I didn't say servers outnumber personal computers I said intel graphics chips. There is a very big difference. Intel graphics chips are what you use in headless systems because you don't care about pretty pictures because they suck. For servers it's a minimal video capability if you needed it and an extra very parallel processing system useful for certain work types and they come free with intel cpus which provide the best processing per watt density in a datacenter.
End users care about graphics so personal computers more frequently come with a decent graphics chip that would be functional for a typical game which means ATI and AMD.
Ah but server operators do care and will care more going forward. The GPU is another processing platform now, one which is highly parallel. But no, they don't care about the pretty pictures.
"You say "should" like there is some kind of absolute morality. Hint: there is not."
Absolute morality? I'd not go that far. It is simply the fact that ideas are not unique or property. We've created the concept that you can own an idea and supported it by force it is not a natural or innate thing. The key in my statement that justifies my saying what they should or should not get as an absolute is "artificial restriction." The evidence does not support the idea that we would not have any given solution if the person holding the copyright did not first pen it, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, almost everyone who has ventured on a course of self learning has experienced reinventing or re-imagining something. Ideas don't belong to any one person, they belong to everyone or to no one however you look at it.
"What software developers should get paid for is what users are willing to pay for."
I disagree, what software developers and everyone else should get paid is what they'd accept to do the job. Last I checked a software developers life is not more precious than any other and we only live so long. This amounts to what development firms pay developers vs what users pay development firms. The firms can simply be eliminated. I should clarify, I'm not talking about firms that get paid one off to produce something, I'm talking about the likes of Adobe, Microsoft, etc that build a product and then charge for it millions or billions of times over even though it costs the same to produce once as a billion times.
"This model has been shown to work OK if you keep the terms down."
No it hasn't. It has not been shown we end up with less value in software or music or books or invention without the inhibition on progress created by patent or copyright. There is a benefit to a tiny group of individuals using this model while there is limitation placed on the rest of mankind, including the development of progressions on what has already been created. Paying people for labor of any sort, including copyright and patent flavors however IS a model that is proven to work without need for those limitations. Almost everyone creating something that can be copyrighted or patented is already working in this model so it is almost certain they would be willing to continue to do so, the model itself is only benefiting the wealthy who reap all the benefits beyond those wages.
That isn't really true there are actually some amazing arm chips. They are just too damn expensive.
The issue is basically the same as with the old T1's and upload bandwidth, the technology is kept ultra expensive because it contains features that are desirable for the enterprise market and nobody wants to make hardware that would take the bottom out of their heavily marked up enterprise markets. So the latest and greatest arm chips with a boatload of cores, virtualization extensions, ultra fast gpu on chip, multiple 10g ethernet on chip, audio on chip, oob support on chip, etc, etc are priced so high that only enterprise can afford them.
If they made these things as cheap as they could in bulk you'd have a couple 4U openstack open hardware blade chassis fully loaded with $20 blades, you'd be running your own private cloud, they'd have redundant networking, SDN, and a cheap breakout with all the ports you'd ever need for your home 10g wired network along with built in wireless and a 600gbit backbone for intercommunication between the blades/chassis. You'd use maybe 4 sticks of actual ram in each to function as cache while the rest of the memory would be SSD used as ram. Toss a couple 6 TB drives into the 6 bays on each chassis and you are set. You now have the most badass home network setup ever. Perfect for my own home lab and fully loaded you could have it all for a couple grand. This will easily host all the open server stuff you want, run all your home automation backend, eliminate your need for google services as you can host your own, run your self hosted game servers, your voip servers, etc. Or it could be the muscle behind your diy bioengineering projects and rapid dna sequencing, perhaps your foray into playing with the latest and greatest AI tech recently open sourced by google. This is just what you need to power development of modern products for the next generation new tech startup billionaires.
But it will never happen because that is 1/10th of the price any vendor charges enterprise for that much capacity right now. Large enterprises like facebook are already designing the open hardware for the racks and chassis to cut the big vendors out but they don't have their own chip fabs so there will be no flood of cheap 10gbit+ network chips or even 80 cpu core chips available at reasonable prices anytime soon.
I highly doubt that. The vast majority of intel graphics chips are likely in servers and only a tiny fraction of those would be running windows. Windows servers are for exchange, rdp, and a few poorly written apps are so industry specialized that they are hard to get rid of.
