Obviously you aren't at a maturity level that allows you engage in intelligent debate.
"start shooting, NOW"
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I've already stated my view with regard to this a few times. Proceeding as you indicate would be stupid and if someone wants to question my conviction they need to demonstrate some of their own to be taken seriously.
By your own admission you have no conviction to act and consider anyone who does to be 'pro-violent.' Instead it is your intention to toss papers at rigged elections and let others bleed for you if and when it comes to that. Don't bother replying my point is well made. You described yourself quite well as "a sniveling, whiney little apathetic coward" and your only basis for calling others the same is that like knows like.
"It's a common misconception that silencers, real assault rifles (meaning that you can select between semi-auto and full auto and / or burst fire), machine guns, explosives, rocket launchers, etc are illegal in the US."
Yeah. Now try stockpiling them for your well regulated people's militia that can pool money to buy such things. The BATF will stick a very large boot up your ass. Even so, all of those things constitute small arms and 1986 is actually quite a while ago. The pre-1986 part isn't because you are allowed to have them, its because they can't make a law retro-active so no points for upholding the 2nd amendment there btw.
"Oh, as for "No one sane is going to take on anything with a semi-automatic rifle", the majority of the time the military doesn't even flip their rifles"
Agreed. Full auto is highly overrated. Especially on a rebels limited ammo budget.
"Sure, they have tanks and bombers, but unless they REALLY wanted to destroy their own infrastructure and a lot of non-combatants on their own side, they wouldn't use them"
I wouldn't count on that. But I also wouldn't count on a well organized rebellion not having these things. People always discuss this scenario as if every service member would break their oath to uphold the constitution and defend the government rather than the people. Officers would defect and soldiers would as well. Additionally retired officers would resume their rank with the resistance. We are talking about the largest group of people who have taken action to back their conviction to fight for their ideals. I doubt any real revolution would get off the ground without support from former military.
"I'm pretty sure you guys still have a large portion of the 2nd."
Not really. Some small arms, unless they look scary, shoot fast, etc. No machine guns at least not without a license class that is pretty much impossible to get.
"such you can carry don't mean a lot when you're faced with IFVs, main battle tanks and combat aircraft"
IED's and small arms used in an urban guerrilla warfare can mean more than people think. But if the 2nd amendment were in force we could own all of those things you listed as well.
There is more to the 2nd amendment than owning guns though. It also specifies that the people are to organize and maintain disciplined (the word says regulated but that's what regulated meant then not like today where it means controlled by government) militia. The federal government isn't to maintain a standing army but rather assemble the peoples militias into one at time of war (or peace for no more than 2yrs). The only thing the Constitution actually lets the feds maintain is a Navy and they know it, that's why the Navy is the largest branch and contains its own air force (lots of examples), army(marines), special forces(seals), nuclear arms (nuke subs), ballistics (ships and subs armed with large missles), and navy all wrapped into one.
Yup, keeping guns restricted to a small portion of the population actually makes them (the government) more vulnerable in the end. Nobody is well prepared for organized armed revolt and it takes a smaller number of guns to be effective. A small and clever armed force of 100 could probably take most of the towns and cities in Britain with nothing more than small arms in a direct assault. Delays would just give government time to react and arm.
Good luck trying that in the US. You won't even warrant calling the national guard with your small force. Swat can handle that sort of small group of buzzing flies... in a direct assault anyway. Guerrilla warfare would be the recipe there.
"your attitude will create more problems than it will solve and I will not condone it. Take it somewhere else."
Excuse me? Last I checked I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have. YOU take it somewhere else.
"your pro-violence attitude just justifies the violations of people's Constitutional rights being committed by police and officials around the country"
That is utterly ridiculous. The Constitution came into being in the first place because people were willing to fight for those rights. Tyranny is hardly the fault of those who would fight against it. I also wouldn't call being ready to fight to what you believe in pro-violence.
The critical mass needed for revolution isn't there.. yet. But we are on a crash course with it. Manning up and growing a pair is preparing for that fight, be it next week or ten years from now. Casting a vote in another rigged election is an utter waste of time.
