As an addendum, I would like to list some of the places where an identification is required:
Department of Motor Vehicles Airports Hospitals Pharmacies Blood Donations Banks Gun Shops Adoption Agencies Social Security Office Pawn Shops Court Union Elections
Are you going to tell me that all of these institutions are also hostile to minorities, especially the Social Security Office?
The "Voter ID Is Racist" argument is completely empty and holds no water. It's bullcrap and you know it. If it has anything to do with race at all (and it doesn't), it would help ensure that the minority groups have their voice fairly heard.
For what it is worth, IMHO, sending aid to armed people on either side of a conflict means you're involved in the war. You may not have soldiers out there, but if you're providing arms, information, supplies, etc. to one side or the other, you might as well have soldiers there too.
If the aid is being sent only to civilians caught in the fighting then that's a humanitarian effort. I'd be impressed by how much "humanitarian aid" ends up in the hands of one side of the conflict, though.
The whole thing is messy. In a vast majority of cases don't see any good coming from getting involved in other peoples' business. I wish we would wash our hands of all of it and pull out.
On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
There are small form factor laptops that are excellent for gaming. I've been using them for many years now; they suffer from a lack of being easily upgradable, but a good machine will be good for four years or so - and after that, they're still perfectly good, they just don't run the newest games at the highest graphics settings.
For a bare bones system, sure. But it makes sense that these machines, like the typical console, will be sold at a loss. The money will be made up through purchases made through Steam. Loss leaders are a normal part of business.
3. It simply isn't "cool" to be associated with a GNU project anymore
That isn't quite what he said.
3) Attaching the GNU label to one's program has absolutely no attractiveness anymore. People expect GNU to be as slow as an elephant, rather than as slick as a gazelle, and perhaps they are right. Projects such as LLVM achieve a great momentum by building on the slowness of GNU's decision processes, and companies such as Apple get praise even if they are only embracing these projects to avoid problems with GPLv3.
Being part of GNU is not an emblem of technical leadership anymore, either. "If it is done poorly in Unix, feel free to replace it completely with something totally different and better". Is this still true of today's GNU?
He said that GNU isn't attractive because the leadership isn't effective. It takes too long to make decisions. Sounds to me like "analysis paralysis", or at least typical management where people are too busy playing politics instead of trying to create something awesome.
Oh that's right, I forgot. Europe is so perfect that mass murders never happen there. Thank you for your typical snotty arrogance.
I don't expect you to shed any tears. I sure haven't, nor have I lost any sleep over the event in CT. It sucks for the people involved but quite frankly, shit happens. There are some really crazy people in the world. When you have a population of 310 million like the USA does, it's impressive that such events are as infrequent as they are.
Sounds like you're missing the point. You don't need guns to kill people. If a crazy person wants to kill a bunch of people and guns aren't available, then they'll just go on to something else equally effective. Disarming law abiding sane citizens (which is a vast majority) just puts the good guys at a disadvantage.
Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."
I don't know of a single online game that allows truly anonymous messaging. Messages are always at the very least tied to your account specifically for the tracking of abuse. Yet another case of people making laws based on false pretenses. But it's okay, because think of the children. Quite frankly, I wish humans would stop breeding. It would give politicians one less reason to come up with this ridiculous crap.
We, being tech geeks et al., deal with technology all the time - and we are more aware than anyone else that there's a LOT that can go wrong with technology. Things break all the time. When it comes to software, usually it's an easy fix - often times an error will go unnoticed because the software can recover from the problem and go on its way.
Modern planes run on software. Tons of sensors, code that has been extremely well tested, etc. But even then, getting on a plane makes me a little nervous because, well. I work in software. People are dumb, and machines will always do what you tell them to do. There's also two guys in the cockpit that, at any time, can tell the software to go die and they take manual control of the aircraft.
The grip detection system, or anything electronic, is not something I would want on my firearms. The software could be bad, the sensors could break, or the battery could fail. Not interested.
Guns that will only fire if in close proximity to the owner (via RFID rings / bracelets) have been around FOREVER (well, at least 5-6 years), and nobody uses them. There's a good reason why. The chance of failure is to great, and if someone needs to use their firearm, they may really need to use it.
