An ad hominem fallacy would be if I stated you were wrong *because* you were an idiot. I don't say that.
You're wrong because your statements don't hold up. You stated you were closed to BSD because of your own perceptions, not because BSD wasn't superior. This is a wrong, incorrect stance to take.
You're silly because the manner in which you state your opinions is representative of many of the shrill Linux devotees of which you are one.
You're an idiot because you can't see how clearly you are representing these people and because when I accused you of having a closed mind, you responded "So, what?"
You *are* fun, however.
You see, if I'd stated you were wrong *because* you're an idiot, then that would be ad hominem. That you are wrong, and that you're an idiot, these things are merely coincidental.
Just so you understand my point of view: I have no idea as to what the hell you're talking about.
Where do I say, anywhere, that "we need BSD"? Where? What I said was that the Slashdot community needs to be presented with a tool that "upgrades" Linux users to another form of free *nix. I was specifically referring to the content of the post and, in fact, *not* over-generalizing, which you are doing.
I think Linux is great. I think the variosu BSDs are great. And I'm typing this reponse on a Windows XP box which, more or less, works flawlessly because, more or less, I know what the hell I'm doing.
You tell me, "You will not get converts..." But this is exactly my point, myopiaboy. I'm NOT LOOKING FOR CONVERTS. COMPUTERS ARE NOT RELIGION. THEY'RE TOOLS. You claim that arrogance exists to a much lesser extent in the Linux community, you nearsighted nit, but then you use the word "converts" and then claim you won't even look at BSD because of the attitudes of the community as you perceive them.
So, in theory, BSD could be the most incredible OS ever, but you won't look at it because you find the attitudes of the community offensive?
And you call BSD people arrogant?
Dude, you NEED to be the posterboy for Linux. You were born for it. Please post your address so I can send you a big penguin shirt, so that anyone may immediately identify you as a Linux "convert".
The Slashdot crowd needs this. It justifiably makes many of them look like rats picking fights with their tails. So many of these Slashrodents are so myopic by virtue of their unceasing "promotion" of Linux that it's as if they don't know what to do now when you show them something that isn't Windows, but isn't Linux, but it isn't Windows! but it isn't Linux! So they default to ATTACK! AAUUUGGGHH! It might be friendly but we can't afford to take the risk! ATTACK!
Even now, throughout these posts, there are a ton of "off-topic" posts that didn't get moderated as such. "Personally I prefer this ". They're not commenting on BSD, they're just moving their mouths and out comes LinuxLinuxLinuxLinux in a neverending, mindless blather. Most of them are like the Scientologists on Hollywood Blvd. "Would you like a free personality test? Oooohhh, we see here you need Linux. Linux will make you whole..."
It shows that many of these nits can't distinguish between understanding computers and software as tools or understanding computers and software as religion. Here's a hint guys: This isn't religion. Or it shouldn't be. And Linus isn't God. He's just an egotistical programmer that made some nice software. And, because I've never read it anyplace else, I'll just say this: He looks as dorky as hell.
Get a freakin' clue, guys. BSD is amazing. Stop being sheep and start using the brains you were born with. Learn what BSD is about and then, perhaps, you'll stop stuttering "DebianDebianDebianDebianDebian..."
Thank fucking god my parents were at least honest with me about it.
Yeah, your parents did a great job with you, Scroogeboy. You're all just a big shiny, happy group of people, aren't'cha?
Well, while you're busy picking the wax out of your ears and glowering over the hypocrisies of the season, know this: God, in His infinite wisdom, which infinitely surpasses my own, loves you anyway.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Cheer up. Go eat a turkey. I guarantee you that if you do one, it will lead to the other...
I've studied poetry, written some, and taken it seriously of my own free will, despite that as an English major at UCI I'm required to do so in order to finish my degree.
I make a living as a coder, though, and I've noticed many similarities between code and poetry, especially between code and the poetry of the so-called "language" poets whose poetry depends on visual appreciation of the physical layout of the words on the page in order to be understood.