Everyone benefits from 10-20% more performance. There might be a relatively small number of people who NEED 10-20% more but everyone benefits from it.
When every action you perform on a machine is instant and there are no longer progress bars or hour glasses no matter how many things you do in parallel or what operation you are performing THEN you no longer benefit from a higher performing machine so long as it remains this way in the face of all new software released for the rest of your life. We aren't there on any of our machines yet. You can buy the biggest and most powerful machine in any data center and it still won't be performant enough to achieve this today let alone future proof.
I'd hardly call Linux the "next best os" it is superior to mac os on so many levels. Sure mac os provides a tightly integrated and low support experience but the ways in which it is superior end there.
'It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer."'
For some of us those two things are two intertwined there is little difference. I don't want to spend much time getting my computer up and running but playing with all the latest and greatest toys and understanding how they work inspires me when it comes time to work on things which get me paid.
Software developers should absolutely be paid, for their time. Neither they nor the company they work for should be paid for anything beyond their actual time. The same with musicians, movie stars, producers, directors, graphics designs, photographers, and everyone else who currently thrives on a work once paid many times through artificially restricting copying model.
Century Arms AK's do the trick and are inexpensive. Shop around, you can get one for $500-700. Give it a good cleaning as there will be metal shavings in there, check youtube for what to polish to make the mechanism more smooth if needed, a more modern tactical stock is preferred but not essential. There are pricey ones but the cheap ones get the job done as well. The youtube trail will show you all the things you CAN do to modify it, there are a couple cheap upgrade parts you'll encounter learning to disassemble and reassemble that make life easier on that front. Don't put a scope or dot sight or any of that crap on it. Mine came well sighted in right from the factory but the iron is adjustable if needed. The iron sights that come on the gun have an adjustment for the distance of the target if making long shots so you don't have to calculate the drop of the bullet. Maybe use a couple dabs of glow in dark paint on them.
My wife had never shot before, I went to a local range here in the city and they had a CA one that was completely beat to crap and never cleaned available as a rental. Said it was mostly shot by kids who though the AK's look cool with the curved clip. It was an indoor range so 50 yards was most you could do but I had no problem putting two test holes in the 2" red and then making a single quarter sized hole in the center of the red on the paper with the rest of the first clip at 50 yards using the iron. If you are missing your shots, it is far more likely you need to invest in upgrading the shooter than the gun. No shame in that, we can always learn from other shooters and practice our way to being better shots. Also, hitting the paper on a 6" round target at any range means a kill shot, not the center.
They are legal. But they are capable of frequencies outside the amateur band so as always it's on the operator to follow the rules. There are guides out there to tell you how to adjust the settings to lock them down to legal use. There are also guides telling you how to open them up to their full capability.
The US isn't the only country in the world and the radio rules aren't the same across all of them. Really, the hardware should always be made to maximum capability with responsibility falling on the operator to use the radio legally. The rules could change tomorrow or you could move with your radio to another country or up to space where you are exempt and of course there are always circumstances which trump FCC or even congressional authority.
Yes. And remind me again what matter of imminent danger to the public private communications between citizens present that it completely trumps the powers we reserved in the first and second amendment?
Kudos to these ignorant religious nutjobs because while I am not a fan of their beliefs and methods the good of raising public light on this very thing alone overrides any harm they caused while hanging out in a shed in the woods holding a gun asserting that they'd defend themselves if someone tried to assault and kidnap them.
"Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?"
First, they didn't use lethal force or violence. Second because militias are a Constitutionally protected military force of the people are supposed to be the only domestic ground forces that are allowed. The people reserved that flavor of military force because the government has the capability to break the law and the people have the right to put a stop to it, with force if necessary in the same manner and for the same reasons police sometimes must use force. Third because it was the civilian militias which formed the continental army and were criminals right up until the point they defeated the British and suddenly became patriots.
You might think we are better off with the changes that have occurred in government. But there can be no doubt the supreme court has deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution, it is written in slightly dated English (regulated in the 2nd meant trained for instance at the time) but it was written by laymen in plain English so that anyone could read and understand it without risk of people trying to twist it and find technicalities in nuances of its wording that gave additional power to government and took power from the people. Going to war without a congressional declaration, the DEA and federal restriction of personal uses of substances, gun control on the whole, the existence of the FBI and almost everything they prosecute. The federal government isn't for regulating the actions of people, it is for policing the actions of states and collective bargaining. Everything else the government does is illegal the people who allowed it to happen and who perpetuate it are criminals and traitors guilty of treason.