The problem with the loaded indicator, of course, is this: People are trained that guns are always loaded. Always. Even if the thing is taken apart, you treat it like it is loaded. You don't point it at anyone, ever. So I don't know how much value a loaded indicator would really add.
Plus, add a loaded indicator and you will have people saying, "Well gosh, the loaded indicator is off, so it definitely is not loaded." Then the gun goes off, someone gets blapped. Faulty indicator. Lawsuits ensue anyway. Plus, people have to actually look at the darn thing, and... I really just don't think it would do much to prevent accidental shootings.
I wouldn't mind the clip safety, though. It seems like it would be easy to implement. Of the guns that use clips, I only want them to fire if the clip is in. An additional safety measure like that, something that will actually help, sounds good to me.
This is something that I have tried to explain to my gun-hating friends.
Banning "assault weapons" (a category which is nebulous anyway - ANY gun is an assault weapon when pointed at someone) won't do a damn thing. A vast majority of gun crimes are done with hand guns. Yeah, I know, those big scary looking rifles sure do look big and scary, but they're rarely used for crime. It's almost all hand guns.
Besides. A small bullet kills just as well as a big bullet at close range..357 magnum,.22 short,.17 HMR, they all kill you. Some airsoft pellet guns that can kill someone if it hits the right spots.
The talk about limiting clip size is also bunk. Ejecting a clip and slapping in a new one takes seconds. It also doesn't stop you from simply carrying multiple guns, or just modifying a clip on your own. A clip is NOT a complicated piece of technology. It's a box with a spring.
Banning guns also doesn't work. Aside from the fact that we have over 300 million firearms in the USA, people who plan to commit a crime with a gun are going to find a way to get one - especially well funded people like the drug cartels. This just leaves law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage against crooks of all kinds - including those in government.
But let's say that we did somehow magically remove all firearms from the world. Well, then Crazy Psychotic Guy will still want to kill people. He will just use a different means to do it. Explosives of all kinds can be made with household chemicals, but why be so flashy?
Just mix some ammonia with bleach and throw it into a room full of people and lock the door. Slip rat poison into the cafeteria. Want to be sly? Instead of rat poison, try botulism. Angry and on a brutal rampage? Baseball bat, lead pipe, knives, swords. What about a car? School lets out, kids are walking through the parking lot, just gun the motor and run them over.
As much as these Westboro people irk me, I wouldn't want the government stepping in to tell them that they are not allowed to say what it is they say.
If the government can do that, well. Someday, someone is going to get into office, and tell me that I can't say things. It won't even be hate speech; just political opinion. Or maybe not even so political opinion.
If you think this can't happen in the US... Well, you're wrong. It already has. Dear reader, I'd like to introduce you to President Woodrow Wilson.
In a free market, a failing company would fail. In this case, the government took $249 million in tax dollars and gave it away. This is not the free market.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes Mr. Stalin has the right idea, but he's akin to some guy running up to you and screaming in your face. He comes across as rude, crude, sensationalist, and generally nasty.
You don't have to be nasty to get your point across. In fact, being nasty tends to make it more difficult to do so. He doesn't seem to realize this, or if he does, he just doesn't care. It's a shame.
Obnoxious ads that fly around, make noise, do things on mouseover, and deliver malware are precisely the reason that I have adblock stuff installed myself.
I don't mind advertising as long as it isn't obnoxious though, and I don't mind the content provider making a little money on every page view. They're giving something to me that doesn't cost anything but time and bandwidth. It's a pretty good deal for me.
This is why I specifically allow Google AdWords to load on the ad blocking stuff: It isn't obnoxious and doesn't make me want to have seizures or throw my computer out the window. I don't mind that stuff.
In my experience, people who criticize Mormonism and call it "batshit insane" don't know anything about it other than "Magic Underwear! Har har har!" and the other tripe they've seen on TV. Nor do they actually know any Mormons. They don't know a thing about the history, the reasons why they do, or don't do, certain things.
It's pretty obnoxious. Mormons are good people - they have different values and traditions than a lot of others, and some of them are certainly weird from an outsider's perspective, but they're good people. You don't see Mormons blowing up buildings. They're more likely to be seen helping needy people - and not making a big deal out of it.