Pirating does not make one a cheapskate so I'll ask you to stop tossing slurs around. Pirating is actually a good thing all in all and very important form of protest.
As for the Amiga, being an extremely powerful video editing platform is what kept it alive for so long and that life was here in the US as much as anywhere. Maybe you saw shows like Babylon 5 using Amigas for Hollywood effects years after there was no Amiga.
The US is who does the embargoing and it wouldn't be a direct blatant embargo like that. We control most of the worlds economy and can just start attacking EU interests in various trade lines.
"You can be a sniveling, whiney little apathetic coward who lets other people decide for him how his life is going to be, or you can grow a pair, stand up, be heard, and have some say in what your world looks like."
Voting is an example of the former not the later. Growing a pair isn't participating in the existing corrupt system and pretending your vote affects something before being tossed in the digital shredder. Growing a pair is getting your fscking guns together and steeling your will for the inevitable bloody revolution.
The time for ASKING the government to behave in the form of a vote is past. The time to FORCE the government to behave is just about here.
I'd give 5yr terms at most for copyright of anything. Today's world moves too fast. Twenty year old software wouldn't be of any use to the public. Copyright exists to facilitate more material being created and filling the public domain. That's not much of a deal for the public if the material only enters the public domain after it has lost its value.
It makes no difference. If they have no guns you don't need guns to take over. Actually it makes them more vulnerable. But there are people with guns, the military. Armies are made of people and if there is a popular uprising movement members of those armies will support it and bring the portion of the arms they control with them.
Here in the US for instance, the military still takes an oath to defend the people and the Constitution. When mass collectives of the people are organizing to fight tyranny and restore the constitution I think you'll find more than a few who will feel that oath obligate them to stand with those collectives rather than against.
You are creating a strawman here. The government doesn't provide the means to utilize rights so they wouldn't be required to provide internet access. If you are born without a tongue the government doesn't pay for the surgery to make one. If your tongue gets cut off the government doesn't foot the bill to sew it back on. Making internet access a right prevents the government from turning it off when people have it. It doesn't require the government to provide the access in the first place.
I would go farther than this and make UNREGULATED anonymous internet access a fundamental right. This is really just a basic extension of freedom of speech and expression. This should be an international treaty implemented globally. Governments have no business or legitimate jurisdiction on the internet.
4th ed wasn't even D&D anymore its a new game. There is a reason 3.5 was forked and called Pathfinder. Scanned book pdf's can be taken to staples and printed. Thus recreating the actual book. Some people don't just want something that allows you to figure out how to play, they want the books.
There are dozens of out of print game modules and books that you can only get via P2P sharing like torrents. It's a fact and not open to debate. People want them, nobody cares if you think what wotc makes available should be good enough.
"No, now you're just being ridiculous (or trying to justify infringement just because you don't like the publishers). There are no editions of D&D that cannot be had from the copyright owner directly [wizards.com]."
I see a memorial first edition of a couple core books but hardly all of them. Elsewhere I see 4th edition. Where is the 3.5 ed books that the copyright owner recalled from bookstores before releasing 4th ed.
So your stance is that mother cats who have no particular reason to prefer a litter box over the dirt in the yard (and may have never seen a litter box), teach the kittens to use a litter box... even when there is no litter box to teach them with? How do you explain that kittens acquired just after weaning also use a litter box automatically?
Cats instinctively dislike being messy, wet, and waste odors. Just as all cats instinctively pick at food in a delicate and selective manner and in general take almost every action in a careful deliberate way unless panicked. They all have a COMPULSION to chase and stalk that is triggered by certain movement patterns. I don't know that anyone has made a deliberate study of incubating a kitten from birth and keeping it in isolation from other cats into adulthood but it seems unlikely that every cat from the first evolution of cat to modern day has passed on the exact same training in this regard. Nature is a far simpler solution in this regard than nurture and therefore all else being equal is most likely correct.
That said, I do concede that cats definitely do teach one another even when they aren't mother cats. If you succeed in toilet training one cat in the house it will most likely teach the others. The same with using cat doors and other tricks. In some respects despite not being pack animals cats are actually quite social. I haven't seen dogs teaching one another advanced behaviors like this.