None of that is speculation, it is simple fact. It isn't that all the results were bad things it's that the methods used have led us so far astray that we actually think of anyone who is trying to act in accord with the Constitution and restore it is a criminal and the only people who are trying to do so are extremist nutjobs. You might think we need gun control or you might be opposed but we should all be ready to jail or hang any member of government who would attempt to steal the power to bring about such a change without a Constitutional amendment because that line and limitation on government power is far more important than any school shooting or target practice. The problem isn't these extremist nutjobs, the problem is that the rest of us are so obedient to an illegal and unconstitutional status quo that they are the only ones actually fighting for the political issues that preempt everything any presidental candidate will voice an opinion on during the election. I don't like the methods of these religious nutjobs any more than you but who are we to argue with their methods when we sit docile allowing our government to engage in treason while we stand by and do nothing to resist?
Actually, it would probably be worthwhile to make a civilian designed and open source audio encryption/decryption rig with an earpiece that plugs into the microphone ports of these radios.
Just don't ship it with the firmware loaded, the hardware technically could be used for all sorts of purposes. Make another option that does funny voices or the like so there is another use for it besides encryption. Make that and the encryption/decryption enabled firmware a download available from servers in numerous countries.
You missed his second statement, "So try buying encrypted radios as a non LEO/Gov." You can be willing to violate the FCC reg all day but that won't make the equipment you need to do so magically appear.
Carrying a rifle is no crime. Resisting police and federal authorities is not neccesarily a crime either. When the actions of police and federal authorities are illegal it is no crime to stop them. Violating the Constitution is illegal, the Constitution is a higher law than the federal government and even the supreme court and the people are a higher law than the Constitution. Somehow people have gotten things screwed up, they think violating the laws congress makes is illegal and a crime but that violating the Constitution is not illegal or a crime. If the supreme court deliberately violates and misinterprets the Constitution which was intentionally written by laymen in plain English and the federal government deliberately ignores it or pays only token attention with loopholes that blatantly subvert the Constitution how are the people to act if not through the military power we specifically reserved for our civilian militias and denied to the federal government except by assembling those militias under a congressional declaration of war? The existence of the standing US army itself is high treason.
These guys formed a civilian militia under the 2nd amendment and occupied lands illegally seized by the federal government which is only permitted limited occupation of private property under the umbrella of a proper and official Congressional declaration of war. In reserving the right to form militias, the people also implicitly reserved the right to act via those militias. The federal government has only the revocable privileges we've granted them via the Constitution, violating the boundaries of the Constitution is illegal and treason as is deliberately ruling in a manner that is not consistent with the Constitution by the supreme court.
A civilian militia outranks the federal government just as a jury does.
Actually the encryption comes from motorola and it is US govt backdoored so useless for this purpose. What I'd have probably done is produce my own audio encryption modules that could plug in the mic port and produce an ear piece but I doubt these guys had that kind of technical skill.
Because the FCC regulations stop the guys who manufacture radios. Frequency hopping is useless and radio encryption available to civilians is backdoored by the US government so hardly suitable for communicating if they are the ones you don't want listening.
The only way they would be able to get encrypted radios would be to make the encryption technology and the radios themselves and then somehow manage to miniaturize the technology enough to make efficient handhelds. Not likely.
The cheapest of AK-47's can be polished up to stand next to the best in a couple hours after watching a few youtube videos. AR15's are more accurate to a longer range out of the box but an AK-47 is more than accurate enough to consistently kill people at 300 yards with iron sights.
Beyond 300 yards you can misuse an AR but there are definitely better rifles for someone looking to take down targets at this range and beyond, the AR doesn't really have a powerful enough round for it and semi-automatic mechanisms are less reliable than bolt action for this kind of shooting. What an AR fails to do is provide reliable operation in real conditions, at least not as designed. They can be retrofit with more reliable gas mechanisms to approach AK reliability but you could have armed a second soldier or bought ammunition for the first instead if you'd simply armed them with an AK.