I'd rather live next to a dozen Mormon families than be surrounded by "trollololol spageti monster har har arent i funy" types.
And no, not those fringe cults that bonk 12 year old girls say they're Mormon - because they're not.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to defend a Mormon though, because this is Slashdot and FSM forbid I actually, you know, say anything GOOD about religious people...
Doesn't matter now, damage has already been done. It's amazing how whenever the news media doesn't like a politician they will release half-truths, outright lies, and stuff taken out of context and plaster the world with it. Then a few days later a little snippet of, "Oh, we were bad, we're sorry, honest!"
Slashdot Mirror
If the current years have been warmer than 75% of the past 11,000 years or so, then 25% of that time has been warmer.
As an addendum, I would like to list some of the places where an identification is required:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Airports
Hospitals
Pharmacies
Blood Donations
Banks
Gun Shops
Adoption Agencies
Social Security Office
Pawn Shops
Court
Union Elections
Are you going to tell me that all of these institutions are also hostile to minorities, especially the Social Security Office?
The "Voter ID Is Racist" argument is completely empty and holds no water. It's bullcrap and you know it. If it has anything to do with race at all (and it doesn't), it would help ensure that the minority groups have their voice fairly heard.
He's grandstanding to force the news networks to cover the story - which they hadn't been until he started his filibuster.
For what it is worth, IMHO, sending aid to armed people on either side of a conflict means you're involved in the war. You may not have soldiers out there, but if you're providing arms, information, supplies, etc. to one side or the other, you might as well have soldiers there too.
If the aid is being sent only to civilians caught in the fighting then that's a humanitarian effort. I'd be impressed by how much "humanitarian aid" ends up in the hands of one side of the conflict, though.
The whole thing is messy. In a vast majority of cases don't see any good coming from getting involved in other peoples' business. I wish we would wash our hands of all of it and pull out.
Please enlighten me on how ensuring that all votes are legal votes is an assault on minorities.
On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
http://www.google.com/reviews/t is the page you can use to block a site from Google's search.
I think your sarcasm / ridicule of government regulation meter is broken.
What the heck is he smoking? China et al. have been attacking the US through computer systems for decades.
In addition, why on earth do I need to know someone's status all the time? This seems like a product for helicopter parents and stalkers.
There are small form factor laptops that are excellent for gaming. I've been using them for many years now; they suffer from a lack of being easily upgradable, but a good machine will be good for four years or so - and after that, they're still perfectly good, they just don't run the newest games at the highest graphics settings.
For a bare bones system, sure. But it makes sense that these machines, like the typical console, will be sold at a loss. The money will be made up through purchases made through Steam. Loss leaders are a normal part of business.
That isn't quite what he said.
He said that GNU isn't attractive because the leadership isn't effective. It takes too long to make decisions. Sounds to me like "analysis paralysis", or at least typical management where people are too busy playing politics instead of trying to create something awesome.
Oh that's right, I forgot. Europe is so perfect that mass murders never happen there. Thank you for your typical snotty arrogance.
I don't expect you to shed any tears. I sure haven't, nor have I lost any sleep over the event in CT. It sucks for the people involved but quite frankly, shit happens. There are some really crazy people in the world. When you have a population of 310 million like the USA does, it's impressive that such events are as infrequent as they are.
Sounds like you're missing the point. You don't need guns to kill people. If a crazy person wants to kill a bunch of people and guns aren't available, then they'll just go on to something else equally effective. Disarming law abiding sane citizens (which is a vast majority) just puts the good guys at a disadvantage.
I don't know of a single online game that allows truly anonymous messaging. Messages are always at the very least tied to your account specifically for the tracking of abuse. Yet another case of people making laws based on false pretenses. But it's okay, because think of the children. Quite frankly, I wish humans would stop breeding. It would give politicians one less reason to come up with this ridiculous crap.
Actually, I find it to be quite appropriate.
We, being tech geeks et al., deal with technology all the time - and we are more aware than anyone else that there's a LOT that can go wrong with technology. Things break all the time. When it comes to software, usually it's an easy fix - often times an error will go unnoticed because the software can recover from the problem and go on its way.