I would even concede there are aspects of waste disposal that are likely trained. Burying behavior seems to be in my observation. Some cats bury in a deep and carefully buried hole, others just toss back a couple pawfuls of dirt. Generally these behaviors seem to be common to cats from the same litter but they aren't static. Some cats change behavior in this respect and that may be because they learn from other cats or just that they discover on their own that they prefer the results of a deep careful bury.
The military disagrees. That is why they invest so much is disinformation and digital propaganda campaigns. Type the right things on a keyboard in the right places and you can have thousands of people who don't even know you exist independently choose to use guns in a way that serves your agenda.
I have a feeder for stray cats and often let them use my garage in the colder parts of winter along with a litter box. No training required and I have first hand knowledge at this point that these are cats that are on at least their third generation of being born outside and living feral.
Litter box trained is actually sort of a misnomer. You don't have to train a cat to use a litter box just show it to them. It is the preference of a cat to use a clean, pleasant smelling, dry, powdery and easily dug location for their business and the litter box is generally the best location they are going to find. Although in a pinch a potted plant will do.
I know it's a cool idea to 3d print the parts but can someone please finally mass produce fully assembled units so we can have $200 3d printers already?
Nix on the patents. Patents help someone who have already made something and limit new production. That might be good for a developer, but it is bad for the software economy. H1B's are definitely bad. These are foreign workers who send most of their income overseas. Allowing more of them is basically encouraging the export of profits.
Why so there is. It doesn't generally cross medium and the character itself has to be unique enough to warrant copyright independently. The general idea of a character does not qualify for copyright. Harry Potter becomes copyrightable only with a description and only a Harry Potter who meets that description is copyrighted.
Slashdot Mirror
"fuckhead.. fucking coward"
Obviously you aren't at a maturity level that allows you engage in intelligent debate.
"start shooting, NOW"
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I've already stated my view with regard to this a few times. Proceeding as you indicate would be stupid and if someone wants to question my conviction they need to demonstrate some of their own to be taken seriously.
By your own admission you have no conviction to act and consider anyone who does to be 'pro-violent.' Instead it is your intention to toss papers at rigged elections and let others bleed for you if and when it comes to that. Don't bother replying my point is well made. You described yourself quite well as "a sniveling, whiney little apathetic coward" and your only basis for calling others the same is that like knows like.
"It's a common misconception that silencers, real assault rifles (meaning that you can select between semi-auto and full auto and / or burst fire), machine guns, explosives, rocket launchers, etc are illegal in the US."
Yeah. Now try stockpiling them for your well regulated people's militia that can pool money to buy such things. The BATF will stick a very large boot up your ass. Even so, all of those things constitute small arms and 1986 is actually quite a while ago. The pre-1986 part isn't because you are allowed to have them, its because they can't make a law retro-active so no points for upholding the 2nd amendment there btw.
"Oh, as for "No one sane is going to take on anything with a semi-automatic rifle", the majority of the time the military doesn't even flip their rifles"
Agreed. Full auto is highly overrated. Especially on a rebels limited ammo budget.
"Sure, they have tanks and bombers, but unless they REALLY wanted to destroy their own infrastructure and a lot of non-combatants on their own side, they wouldn't use them"
I wouldn't count on that. But I also wouldn't count on a well organized rebellion not having these things. People always discuss this scenario as if every service member would break their oath to uphold the constitution and defend the government rather than the people. Officers would defect and soldiers would as well. Additionally retired officers would resume their rank with the resistance. We are talking about the largest group of people who have taken action to back their conviction to fight for their ideals. I doubt any real revolution would get off the ground without support from former military.
"I'm pretty sure you guys still have a large portion of the 2nd."
Not really. Some small arms, unless they look scary, shoot fast, etc. No machine guns at least not without a license class that is pretty much impossible to get.
"such you can carry don't mean a lot when you're faced with IFVs, main battle tanks and combat aircraft"
IED's and small arms used in an urban guerrilla warfare can mean more than people think. But if the 2nd amendment were in force we could own all of those things you listed as well.
