBO. Comcast quotes $10-$23/mo.
I'd just like to be the first to say, "fuck Oracle".
I hope those bastards fade into irrelevance. I mean, what haven't they done to piss everyone off recently?
He does this for at least two of his other books. He sells .99 kindle ebook versions. I just bought one of them.
You're right, of course.
The problem is (and I haven't read the bill) that these things are seldom what they're sold as. Discrimination in hiring? Not cool. But if it's designed to protect a shill that's using a paid position as a scientist to under-represent good science and promote religious ideas in the classroom... that's another altogether.
I don't get the sense that any of us have read it though, so I'll reserve judgement.
Is it bad that I thought of this instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y
Might need my head adjusted.
I'm not sure that's appropriate. IIRC, CE is a superset that includes more product lines than Windows Phone 7 (which apparently is the preferred name). So I guess WP7 really was the logical way to go. Oh well.
Funny, I did dwell a moment on reusing the parent's 'WP7'. I figured it makes sense though, and avoids lumping it in with previous iterations of windows mobile with WinMo7 or similar.
True, WP7 does get an unfair rap due to MS's previous attempts at the mobile OS, and it's arguably far better than its predecessors. And it was wise of them to take the Android approach, as we've seen what happens when they market a complete package (see: Zune, Kin, etc).
That said, they're fighting an uphill battle and only time will tell if they can really get back in the fray. They really need compelling "look what we've got" stuff to win any mindshare, and I don't think the XBL integration is going to do the job. It'll be interesting to see though.
Yeah the whole mega-hydra-facefucker-viral-trojan-worm he wrote in 3d modelling software while drunk and standing up... that's somewhere near the top of my list of all-time worst movie depictions of technology use.
Second only to the 60 second, gun pointed at him with a hooker blowing him under the table hack of some DOD server somewhere.
Silliness.