Civilian armies typically have the same problem the soviets did, limited resources relative to the opposition, the AK is the obvious choice. There are really two reasons ARs are popular. The first is that former US military are inclined to use them due to familiarity, the gun is a demilitarized version of the M16 they used in service. Second is that hatred of "commies" was pushed so hard and with so much propaganda that people refuse to use what is a far more practical weapon because they have been programmed to hate the ideology of the people who designed it. It's about as silly as it would be to refuse to use normal sized hammers if the Russians had come up with them and insist on using tack hammers for every job because someone in the US came up with those first. I'll use the tack hammer where it is the best tool for the job, the normal hammer where appropriate, and a bolt action rifle with at least a.308 round for any task in which putting optics on my rifle doesn't make me ignorant or stupid.
They peacefully occupied an abandoned compound built on lands that had been previously illegally seized by the federal government. They stated a willingness to defend themselves if attacked.
Those actions do not meet either of the definitions above. Further, the right to form a militia is protected by the 2nd amendment which is higher law and preempts both US statute and the FBI mandate and authority. Arguably, the right to form such a militia includes an implicit reservation of peoples right to act via their militia. Federal seizure of lands violates provisions of the Constitution which only permit federal forces to occupy private property to a limited extent under a congressional declaration of war. Violation of the Constitution is an act of high treason and an attempt to stop an ongoing violation against the people would fall within the right to domestic military action that the people reserved.
The people reserved domestic military power to the people so that it could be used should the supreme court blatantly ignore the Constitution (a legal document that was not written by lawyers and is intended to be readable by the common man) and the federal government fail to respect the limits on the power we choose to give them. This is a power reserved by the people to correct large breaches and attempts to seize authority from the people whereas the jury was our reservation of power to prevent the enforcement of unjust laws one case at a time.
The formation of militias is an explicitly defined Constitutionally protected right. They are not terrorist organizations by definition but rather a constitutionally created military force. It is the assembly of such militias in the time of war that is supposed to be the body of the US army, there actually isn't supposed to be a federal army outside of a congressional declaration of war.
"the Federal government accidentally killing dozens of men, women and children in addition to most of the militia members (Waco"
More than enough information has come out regarding Waco and was captured on film to definitively prove that saying the government accidentally killed those men, women, and children (including the militia who engaged in no hostile actions) is akin to claiming that soaking a beaver dam in gasoline and setting it on fire accidentally resulted in killing the beavers.
"Most likely it was just shut down for the season."
Abandoned for the season at least. The point being they chose a target where there was a minimal chance of hurting someone. Whether you agree with their actions or not, they went about those actions in a manner which deliberately intended to minimize any damage or harm. Accidents happen but carrying a rifle while conducting a protest does not mean it isn't a peaceful protest, affirming that you will defend yourself if parties attempt to use violence to interfere is self-defense and also does not fail the peaceful protest category.
"calculated to provoke a state of terror"
There is no evidence this was intended. The deliberate choice an empty institution far away from civilian populations and the failure to initiate violence or make a threat that they will initiate violence (as opposed to declaring they will defend themselves if hostile actions are initiated by others) is a strong indication they did not attempt to invoke a state of terror.
"Premeditated, politically motivated violence"
You are missing the violence part. Standing around with guns is not an act of violence. Standing around on property seized via imminent domain in protest of that seizure is not violence. Asserting that if others attempt violence (and yes, kidnapping by armed men is violence whether they have badges or not) you will defend yourselves is not violence.
There is a difference between being prepared to fight for a cause if necessary and throwing the first punch. In all other cases the police arrest the man who threw the first punch at the offender and consider the other party the defender no matter what was said leading up to the fight. These men did not throw the first punch and never gave any indication they intending on throwing a first punch or would be willing to, only that they wouldn't allow themselves to be pummeled if another party punched them.
Just because you don't agree with their motivations or actions is no reason to malign their actions beyond reality. Whatever else these men did, they did exhibit a premeditated and deliberate caution and respect for the lives and safety of others when carrying out those actions.
Considering the right to arm and form a civilian militia is an explicitly defined Constitutional right, they are not terrorists, insurgents, and legalized by the highest law of the land falls well short of illegal combatants.
