You are a fucking idiot. Is that better? And that's not an ad hominem. It's an insult. "You are wrong because you are uninformed" is an ad hominem.
THat you don't know what an ad hominem is, yet lecture others on it makes you a fucking idiot (again, not an ad hominem). An ad hominem requires that the argument be depreciated due to the [personal insult], not just that personal insults are used.
You should really learn the big words, before you start using them. It just makes you look like a fucking idiot. http://www.nizkor.org/features... has a better definition than the one you gave. It's not just an insult. That's an insult. An ad hominem is an attack on the logic, through the person. "Why should we listen to you, you can't even tie your own shoes" isn't an insult (or is a mild one), but is a clear ad hominem. "Fuck off you prick, you are just wasting my time" isn't an ad hominem. It in no way depreciates the argument made. It's a simple insult.
I'm trolling because I know the definitions of the hard words you are misusing, or so you ad hominem goes. For someone that doesn't like them, you seem to use them quite commonly.
When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia). It's harder to move to another weapon, because guns are so good at killing (just a tool, but an effective one). But if you banned spoons, there'd be almost no lives saved. It's trivial to make your owne spoon, and they have more "safe" uses than unsafe uses.
Guns are *never* safe. If you don't believe me, go to a gun range. Take out a Glock 17. Remove the magazine. Open the slide. Visually inspect that the chamber is empty. (optionally) install a gun-lock of some kind. Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds. From people familiar and "not afraid" of guns. If people who aren't afraid of guns treat them as so dangerous, why do so many object when others treat them as dangerous?
This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.
"sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.
Are you afraid of guns?
No. Why would you think that? That I can understand how some people are must mean I'm justifying my own feelings?
People own, have and misuse spoons all the time. The deaths from them are negligible. Firearms, properly used, kill people. Firearms improperly used kill people. Killing with a firearm is so easy a 2-year old could do it. http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...
Boy, are you stupid. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people refusing to get out of their car when the police request without giving a valid reason.
And a number of them getting pulled from their car and (optionally) beat. Often the result ends in an arrest. OMFG, you saw a youtube video of a traffic stop, where the cop decides to not press the issue when they could have, and that's proof the cop couldn't have pressed the issue.
You are an angry, evil person. You can't handle someone willing to tell you a truth you don't like. And you are lying about me, because you know you've lost on the facts.
Neither "the government" nor the police ordered it shut down.
The wording in TFA is"an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department".
An emergency request by the government. And, though you disagree, the courts have ruled that a "request" from the government is considered an "order" as far as law goes.
Then you went all lamer by saying that a "government request" is the same as an order,
No, I went all lamer by pointing out that the Government asserts that a request by the government is legally considered an order, when it comes to violating rights. That's not my opinion. That's the governments. If you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. Not me. I can't change reality to match your broken opinion.
the difference between a request and an order (warrant.)
If the police ask you to get out of your car during a traffic stop, is that a "request" or an "order"? It's both. That "request" is a "lawful order". You are arguing that the law is wrong because it doesn't match your personal opinion. I can't change the law to match your broken opinion. Go argue with the Supreme Court.
My car and the wife's car both use the smart key for unlocking, as well as starting. There are backup physical keys, but so long as the battery in the car and the battery in the key are good, you don't ever use the physical key.
Admittedly basing the smart key code on the readily visible VIN is short-sighted and foolish, the act of locking your car up will at least prevent the casual access.
I had the keys in my car start to fail. It was a 40 year old sports car. The keys were worn, and they were copies of copies. They were failing sometimes. I called the dealer. They said they couldn't give original keys for the car. I found a place in Australia that cuts keys to factory specs, from a picture of the key. They extrapolate wear and make a "new" key based on the assumed original key pattern. After doing that, I later broke my glove-box lock. It was a convertable spots car, so the glove box had a key lock, matched to the doors. I went to the dealer and ordered a replacement full-cost glove-box lock. It was made and shipped in Germany and came 6 weeks later. Put in the glove box lock, and it was keyed to the car. It also came with 2 spares. Those spares would open all the doors and start the car. So linking the key to the VIN is common, even if not the best idea. My current car, the dealer claims they don't know the key for. If you lose both keys at the same time (so they can't re-key) the only way to get a new key is re-program the computer (super expensive).