There are some significant differences, however, between poetry and code that, to my mind, limit the comparison.
One, in order for code to be interesting, it must be correct, that is, solve the problem it was meant to solve. If it's not correct then it's just a collection of symbols and keywords and, while a language poet might be interested in such a collection for the purposes of expression, it's not going to have much value as code.
Poetry, on the other hand... must also be correct. And this is where the main difference lies, oddly. In great poetry there is a limited number of interpretations. Great poems may mean any number of a set of things, but they won't, and shouldn't, mean anything. And the meaning in poetry is "encoded", if you will, within the constraints of meter, rhythm, structure, rhyme (if any), vocabulary, subject, ideas, allusions, sound, and intended audience, to name some of the principal things.
So, between code having to be correct for its purposes in order to be interesting, and poetry having to be "correct" within its constraints, there's going to be a seriously limited subset of "code poems", if any at all, that legitimately cross over into both domains.
As I was reading the examples, I was in serious doubt that this poetry had much use to the "geek crowd" outside of using a few words like "Emacs" and "modem". So what. Even the reviewer says that this isn't "easy" poetry. Okay. So it's not easy. But is it any good?
Basically, Sci Fi took out all of the cheesy elements from Galactica and kept all of the story that was cool and worth keeping.
The space battles were great, with better 'physics' than in most sci-fi space stories, and the acting, except for Apollo, who always looked like he was sporting a suppository, was very solid. Olmos did a great job of realizing Adama.
There was only one problem: Tricia Helfer as Six. Uuhhhmmm. If she were a Cylon, well, I'd want to be conquered. Hard.
Other than that, the only problem I had were with the different "models" of Cylons. I'd assumed that by different models the show was alluding to different configurations meant for different purposes. I hadn't realized that same models meant identical appearance. That was goofy. And why only twelve? The Cylons can travel faster than light, launch completely covert attacks on an advanced civilization, but they can only think of twelve different models for themselves?
But all right. I enjoyed the series so much that I can forgive that and look past it, hope they figure it out.
Of worthy mention also was Mary McDonnell's performance as the 43rd-in-line for succession to the presidency. She gave a wonderfully restrained, but nicely authoritative performance that balanced out Adama's hyper-masculine, scarred-up face. Their final negotiation, and her lines during that meeting, were great writing.
Support this show! Support quality scifi! Keep it on the air or all we'll have to look forward to on TV is reruns of Twilight Zone and more of Trish & Ryan's fucking wedding, or whatever their freakin' names are.
Sick of XML? Try YAML.
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Reading through the posts on this board, I tend to agree with the criticisms about XML. It's a big dreadnought of a specification when, in most cases, a nice light corsair or even single-seat fighter would do the trick. Still, I would normally be inclined to say of XML what is said about Democracy: it's the worst system out there, except for all the others.
Then I found YAML. Long and short, YAML is very lightweight, eminently readable, easy to use (parsers exist in multiple languages) and a pleasure all kinds of projects that require data serialization. Where XML branches off into other types of uses, like XSL programming, YAML doesn't really compete. I find this to be a strength, actually, because once you've used YAML and seen it in action, XSL seems like a big, fat add-on. But for those that rely on XSL and other things, YAML won't do the trick.
But if all you need is data serialization in a compact, easy-to-read, easy-to-use package -- and this, in my opinion, is by far what XML is most used for -- then YAML is great. Give it a shot.
As for XML. I used to hate it with a passion. Now I still hate it, but I'm less passionate. The creators of XML are ambitious people, and they tried to do something in that spirit. It works, basically and XML doesn't deserve *all* the bad press it gets.
This must just be an abysmally slow news-for-nerds day or something because, you know, the joke in the post is valid. Did anyone breathe a sigh of genuine relief here? Did anyone go, "Oh, God, well, now I can stop worrying about that!"