The US army on the other hand, those are illegal combatants outside of time of a Congressional declaration of war.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say servers outnumber personal computers I said intel graphics chips. There is a very big difference. Intel graphics chips are what you use in headless systems because you don't care about pretty pictures because they suck. For servers it's a minimal video capability if you needed it and an extra very parallel processing system useful for certain work types and they come free with intel cpus which provide the best processing per watt density in a datacenter.
End users care about graphics so personal computers more frequently come with a decent graphics chip that would be functional for a typical game which means ATI and AMD.
Ah but server operators do care and will care more going forward. The GPU is another processing platform now, one which is highly parallel. But no, they don't care about the pretty pictures.
"You say "should" like there is some kind of absolute morality. Hint: there is not."
Absolute morality? I'd not go that far. It is simply the fact that ideas are not unique or property. We've created the concept that you can own an idea and supported it by force it is not a natural or innate thing. The key in my statement that justifies my saying what they should or should not get as an absolute is "artificial restriction." The evidence does not support the idea that we would not have any given solution if the person holding the copyright did not first pen it, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, almost everyone who has ventured on a course of self learning has experienced reinventing or re-imagining something. Ideas don't belong to any one person, they belong to everyone or to no one however you look at it.
"What software developers should get paid for is what users are willing to pay for."
I disagree, what software developers and everyone else should get paid is what they'd accept to do the job. Last I checked a software developers life is not more precious than any other and we only live so long. This amounts to what development firms pay developers vs what users pay development firms. The firms can simply be eliminated. I should clarify, I'm not talking about firms that get paid one off to produce something, I'm talking about the likes of Adobe, Microsoft, etc that build a product and then charge for it millions or billions of times over even though it costs the same to produce once as a billion times.
"This model has been shown to work OK if you keep the terms down."
No it hasn't. It has not been shown we end up with less value in software or music or books or invention without the inhibition on progress created by patent or copyright. There is a benefit to a tiny group of individuals using this model while there is limitation placed on the rest of mankind, including the development of progressions on what has already been created. Paying people for labor of any sort, including copyright and patent flavors however IS a model that is proven to work without need for those limitations. Almost everyone creating something that can be copyrighted or patented is already working in this model so it is almost certain they would be willing to continue to do so, the model itself is only benefiting the wealthy who reap all the benefits beyond those wages.
No, not really. Intel dominates the chips right now.
Depending on what you do, you might be able to get some of the latest ARM stuff on boxes being sold out of china as "tv boxes"
That isn't really true there are actually some amazing arm chips. They are just too damn expensive.
The issue is basically the same as with the old T1's and upload bandwidth, the technology is kept ultra expensive because it contains features that are desirable for the enterprise market and nobody wants to make hardware that would take the bottom out of their heavily marked up enterprise markets. So the latest and greatest arm chips with a boatload of cores, virtualization extensions, ultra fast gpu on chip, multiple 10g ethernet on chip, audio on chip, oob support on chip, etc, etc are priced so high that only enterprise can afford them.
If they made these things as cheap as they could in bulk you'd have a couple 4U openstack open hardware blade chassis fully loaded with $20 blades, you'd be running your own private cloud, they'd have redundant networking, SDN, and a cheap breakout with all the ports you'd ever need for your home 10g wired network along with built in wireless and a 600gbit backbone for intercommunication between the blades/chassis. You'd use maybe 4 sticks of actual ram in each to function as cache while the rest of the memory would be SSD used as ram. Toss a couple 6 TB drives into the 6 bays on each chassis and you are set. You now have the most badass home network setup ever. Perfect for my own home lab and fully loaded you could have it all for a couple grand. This will easily host all the open server stuff you want, run all your home automation backend, eliminate your need for google services as you can host your own, run your self hosted game servers, your voip servers, etc. Or it could be the muscle behind your diy bioengineering projects and rapid dna sequencing, perhaps your foray into playing with the latest and greatest AI tech recently open sourced by google. This is just what you need to power development of modern products for the next generation new tech startup billionaires.
But it will never happen because that is 1/10th of the price any vendor charges enterprise for that much capacity right now. Large enterprises like facebook are already designing the open hardware for the racks and chassis to cut the big vendors out but they don't have their own chip fabs so there will be no flood of cheap 10gbit+ network chips or even 80 cpu core chips available at reasonable prices anytime soon.
"90+% of their customers run Windows."
I highly doubt that. The vast majority of intel graphics chips are likely in servers and only a tiny fraction of those would be running windows. Windows servers are for exchange, rdp, and a few poorly written apps are so industry specialized that they are hard to get rid of.