Nope. That's simply not true. The root cause of the fear of guns is the damage they do. Whether it's being held by a person doesn't change the fear of the item.
Though you look to be good at trolling and calling anyone who calls you on it an ad hominem thrower.
So quit lying about who asked (not ordered - asked).
Legally, they are the same. If a police officer asks you to get out of the car, it's an order. Even if he asks, and asks politely. That you are dumb doesn't change reality. When the people with the guns "ask" for something, it's considered an order.
Then guns don't kill people. People are afraid of them because people kill people using guns. And I don't know where you look at news reports, but suicide by car is "car crash" and suicide by drugs is "drug overdose", so it's quite common for suicide to be listed by method.
It's punctuation. The issue was that sarcsm and such is undetectable sometimes. So you added a;), back before emoticons existed. They were necessary and have been in use longer than the Internet (as known today) existed.
Why are all the derogatory labels invented by conservatives? SJW this, Liberal that, all the time. You can't address issues, so you label the speaker and go off on ad hominems. You aren't convincing anyone.
Again, you lie. The Facebook account was in clear violation of both the TOS and broadcast law (it was available to people under 18 without a disclaimer as to content).
ToS is irrelevant. ToS was not mentioned in this, or any other, article about it (at least at the time this article was first published on slashdot's front page). Quit lying about this being a ToS issue makes you the only liar here. All your false accusations of others lying is to cover up your lies.
The government didn't innocently notify FAcebook of a ToS issue. TFA says the government officially requested Facebook suspend the account, not investigate a ToS violation.
Or shut the fuck up,
More proof you hate all freedom. Trying to silence anyone you don't like. You are quite evil.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else going into a store and buying a printer.
Except you implied that the maker could choose to not sell it to you for any reason, and the government can exert pressure on the printer maker to refuse service to you. So, if the government bans you from buying a printer that's legal, so long as BarbaraHudson approves of the government's actions. You'd make quite the Trump supporter.
Anyone could have asked Facebook to take it down because it was clearly in violation of the TOS.
Anyone "could have". But the government did it. The government initiated the act that resulted in the take-down. Legally, this is the same as if the government did it. This doesn't make sense to you, but you obviously hate personal rights, and like a strong Nazi-like authoritarian government.
To reduce the ability for the government to influence people, simply asking is legally the same as a court order, when it comes to "fruit of the tree" and such. That you don't understand the law, doesn't mean it isn't the law.
If you don't like the rules, change them instead of lying about them, trying to miscast events to suit your own assinine libertarian "the people can do no wrong" agenda.
That you are too dumb to understand the rules doesn't mean I'm lying about them.
And you are a liar. I've stated I'm not libertarian, and you keep spreading that lie. Stop lying. Quite the hypocrite. Always lying, while accusing everyone else of lying. Even you accusations of lies are lies.
The question isn't if they are convicted of anything but whether someone feels their life is in danger.
The cops storming her home were in danger. Anyone not standing in her home was safe. The video she took showed them outside, in clear view and with a clear shot, and she took none. The cops believed that she wasn't a harm to anyone, and killed her. Sure, they stormed her house with guns pointed at her first, to justify her execution, but she was not a danger.
Also note, the police refused to move in until they eliminated all 3rd party video. The witness reports indicate the police shot first. The police reports indicate she shot first. No video was allowed, and the police will review/edit and control what gets released.
It's all about transparency. Why did the cops spend so much time and energy eliminating anyone's ability to see the events from a perspective not controlled by the police?
Focusing on WHY someone would resort to the use of a gun will.