There is more to the 2nd amendment than owning guns though. It also specifies that the people are to organize and maintain disciplined (the word says regulated but that's what regulated meant then not like today where it means controlled by government) militia. The federal government isn't to maintain a standing army but rather assemble the peoples militias into one at time of war (or peace for no more than 2yrs). The only thing the Constitution actually lets the feds maintain is a Navy and they know it, that's why the Navy is the largest branch and contains its own air force (lots of examples), army(marines), special forces(seals), nuclear arms (nuke subs), ballistics (ships and subs armed with large missles), and navy all wrapped into one.
Yup, keeping guns restricted to a small portion of the population actually makes them (the government) more vulnerable in the end. Nobody is well prepared for organized armed revolt and it takes a smaller number of guns to be effective. A small and clever armed force of 100 could probably take most of the towns and cities in Britain with nothing more than small arms in a direct assault. Delays would just give government time to react and arm.
Good luck trying that in the US. You won't even warrant calling the national guard with your small force. Swat can handle that sort of small group of buzzing flies... in a direct assault anyway. Guerrilla warfare would be the recipe there.
"your attitude will create more problems than it will solve and I will not condone it. Take it somewhere else."
Excuse me? Last I checked I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have. YOU take it somewhere else.
"your pro-violence attitude just justifies the violations of people's Constitutional rights being committed by police and officials around the country"
That is utterly ridiculous. The Constitution came into being in the first place because people were willing to fight for those rights. Tyranny is hardly the fault of those who would fight against it. I also wouldn't call being ready to fight to what you believe in pro-violence.
The critical mass needed for revolution isn't there.. yet. But we are on a crash course with it. Manning up and growing a pair is preparing for that fight, be it next week or ten years from now. Casting a vote in another rigged election is an utter waste of time.
"cheapskate"
Pirating does not make one a cheapskate so I'll ask you to stop tossing slurs around. Pirating is actually a good thing all in all and very important form of protest.
As for the Amiga, being an extremely powerful video editing platform is what kept it alive for so long and that life was here in the US as much as anywhere. Maybe you saw shows like Babylon 5 using Amigas for Hollywood effects years after there was no Amiga.
"In a democracy, what is supposed to happen is the government doesn't listen to the people"
You haven't been paying attention lately. These days the corporations ARE the people.
The US is who does the embargoing and it wouldn't be a direct blatant embargo like that. We control most of the worlds economy and can just start attacking EU interests in various trade lines.
"You can be a sniveling, whiney little apathetic coward who lets other people decide for him how his life is going to be, or you can grow a pair, stand up, be heard, and have some say in what your world looks like."
Voting is an example of the former not the later. Growing a pair isn't participating in the existing corrupt system and pretending your vote affects something before being tossed in the digital shredder. Growing a pair is getting your fscking guns together and steeling your will for the inevitable bloody revolution.
The time for ASKING the government to behave in the form of a vote is past. The time to FORCE the government to behave is just about here.
I'd give 5yr terms at most for copyright of anything. Today's world moves too fast. Twenty year old software wouldn't be of any use to the public. Copyright exists to facilitate more material being created and filling the public domain. That's not much of a deal for the public if the material only enters the public domain after it has lost its value.
It makes no difference. If they have no guns you don't need guns to take over. Actually it makes them more vulnerable. But there are people with guns, the military. Armies are made of people and if there is a popular uprising movement members of those armies will support it and bring the portion of the arms they control with them.
Here in the US for instance, the military still takes an oath to defend the people and the Constitution. When mass collectives of the people are organizing to fight tyranny and restore the constitution I think you'll find more than a few who will feel that oath obligate them to stand with those collectives rather than against.
You are creating a strawman here. The government doesn't provide the means to utilize rights so they wouldn't be required to provide internet access. If you are born without a tongue the government doesn't pay for the surgery to make one. If your tongue gets cut off the government doesn't foot the bill to sew it back on. Making internet access a right prevents the government from turning it off when people have it. It doesn't require the government to provide the access in the first place.