Did anyone see Armageddon and then go home unable to sleep for nights on end?
I just find it hard to believe that in the vast informational space of the Internet, this is a story that collided with the front page of Slashdot.
The analysis doesn't change the chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth, points out astronomer Iwan Williams of Queen Mary University of London, UK. "But assuming that there are fewer large asteroids, the damage will be less," he says.
When news editors say, "Damn it, just print something!", this is what we get.
If there's a list like, "And the winners are, Bink, Shputz, GBR (goober), Splong, VORKO, and Dwinky!"
But DON'T, for God's sake, tell fans of the products that they projects might benefit from name upgrades, nooo. You're assaulted with logic like: "Screw you, bastard! I've been using Splong for two years, and it's the best thing ever and marketing should be called moroning and Splong is a cool name anyway and you're just stoopid, you cocksucking ape!"
No. I gave up. My next open source work is going under a goofy name. Oh, and I'll sue anyone that tries to use Splong.
... Cool yer jets there, hombre. First, lax, then relax.
Can you imagine this? Can you imagine 2 people who live together, one who's working for money, one who's working for money, the other one doing these things in his/her free time?
No. Can't. I don't have any time for imagination, I'm too busy working.
You could have helped me...
Yeah, all right, I'll respect the not-your-native-tongue thing. For future flames, you want "being" not "beeing".
How 'bout we just agree to disagree, 'k? Or, if you want, we can flip a coin, heads I win, tails you lose...
Outside of a few socially backward dweebs, no one, but no one, uses BSD...
... wrote the moron, posting in Slashdot's BSD section which has just posted two new release announcements in the last six days...
Yes, brilliant comment. You keep tellin' yourself that. Oh, you might want to check out the story on the front page about Red Hat not releasing anything else in the Red Hat Linux product line, ever again. Next.
Thank you for your well considered response. Since you sound level-headed, I will go check out that site and see what there is. I love OS X, love BSD, and I'm always interested in seeing the innovations surrounding the different flavors of this OS branch.
Oh -- and I have nothing against the Malaguan butterfly. I was just saying, you know, for example...
Well, I'm not very familiar with Darwin, but now I can say, based on this story, that my mind is pretty closed to it. I would certainly be hard pressed to ever consider it for anything in a production environment.
I don't want politics with my OS. I don't want the distribution site going black because Bush decides to bomb koala bears or even humans for that matter. Call me cold-hearted, but if I'm in a production environment, and I need to deliver a box that's expected to be supported and work as advertised, I don't want to worry if the freaking OS "activists" -- whatever the hell they are, exactly -- are going to pull the Distro (capitalized, no less) because the Malaguan butterfly's habitat is endangered by oil drilling or 250 million U.S. citizens have strong opinions about war.
Screw that. Give me my FreeBSD, which, to my knowledge, is pretty much always available, regardless of what Dan Rather is spewing at any given moment, and give me peace of mind. Hey, I know that's a lot less eloquent than "give me freedom, or give me death", but in my mind, and with some of the pressures I face from clients, I really don't distinguish between the two.
So? Some kid browsing a porn site isn't putting his own immediate, personal security at risk, but I don't think anyone would argue that some kind of censorship is inappropriate where porn's concerned. My examples were extreme but there are plenty examples of daily, widely accepted censorship.
So what's your point? Did you have one or was that just a brain fart?
Okay, I understand the spirit of your post, at least I think so. However, a basic problem in arguing censorship is with the second word in the title of your post.
This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.
However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.
Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.
I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.
Slashdot Mirror
How interesting. How appropriate.
Possibly, the stupidest statement I've ever read on Slashdot. If you can't see why, then, well, wow.
... you don't know what you're talking about ...
An ad hominem fallacy would be if I stated you were wrong *because* you were an idiot. I don't say that.
You're wrong because your statements don't hold up. You stated you were closed to BSD because of your own perceptions, not because BSD wasn't superior. This is a wrong, incorrect stance to take.