But fixing the problem of high crime is seen as not being tough on crime. Tough on crime wins elections, and you do that by manufacturing criminals with silly laws and oppression, then arresting lots of people. So we'll be in a spiral of that until society collapses. Though we bought ourselves another 10-20 years with eliminating TEL, one of the few things actually linked to the spikes of violence (And later decline).
The point being that law-abiding, non-blacks in the US have very little to fear from the police or normal citizens in respect to gun violence (at least compared to any other country).
Law abiding Blacks are 5x more likely to be shot by police than law abiding whites. It's not a huge absolute number, but clearly disproportionate.
The Germans managed to get ballistic missiles working, 70 years ago. All the plans and instructions are available. That's not too hard, if you have the money and desire.
It's be more ridiculous if they indicated their geostationary satellite would hover over Pyongyang at an altitude of 200 km to reduce latency. That'd be ridiculous. But it's not so hard to get payload in orbit, even high orbit.
But if I go to buy a printing press and the government has ordered the maker to not sell to me, that's legal by your standards. So the government can silence you, on facebook or a press, and you have no right, or voice, to complain. ToS is irrelevant. The government ordered the takedown. FB complied. ToS was never given as a reason to suspend the account. You are making up lies to support your delusions.
Except that the government didn't take illegal action except in your deluded mind.
The government ordered Facebook to take down her account and access. Facebook complied. The government silenced her. You assert that the government silencing citizens it doesn't like is 100% legal. You are the one holding a deluded mind.
And the vehicles logs would just show the autopilot operating as intended.
Like the autopilot operating as intended hitting the truck? The logs revealed what was seen, when, and how it was interpreted. The same would happen with most (if not all) of these tricks.
I can't tell if you are really that dumb, or just a liar. I never said anything Hillary did was "OK". Just that the FBI effectively cleared her. And the same people going after her are the ones that defended similar things done previously. Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy isn't the same as justifying the most recent.
Slashdot Mirror
Like Walter Scott? An innocent man who tried to run from a homicidal cop? Executed with bullets in the back. He was asking for it.
You are a fucking idiot. Is that better? And that's not an ad hominem. It's an insult. "You are wrong because you are uninformed" is an ad hominem.
THat you don't know what an ad hominem is, yet lecture others on it makes you a fucking idiot (again, not an ad hominem). An ad hominem requires that the argument be depreciated due to the [personal insult], not just that personal insults are used.
You should really learn the big words, before you start using them. It just makes you look like a fucking idiot. http://www.nizkor.org/features... has a better definition than the one you gave. It's not just an insult. That's an insult. An ad hominem is an attack on the logic, through the person. "Why should we listen to you, you can't even tie your own shoes" isn't an insult (or is a mild one), but is a clear ad hominem. "Fuck off you prick, you are just wasting my time" isn't an ad hominem. It in no way depreciates the argument made. It's a simple insult.
I'm trolling because I know the definitions of the hard words you are misusing, or so you ad hominem goes. For someone that doesn't like them, you seem to use them quite commonly.
When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia). It's harder to move to another weapon, because guns are so good at killing (just a tool, but an effective one). But if you banned spoons, there'd be almost no lives saved. It's trivial to make your owne spoon, and they have more "safe" uses than unsafe uses.
Guns are *never* safe. If you don't believe me, go to a gun range. Take out a Glock 17. Remove the magazine. Open the slide. Visually inspect that the chamber is empty. (optionally) install a gun-lock of some kind. Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds. From people familiar and "not afraid" of guns. If people who aren't afraid of guns treat them as so dangerous, why do so many object when others treat them as dangerous?
This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.
"sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.
Are you afraid of guns?
No. Why would you think that? That I can understand how some people are must mean I'm justifying my own feelings?
People own, have and misuse spoons all the time. The deaths from them are negligible. Firearms, properly used, kill people. Firearms improperly used kill people. Killing with a firearm is so easy a 2-year old could do it. http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...
Boy, are you stupid. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people refusing to get out of their car when the police request without giving a valid reason.