Everyone benefits from 10-20% more performance. There might be a relatively small number of people who NEED 10-20% more but everyone benefits from it.
When every action you perform on a machine is instant and there are no longer progress bars or hour glasses no matter how many things you do in parallel or what operation you are performing THEN you no longer benefit from a higher performing machine so long as it remains this way in the face of all new software released for the rest of your life. We aren't there on any of our machines yet. You can buy the biggest and most powerful machine in any data center and it still won't be performant enough to achieve this today let alone future proof.
I'd hardly call Linux the "next best os" it is superior to mac os on so many levels. Sure mac os provides a tightly integrated and low support experience but the ways in which it is superior end there.
'It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer."'
For some of us those two things are two intertwined there is little difference. I don't want to spend much time getting my computer up and running but playing with all the latest and greatest toys and understanding how they work inspires me when it comes time to work on things which get me paid.
Software developers should absolutely be paid, for their time. Neither they nor the company they work for should be paid for anything beyond their actual time. The same with musicians, movie stars, producers, directors, graphics designs, photographers, and everyone else who currently thrives on a work once paid many times through artificially restricting copying model.
Century Arms AK's do the trick and are inexpensive. Shop around, you can get one for $500-700. Give it a good cleaning as there will be metal shavings in there, check youtube for what to polish to make the mechanism more smooth if needed, a more modern tactical stock is preferred but not essential. There are pricey ones but the cheap ones get the job done as well. The youtube trail will show you all the things you CAN do to modify it, there are a couple cheap upgrade parts you'll encounter learning to disassemble and reassemble that make life easier on that front. Don't put a scope or dot sight or any of that crap on it. Mine came well sighted in right from the factory but the iron is adjustable if needed. The iron sights that come on the gun have an adjustment for the distance of the target if making long shots so you don't have to calculate the drop of the bullet. Maybe use a couple dabs of glow in dark paint on them.
My wife had never shot before, I went to a local range here in the city and they had a CA one that was completely beat to crap and never cleaned available as a rental. Said it was mostly shot by kids who though the AK's look cool with the curved clip. It was an indoor range so 50 yards was most you could do but I had no problem putting two test holes in the 2" red and then making a single quarter sized hole in the center of the red on the paper with the rest of the first clip at 50 yards using the iron. If you are missing your shots, it is far more likely you need to invest in upgrading the shooter than the gun. No shame in that, we can always learn from other shooters and practice our way to being better shots. Also, hitting the paper on a 6" round target at any range means a kill shot, not the center.
They are legal. But they are capable of frequencies outside the amateur band so as always it's on the operator to follow the rules. There are guides out there to tell you how to adjust the settings to lock them down to legal use. There are also guides telling you how to open them up to their full capability.
The US isn't the only country in the world and the radio rules aren't the same across all of them. Really, the hardware should always be made to maximum capability with responsibility falling on the operator to use the radio legally. The rules could change tomorrow or you could move with your radio to another country or up to space where you are exempt and of course there are always circumstances which trump FCC or even congressional authority.
Yes. And remind me again what matter of imminent danger to the public private communications between citizens present that it completely trumps the powers we reserved in the first and second amendment?
Kudos to these ignorant religious nutjobs because while I am not a fan of their beliefs and methods the good of raising public light on this very thing alone overrides any harm they caused while hanging out in a shed in the woods holding a gun asserting that they'd defend themselves if someone tried to assault and kidnap them.
"Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?"
First, they didn't use lethal force or violence. Second because militias are a Constitutionally protected military force of the people are supposed to be the only domestic ground forces that are allowed. The people reserved that flavor of military force because the government has the capability to break the law and the people have the right to put a stop to it, with force if necessary in the same manner and for the same reasons police sometimes must use force. Third because it was the civilian militias which formed the continental army and were criminals right up until the point they defeated the British and suddenly became patriots.
You might think we are better off with the changes that have occurred in government. But there can be no doubt the supreme court has deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution, it is written in slightly dated English (regulated in the 2nd meant trained for instance at the time) but it was written by laymen in plain English so that anyone could read and understand it without risk of people trying to twist it and find technicalities in nuances of its wording that gave additional power to government and took power from the people. Going to war without a congressional declaration, the DEA and federal restriction of personal uses of substances, gun control on the whole, the existence of the FBI and almost everything they prosecute. The federal government isn't for regulating the actions of people, it is for policing the actions of states and collective bargaining. Everything else the government does is illegal the people who allowed it to happen and who perpetuate it are criminals and traitors guilty of treason.