I would go farther than this and make UNREGULATED anonymous internet access a fundamental right. This is really just a basic extension of freedom of speech and expression. This should be an international treaty implemented globally. Governments have no business or legitimate jurisdiction on the internet.
4th ed wasn't even D&D anymore its a new game. There is a reason 3.5 was forked and called Pathfinder. Scanned book pdf's can be taken to staples and printed. Thus recreating the actual book. Some people don't just want something that allows you to figure out how to play, they want the books.
There are dozens of out of print game modules and books that you can only get via P2P sharing like torrents. It's a fact and not open to debate. People want them, nobody cares if you think what wotc makes available should be good enough.
"No, now you're just being ridiculous (or trying to justify infringement just because you don't like the publishers). There are no editions of D&D that cannot be had from the copyright owner directly [wizards.com]."
I see a memorial first edition of a couple core books but hardly all of them. Elsewhere I see 4th edition. Where is the 3.5 ed books that the copyright owner recalled from bookstores before releasing 4th ed.
Titanium seems to be used across the board. My guess would be lower host rejection.
So your stance is that mother cats who have no particular reason to prefer a litter box over the dirt in the yard (and may have never seen a litter box), teach the kittens to use a litter box... even when there is no litter box to teach them with? How do you explain that kittens acquired just after weaning also use a litter box automatically?
Cats instinctively dislike being messy, wet, and waste odors. Just as all cats instinctively pick at food in a delicate and selective manner and in general take almost every action in a careful deliberate way unless panicked. They all have a COMPULSION to chase and stalk that is triggered by certain movement patterns. I don't know that anyone has made a deliberate study of incubating a kitten from birth and keeping it in isolation from other cats into adulthood but it seems unlikely that every cat from the first evolution of cat to modern day has passed on the exact same training in this regard. Nature is a far simpler solution in this regard than nurture and therefore all else being equal is most likely correct.
That said, I do concede that cats definitely do teach one another even when they aren't mother cats. If you succeed in toilet training one cat in the house it will most likely teach the others. The same with using cat doors and other tricks. In some respects despite not being pack animals cats are actually quite social. I haven't seen dogs teaching one another advanced behaviors like this.
I would even concede there are aspects of waste disposal that are likely trained. Burying behavior seems to be in my observation. Some cats bury in a deep and carefully buried hole, others just toss back a couple pawfuls of dirt. Generally these behaviors seem to be common to cats from the same litter but they aren't static. Some cats change behavior in this respect and that may be because they learn from other cats or just that they discover on their own that they prefer the results of a deep careful bury.
mod Grishnakh up
The military disagrees. That is why they invest so much is disinformation and digital propaganda campaigns. Type the right things on a keyboard in the right places and you can have thousands of people who don't even know you exist independently choose to use guns in a way that serves your agenda.
I have a feeder for stray cats and often let them use my garage in the colder parts of winter along with a litter box. No training required and I have first hand knowledge at this point that these are cats that are on at least their third generation of being born outside and living feral.
Litter box trained is actually sort of a misnomer. You don't have to train a cat to use a litter box just show it to them. It is the preference of a cat to use a clean, pleasant smelling, dry, powdery and easily dug location for their business and the litter box is generally the best location they are going to find. Although in a pinch a potted plant will do.
I know it's a cool idea to 3d print the parts but can someone please finally mass produce fully assembled units so we can have $200 3d printers already?
Nix on the patents. Patents help someone who have already made something and limit new production. That might be good for a developer, but it is bad for the software economy. H1B's are definitely bad. These are foreign workers who send most of their income overseas. Allowing more of them is basically encouraging the export of profits.
"increasing H-1B visas for highly skilled coders;"
That's good for software companies bottom lines, not American Jobs.
If you are referring to in-house code sure. If you are referring to copies of apps being sold I can't think of anything more commodity than free.
Why so there is. It doesn't generally cross medium and the character itself has to be unique enough to warrant copyright independently. The general idea of a character does not qualify for copyright. Harry Potter becomes copyrightable only with a description and only a Harry Potter who meets that description is copyrighted.