You're silly because the manner in which you state your opinions is representative of many of the shrill Linux devotees of which you are one.
You're an idiot because you can't see how clearly you are representing these people and because when I accused you of having a closed mind, you responded "So, what?"
You *are* fun, however.
You see, if I'd stated you were wrong *because* you're an idiot, then that would be ad hominem. That you are wrong, and that you're an idiot, these things are merely coincidental.
The dumpster?
... You're a moron. Because OSX, which is based on FreeBSD, is DEFINITELY in the dumpster.
Hahaha
Learn to just concede defeat, moron, when you've been shown to be ignorant.
Just so you understand my point of view: I have no idea as to what the hell you're talking about.
..." But this is exactly my point, myopiaboy. I'm NOT LOOKING FOR CONVERTS. COMPUTERS ARE NOT RELIGION. THEY'RE TOOLS. You claim that arrogance exists to a much lesser extent in the Linux community, you nearsighted nit, but then you use the word "converts" and then claim you won't even look at BSD because of the attitudes of the community as you perceive them.
Where do I say, anywhere, that "we need BSD"? Where? What I said was that the Slashdot community needs to be presented with a tool that "upgrades" Linux users to another form of free *nix. I was specifically referring to the content of the post and, in fact, *not* over-generalizing, which you are doing.
I think Linux is great. I think the variosu BSDs are great. And I'm typing this reponse on a Windows XP box which, more or less, works flawlessly because, more or less, I know what the hell I'm doing.
You tell me, "You will not get converts
So, in theory, BSD could be the most incredible OS ever, but you won't look at it because you find the attitudes of the community offensive?
And you call BSD people arrogant?
Dude, you NEED to be the posterboy for Linux. You were born for it. Please post your address so I can send you a big penguin shirt, so that anyone may immediately identify you as a Linux "convert".
Jeez.
The Slashdot crowd needs this. It justifiably makes many of them look like rats picking fights with their tails. So many of these Slashrodents are so myopic by virtue of their unceasing "promotion" of Linux that it's as if they don't know what to do now when you show them something that isn't Windows, but isn't Linux, but it isn't Windows! but it isn't Linux! So they default to ATTACK! AAUUUGGGHH! It might be friendly but we can't afford to take the risk! ATTACK!
..."
..."
Even now, throughout these posts, there are a ton of "off-topic" posts that didn't get moderated as such. "Personally I prefer this ". They're not commenting on BSD, they're just moving their mouths and out comes LinuxLinuxLinuxLinux in a neverending, mindless blather. Most of them are like the Scientologists on Hollywood Blvd. "Would you like a free personality test? Oooohhh, we see here you need Linux. Linux will make you whole
It shows that many of these nits can't distinguish between understanding computers and software as tools or understanding computers and software as religion. Here's a hint guys: This isn't religion. Or it shouldn't be. And Linus isn't God. He's just an egotistical programmer that made some nice software. And, because I've never read it anyplace else, I'll just say this: He looks as dorky as hell.
Get a freakin' clue, guys. BSD is amazing. Stop being sheep and start using the brains you were born with. Learn what BSD is about and then, perhaps, you'll stop stuttering "DebianDebianDebianDebianDebian
Yeah, your parents did a great job with you, Scroogeboy. You're all just a big shiny, happy group of people, aren't'cha?
Well, while you're busy picking the wax out of your ears and glowering over the hypocrisies of the season, know this: God, in His infinite wisdom, which infinitely surpasses my own, loves you anyway.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Cheer up. Go eat a turkey. I guarantee you that if you do one, it will lead to the other ...
I've studied poetry, written some, and taken it seriously of my own free will, despite that as an English major at UCI I'm required to do so in order to finish my degree.