And a number of them getting pulled from their car and (optionally) beat. Often the result ends in an arrest. OMFG, you saw a youtube video of a traffic stop, where the cop decides to not press the issue when they could have, and that's proof the cop couldn't have pressed the issue.
You are an angry, evil person. You can't handle someone willing to tell you a truth you don't like. And you are lying about me, because you know you've lost on the facts.
Neither "the government" nor the police ordered it shut down.
The wording in TFA is"an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department".
An emergency request by the government. And, though you disagree, the courts have ruled that a "request" from the government is considered an "order" as far as law goes.
Then you went all lamer by saying that a "government request" is the same as an order,
No, I went all lamer by pointing out that the Government asserts that a request by the government is legally considered an order, when it comes to violating rights. That's not my opinion. That's the governments. If you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. Not me. I can't change reality to match your broken opinion.
the difference between a request and an order (warrant.)
If the police ask you to get out of your car during a traffic stop, is that a "request" or an "order"? It's both. That "request" is a "lawful order". You are arguing that the law is wrong because it doesn't match your personal opinion. I can't change the law to match your broken opinion. Go argue with the Supreme Court.
Fucking retard.
Nice signature. Quite accurate.
Because the deaths involving spoons are rare, and the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more.
Admittedly basing the smart key code on the readily visible VIN is short-sighted and foolish, the act of locking your car up will at least prevent the casual access.
I had the keys in my car start to fail. It was a 40 year old sports car. The keys were worn, and they were copies of copies. They were failing sometimes. I called the dealer. They said they couldn't give original keys for the car. I found a place in Australia that cuts keys to factory specs, from a picture of the key. They extrapolate wear and make a "new" key based on the assumed original key pattern. After doing that, I later broke my glove-box lock. It was a convertable spots car, so the glove box had a key lock, matched to the doors. I went to the dealer and ordered a replacement full-cost glove-box lock. It was made and shipped in Germany and came 6 weeks later. Put in the glove box lock, and it was keyed to the car. It also came with 2 spares. Those spares would open all the doors and start the car. So linking the key to the VIN is common, even if not the best idea. My current car, the dealer claims they don't know the key for. If you lose both keys at the same time (so they can't re-key) the only way to get a new key is re-program the computer (super expensive).
Nope. That's simply not true. The root cause of the fear of guns is the damage they do. Whether it's being held by a person doesn't change the fear of the item.
Though you look to be good at trolling and calling anyone who calls you on it an ad hominem thrower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So quit lying about who asked (not ordered - asked).
Legally, they are the same. If a police officer asks you to get out of the car, it's an order. Even if he asks, and asks politely. That you are dumb doesn't change reality. When the people with the guns "ask" for something, it's considered an order.
Then guns don't kill people. People are afraid of them because people kill people using guns. And I don't know where you look at news reports, but suicide by car is "car crash" and suicide by drugs is "drug overdose", so it's quite common for suicide to be listed by method.
Then "people killing so many people with guns". Or did you get the point and aren't actually the idiot you pretend to be?
It's punctuation. The issue was that sarcsm and such is undetectable sometimes. So you added a ;), back before emoticons existed. They were necessary and have been in use longer than the Internet (as known today) existed.
Why are all the derogatory labels invented by conservatives? SJW this, Liberal that, all the time. You can't address issues, so you label the speaker and go off on ad hominems. You aren't convincing anyone.
And the root cause of people being scared of guns is guns killing so many people. It's root causes all the way down.
Again, you lie. The Facebook account was in clear violation of both the TOS and broadcast law (it was available to people under 18 without a disclaimer as to content).
ToS is irrelevant. ToS was not mentioned in this, or any other, article about it (at least at the time this article was first published on slashdot's front page). Quit lying about this being a ToS issue makes you the only liar here. All your false accusations of others lying is to cover up your lies.
The government didn't innocently notify FAcebook of a ToS issue. TFA says the government officially requested Facebook suspend the account, not investigate a ToS violation.
Or shut the fuck up,
More proof you hate all freedom. Trying to silence anyone you don't like. You are quite evil.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else going into a store and buying a printer.