None of that is speculation, it is simple fact. It isn't that all the results were bad things it's that the methods used have led us so far astray that we actually think of anyone who is trying to act in accord with the Constitution and restore it is a criminal and the only people who are trying to do so are extremist nutjobs. You might think we need gun control or you might be opposed but we should all be ready to jail or hang any member of government who would attempt to steal the power to bring about such a change without a Constitutional amendment because that line and limitation on government power is far more important than any school shooting or target practice. The problem isn't these extremist nutjobs, the problem is that the rest of us are so obedient to an illegal and unconstitutional status quo that they are the only ones actually fighting for the political issues that preempt everything any presidental candidate will voice an opinion on during the election. I don't like the methods of these religious nutjobs any more than you but who are we to argue with their methods when we sit docile allowing our government to engage in treason while we stand by and do nothing to resist?
True, but they aren't mutually exclusive either.
Actually, it would probably be worthwhile to make a civilian designed and open source audio encryption/decryption rig with an earpiece that plugs into the microphone ports of these radios.
Just don't ship it with the firmware loaded, the hardware technically could be used for all sorts of purposes. Make another option that does funny voices or the like so there is another use for it besides encryption. Make that and the encryption/decryption enabled firmware a download available from servers in numerous countries.
You missed his second statement, "So try buying encrypted radios as a non LEO/Gov." You can be willing to violate the FCC reg all day but that won't make the equipment you need to do so magically appear.
Carrying a rifle is no crime. Resisting police and federal authorities is not neccesarily a crime either. When the actions of police and federal authorities are illegal it is no crime to stop them. Violating the Constitution is illegal, the Constitution is a higher law than the federal government and even the supreme court and the people are a higher law than the Constitution. Somehow people have gotten things screwed up, they think violating the laws congress makes is illegal and a crime but that violating the Constitution is not illegal or a crime. If the supreme court deliberately violates and misinterprets the Constitution which was intentionally written by laymen in plain English and the federal government deliberately ignores it or pays only token attention with loopholes that blatantly subvert the Constitution how are the people to act if not through the military power we specifically reserved for our civilian militias and denied to the federal government except by assembling those militias under a congressional declaration of war? The existence of the standing US army itself is high treason.
These guys formed a civilian militia under the 2nd amendment and occupied lands illegally seized by the federal government which is only permitted limited occupation of private property under the umbrella of a proper and official Congressional declaration of war. In reserving the right to form militias, the people also implicitly reserved the right to act via those militias. The federal government has only the revocable privileges we've granted them via the Constitution, violating the boundaries of the Constitution is illegal and treason as is deliberately ruling in a manner that is not consistent with the Constitution by the supreme court.
A civilian militia outranks the federal government just as a jury does.
Actually the encryption comes from motorola and it is US govt backdoored so useless for this purpose. What I'd have probably done is produce my own audio encryption modules that could plug in the mic port and produce an ear piece but I doubt these guys had that kind of technical skill.
Because the FCC regulations stop the guys who manufacture radios. Frequency hopping is useless and radio encryption available to civilians is backdoored by the US government so hardly suitable for communicating if they are the ones you don't want listening.
The only way they would be able to get encrypted radios would be to make the encryption technology and the radios themselves and then somehow manage to miniaturize the technology enough to make efficient handhelds. Not likely.
The cheapest of AK-47's can be polished up to stand next to the best in a couple hours after watching a few youtube videos. AR15's are more accurate to a longer range out of the box but an AK-47 is more than accurate enough to consistently kill people at 300 yards with iron sights.
.308 round for any task in which putting optics on my rifle doesn't make me ignorant or stupid.
Beyond 300 yards you can misuse an AR but there are definitely better rifles for someone looking to take down targets at this range and beyond, the AR doesn't really have a powerful enough round for it and semi-automatic mechanisms are less reliable than bolt action for this kind of shooting. What an AR fails to do is provide reliable operation in real conditions, at least not as designed. They can be retrofit with more reliable gas mechanisms to approach AK reliability but you could have armed a second soldier or bought ammunition for the first instead if you'd simply armed them with an AK.