... must also be correct. And this is where the main difference lies, oddly. In great poetry there is a limited number of interpretations. Great poems may mean any number of a set of things, but they won't, and shouldn't, mean anything. And the meaning in poetry is "encoded", if you will, within the constraints of meter, rhythm, structure, rhyme (if any), vocabulary, subject, ideas, allusions, sound, and intended audience, to name some of the principal things.
I make a living as a coder, though, and I've noticed many similarities between code and poetry, especially between code and the poetry of the so-called "language" poets whose poetry depends on visual appreciation of the physical layout of the words on the page in order to be understood.
There are some significant differences, however, between poetry and code that, to my mind, limit the comparison.
One, in order for code to be interesting, it must be correct, that is, solve the problem it was meant to solve. If it's not correct then it's just a collection of symbols and keywords and, while a language poet might be interested in such a collection for the purposes of expression, it's not going to have much value as code.
Poetry, on the other hand
So, between code having to be correct for its purposes in order to be interesting, and poetry having to be "correct" within its constraints, there's going to be a seriously limited subset of "code poems", if any at all, that legitimately cross over into both domains.
As I was reading the examples, I was in serious doubt that this poetry had much use to the "geek crowd" outside of using a few words like "Emacs" and "modem". So what. Even the reviewer says that this isn't "easy" poetry. Okay. So it's not easy. But is it any good?
Basically, Sci Fi took out all of the cheesy elements from Galactica and kept all of the story that was cool and worth keeping.
The space battles were great, with better 'physics' than in most sci-fi space stories, and the acting, except for Apollo, who always looked like he was sporting a suppository, was very solid. Olmos did a great job of realizing Adama.
There was only one problem: Tricia Helfer as Six. Uuhhhmmm. If she were a Cylon, well, I'd want to be conquered. Hard.
Other than that, the only problem I had were with the different "models" of Cylons. I'd assumed that by different models the show was alluding to different configurations meant for different purposes. I hadn't realized that same models meant identical appearance. That was goofy. And why only twelve? The Cylons can travel faster than light, launch completely covert attacks on an advanced civilization, but they can only think of twelve different models for themselves?
But all right. I enjoyed the series so much that I can forgive that and look past it, hope they figure it out.
Of worthy mention also was Mary McDonnell's performance as the 43rd-in-line for succession to the presidency. She gave a wonderfully restrained, but nicely authoritative performance that balanced out Adama's hyper-masculine, scarred-up face. Their final negotiation, and her lines during that meeting, were great writing.
Support this show! Support quality scifi! Keep it on the air or all we'll have to look forward to on TV is reruns of Twilight Zone and more of Trish & Ryan's fucking wedding, or whatever their freakin' names are.
Reading through the posts on this board, I tend to agree with the criticisms about XML. It's a big dreadnought of a specification when, in most cases, a nice light corsair or even single-seat fighter would do the trick. Still, I would normally be inclined to say of XML what is said about Democracy: it's the worst system out there, except for all the others.
Then I found YAML. Long and short, YAML is very lightweight, eminently readable, easy to use (parsers exist in multiple languages) and a pleasure all kinds of projects that require data serialization. Where XML branches off into other types of uses, like XSL programming, YAML doesn't really compete. I find this to be a strength, actually, because once you've used YAML and seen it in action, XSL seems like a big, fat add-on. But for those that rely on XSL and other things, YAML won't do the trick.
But if all you need is data serialization in a compact, easy-to-read, easy-to-use package -- and this, in my opinion, is by far what XML is most used for -- then YAML is great. Give it a shot.
As for XML. I used to hate it with a passion. Now I still hate it, but I'm less passionate. The creators of XML are ambitious people, and they tried to do something in that spirit. It works, basically and XML doesn't deserve *all* the bad press it gets.
Did anyone see Armageddon and then go home unable to sleep for nights on end?
I just find it hard to believe that in the vast informational space of the Internet, this is a story that collided with the front page of Slashdot.
The analysis doesn't change the chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth, points out astronomer Iwan Williams of Queen Mary University of London, UK. "But assuming that there are fewer large asteroids, the damage will be less," he says.