Except you implied that the maker could choose to not sell it to you for any reason, and the government can exert pressure on the printer maker to refuse service to you. So, if the government bans you from buying a printer that's legal, so long as BarbaraHudson approves of the government's actions. You'd make quite the Trump supporter.
The police asked Facebook did as requested.
Produce the request or quit lying.
Anyone could have asked Facebook to take it down because it was clearly in violation of the TOS.
Anyone "could have". But the government did it. The government initiated the act that resulted in the take-down. Legally, this is the same as if the government did it. This doesn't make sense to you, but you obviously hate personal rights, and like a strong Nazi-like authoritarian government.
To reduce the ability for the government to influence people, simply asking is legally the same as a court order, when it comes to "fruit of the tree" and such. That you don't understand the law, doesn't mean it isn't the law.
If you don't like the rules, change them instead of lying about them, trying to miscast events to suit your own assinine libertarian "the people can do no wrong" agenda.
That you are too dumb to understand the rules doesn't mean I'm lying about them.
And you are a liar. I've stated I'm not libertarian, and you keep spreading that lie. Stop lying. Quite the hypocrite. Always lying, while accusing everyone else of lying. Even you accusations of lies are lies.
The question isn't if they are convicted of anything but whether someone feels their life is in danger.
The cops storming her home were in danger. Anyone not standing in her home was safe. The video she took showed them outside, in clear view and with a clear shot, and she took none. The cops believed that she wasn't a harm to anyone, and killed her. Sure, they stormed her house with guns pointed at her first, to justify her execution, but she was not a danger.
Also note, the police refused to move in until they eliminated all 3rd party video. The witness reports indicate the police shot first. The police reports indicate she shot first. No video was allowed, and the police will review/edit and control what gets released.
It's all about transparency. Why did the cops spend so much time and energy eliminating anyone's ability to see the events from a perspective not controlled by the police?
Focusing on WHY someone would resort to the use of a gun will.
But fixing the problem of high crime is seen as not being tough on crime. Tough on crime wins elections, and you do that by manufacturing criminals with silly laws and oppression, then arresting lots of people. So we'll be in a spiral of that until society collapses. Though we bought ourselves another 10-20 years with eliminating TEL, one of the few things actually linked to the spikes of violence (And later decline).
The point being that law-abiding, non-blacks in the US have very little to fear from the police or normal citizens in respect to gun violence (at least compared to any other country).
Law abiding Blacks are 5x more likely to be shot by police than law abiding whites. It's not a huge absolute number, but clearly disproportionate.
The Germans managed to get ballistic missiles working, 70 years ago. All the plans and instructions are available. That's not too hard, if you have the money and desire.
It's be more ridiculous if they indicated their geostationary satellite would hover over Pyongyang at an altitude of 200 km to reduce latency. That'd be ridiculous. But it's not so hard to get payload in orbit, even high orbit.
But if I go to buy a printing press and the government has ordered the maker to not sell to me, that's legal by your standards. So the government can silence you, on facebook or a press, and you have no right, or voice, to complain. ToS is irrelevant. The government ordered the takedown. FB complied. ToS was never given as a reason to suspend the account. You are making up lies to support your delusions.
Except that the government didn't take illegal action except in your deluded mind.
The government ordered Facebook to take down her account and access. Facebook complied. The government silenced her. You assert that the government silencing citizens it doesn't like is 100% legal. You are the one holding a deluded mind.
And the vehicles logs would just show the autopilot operating as intended.
Like the autopilot operating as intended hitting the truck? The logs revealed what was seen, when, and how it was interpreted. The same would happen with most (if not all) of these tricks.
This logic is just baffling to me.
Obviously many thing baffle you.
So it's ok to commit a crime if someone else did?
I can't tell if you are really that dumb, or just a liar. I never said anything Hillary did was "OK". Just that the FBI effectively cleared her. And the same people going after her are the ones that defended similar things done previously. Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy isn't the same as justifying the most recent.