Civilian armies typically have the same problem the soviets did, limited resources relative to the opposition, the AK is the obvious choice. There are really two reasons ARs are popular. The first is that former US military are inclined to use them due to familiarity, the gun is a demilitarized version of the M16 they used in service. Second is that hatred of "commies" was pushed so hard and with so much propaganda that people refuse to use what is a far more practical weapon because they have been programmed to hate the ideology of the people who designed it. It's about as silly as it would be to refuse to use normal sized hammers if the Russians had come up with them and insist on using tack hammers for every job because someone in the US came up with those first. I'll use the tack hammer where it is the best tool for the job, the normal hammer where appropriate, and a bolt action rifle with at least a
They peacefully occupied an abandoned compound built on lands that had been previously illegally seized by the federal government. They stated a willingness to defend themselves if attacked.
Those actions do not meet either of the definitions above. Further, the right to form a militia is protected by the 2nd amendment which is higher law and preempts both US statute and the FBI mandate and authority. Arguably, the right to form such a militia includes an implicit reservation of peoples right to act via their militia. Federal seizure of lands violates provisions of the Constitution which only permit federal forces to occupy private property to a limited extent under a congressional declaration of war. Violation of the Constitution is an act of high treason and an attempt to stop an ongoing violation against the people would fall within the right to domestic military action that the people reserved.
The people reserved domestic military power to the people so that it could be used should the supreme court blatantly ignore the Constitution (a legal document that was not written by lawyers and is intended to be readable by the common man) and the federal government fail to respect the limits on the power we choose to give them. This is a power reserved by the people to correct large breaches and attempts to seize authority from the people whereas the jury was our reservation of power to prevent the enforcement of unjust laws one case at a time.
The formation of militias is an explicitly defined Constitutionally protected right. They are not terrorist organizations by definition but rather a constitutionally created military force. It is the assembly of such militias in the time of war that is supposed to be the body of the US army, there actually isn't supposed to be a federal army outside of a congressional declaration of war.
"the Federal government accidentally killing dozens of men, women and children in addition to most of the militia members (Waco"
More than enough information has come out regarding Waco and was captured on film to definitively prove that saying the government accidentally killed those men, women, and children (including the militia who engaged in no hostile actions) is akin to claiming that soaking a beaver dam in gasoline and setting it on fire accidentally resulted in killing the beavers.
"Most likely it was just shut down for the season."
Abandoned for the season at least. The point being they chose a target where there was a minimal chance of hurting someone. Whether you agree with their actions or not, they went about those actions in a manner which deliberately intended to minimize any damage or harm. Accidents happen but carrying a rifle while conducting a protest does not mean it isn't a peaceful protest, affirming that you will defend yourself if parties attempt to use violence to interfere is self-defense and also does not fail the peaceful protest category.
"calculated to provoke a state of terror"
There is no evidence this was intended. The deliberate choice an empty institution far away from civilian populations and the failure to initiate violence or make a threat that they will initiate violence (as opposed to declaring they will defend themselves if hostile actions are initiated by others) is a strong indication they did not attempt to invoke a state of terror.
"Premeditated, politically motivated violence"
You are missing the violence part. Standing around with guns is not an act of violence. Standing around on property seized via imminent domain in protest of that seizure is not violence. Asserting that if others attempt violence (and yes, kidnapping by armed men is violence whether they have badges or not) you will defend yourselves is not violence.
There is a difference between being prepared to fight for a cause if necessary and throwing the first punch. In all other cases the police arrest the man who threw the first punch at the offender and consider the other party the defender no matter what was said leading up to the fight. These men did not throw the first punch and never gave any indication they intending on throwing a first punch or would be willing to, only that they wouldn't allow themselves to be pummeled if another party punched them.
Just because you don't agree with their motivations or actions is no reason to malign their actions beyond reality. Whatever else these men did, they did exhibit a premeditated and deliberate caution and respect for the lives and safety of others when carrying out those actions.
Considering the right to arm and form a civilian militia is an explicitly defined Constitutional right, they are not terrorists, insurgents, and legalized by the highest law of the land falls well short of illegal combatants.
The US army on the other hand, those are illegal combatants outside of time of a Congressional declaration of war.