When news editors say, "Damn it, just print something!", this is what we get.
ATI's strategy seemed to be to lie in wait for their time to strike...
In October of 1999, NVIDIA dealt the final blow to 3dfx...
If this writer ever gets tired of the tech industry he may do well to apply at Ring magazine.
Yeah, well, I'll bet none of his volunteer group looks anything like Jean Gray, Storm, or Rogue, but I'll also bet they play them online ...
But DON'T, for God's sake, tell fans of the products that they projects might benefit from name upgrades, nooo. You're assaulted with logic like: "Screw you, bastard! I've been using Splong for two years, and it's the best thing ever and marketing should be called moroning and Splong is a cool name anyway and you're just stoopid, you cocksucking ape!"
No. I gave up. My next open source work is going under a goofy name. Oh, and I'll sue anyone that tries to use Splong.
No you don't. That's why you're flamebaiting. But thanks, don't worry, I know it's not personal. You're too idiotic for it to be.
Can you imagine this? Can you imagine 2 people who live together, one who's working for money, one who's working for money, the other one doing these things in his/her free time?
No. Can't. I don't have any time for imagination, I'm too busy working.
You could have helped me ...
Yeah, all right, I'll respect the not-your-native-tongue thing. For future flames, you want "being" not "beeing".
How 'bout we just agree to disagree, 'k? Or, if you want, we can flip a coin, heads I win, tails you lose ...
... wrote the moron, posting in Slashdot's BSD section which has just posted two new release announcements in the last six days ...
Yes, brilliant comment. You keep tellin' yourself that. Oh, you might want to check out the story on the front page about Red Hat not releasing anything else in the Red Hat Linux product line, ever again. Next.
LOL. Thank you. I think your rebuttal about sums up my point, in addition to being the most entertaining post I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Also, I'm not sure what "beeing" is, but I'm fairly certain it's something you do wearing thick, sting-resistant clothing in order to harvest honey.
Peace out, bruthah ...
Thank you for your well considered response. Since you sound level-headed, I will go check out that site and see what there is. I love OS X, love BSD, and I'm always interested in seeing the innovations surrounding the different flavors of this OS branch.
...
Oh -- and I have nothing against the Malaguan butterfly. I was just saying, you know, for example
Well, I'm not very familiar with Darwin, but now I can say, based on this story, that my mind is pretty closed to it. I would certainly be hard pressed to ever consider it for anything in a production environment.
I don't want politics with my OS. I don't want the distribution site going black because Bush decides to bomb koala bears or even humans for that matter. Call me cold-hearted, but if I'm in a production environment, and I need to deliver a box that's expected to be supported and work as advertised, I don't want to worry if the freaking OS "activists" -- whatever the hell they are, exactly -- are going to pull the Distro (capitalized, no less) because the Malaguan butterfly's habitat is endangered by oil drilling or 250 million U.S. citizens have strong opinions about war.
Screw that. Give me my FreeBSD, which, to my knowledge, is pretty much always available, regardless of what Dan Rather is spewing at any given moment, and give me peace of mind. Hey, I know that's a lot less eloquent than "give me freedom, or give me death", but in my mind, and with some of the pressures I face from clients, I really don't distinguish between the two.
Activists need to shut up and get jobs anyway.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone getting charged with a "speech violation".
"Do you have a license for that speech? No? I'm sorry, sir, I'm going to have to write you a speech ticket."
You right in saying that you would be charged with "inciting mayhem" (heh) or whatever, but that's because the speech isn't protected.
You're a dink.
Good points.
So? Some kid browsing a porn site isn't putting his own immediate, personal security at risk, but I don't think anyone would argue that some kind of censorship is inappropriate where porn's concerned. My examples were extreme but there are plenty examples of daily, widely accepted censorship. So what's your point? Did you have one or was that just a brain fart?
This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.
However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.
Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.
I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.