Modern planes run on software. Tons of sensors, code that has been extremely well tested, etc. But even then, getting on a plane makes me a little nervous because, well. I work in software. People are dumb, and machines will always do what you tell them to do. There's also two guys in the cockpit that, at any time, can tell the software to go die and they take manual control of the aircraft.
The grip detection system, or anything electronic, is not something I would want on my firearms. The software could be bad, the sensors could break, or the battery could fail. Not interested.
Guns that will only fire if in close proximity to the owner (via RFID rings / bracelets) have been around FOREVER (well, at least 5-6 years), and nobody uses them. There's a good reason why. The chance of failure is to great, and if someone needs to use their firearm, they may really need to use it.
The problem with the loaded indicator, of course, is this: People are trained that guns are always loaded. Always. Even if the thing is taken apart, you treat it like it is loaded. You don't point it at anyone, ever. So I don't know how much value a loaded indicator would really add.
Plus, add a loaded indicator and you will have people saying, "Well gosh, the loaded indicator is off, so it definitely is not loaded." Then the gun goes off, someone gets blapped. Faulty indicator. Lawsuits ensue anyway. Plus, people have to actually look at the darn thing, and... I really just don't think it would do much to prevent accidental shootings.
I wouldn't mind the clip safety, though. It seems like it would be easy to implement. Of the guns that use clips, I only want them to fire if the clip is in. An additional safety measure like that, something that will actually help, sounds good to me.
This is something that I have tried to explain to my gun-hating friends.
Banning "assault weapons" (a category which is nebulous anyway - ANY gun is an assault weapon when pointed at someone) won't do a damn thing. A vast majority of gun crimes are done with hand guns. Yeah, I know, those big scary looking rifles sure do look big and scary, but they're rarely used for crime. It's almost all hand guns.
Besides. A small bullet kills just as well as a big bullet at close range. .357 magnum, .22 short, .17 HMR, they all kill you. Some airsoft pellet guns that can kill someone if it hits the right spots.
The talk about limiting clip size is also bunk. Ejecting a clip and slapping in a new one takes seconds. It also doesn't stop you from simply carrying multiple guns, or just modifying a clip on your own. A clip is NOT a complicated piece of technology. It's a box with a spring.
Banning guns also doesn't work. Aside from the fact that we have over 300 million firearms in the USA, people who plan to commit a crime with a gun are going to find a way to get one - especially well funded people like the drug cartels. This just leaves law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage against crooks of all kinds - including those in government.
But let's say that we did somehow magically remove all firearms from the world. Well, then Crazy Psychotic Guy will still want to kill people. He will just use a different means to do it. Explosives of all kinds can be made with household chemicals, but why be so flashy?
Just mix some ammonia with bleach and throw it into a room full of people and lock the door. Slip rat poison into the cafeteria. Want to be sly? Instead of rat poison, try botulism. Angry and on a brutal rampage? Baseball bat, lead pipe, knives, swords. What about a car? School lets out, kids are walking through the parking lot, just gun the motor and run them over.
Guns are not the cause of murder, crazy people are. You can take the guns away and we will still have mass murders. This guy didn't need a gun to kill 45 people.
Nor should it ever be.
As much as these Westboro people irk me, I wouldn't want the government stepping in to tell them that they are not allowed to say what it is they say.
If the government can do that, well. Someday, someone is going to get into office, and tell me that I can't say things. It won't even be hate speech; just political opinion. Or maybe not even so political opinion.
If you think this can't happen in the US... Well, you're wrong. It already has. Dear reader, I'd like to introduce you to President Woodrow Wilson.
In a free market, a failing company would fail. In this case, the government took $249 million in tax dollars and gave it away. This is not the free market.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes Mr. Stalin has the right idea, but he's akin to some guy running up to you and screaming in your face. He comes across as rude, crude, sensationalist, and generally nasty.
You don't have to be nasty to get your point across. In fact, being nasty tends to make it more difficult to do so. He doesn't seem to realize this, or if he does, he just doesn't care. It's a shame.
This is precisely why he is referred to as "Richard M. Stalin" among my friends.
Obnoxious ads that fly around, make noise, do things on mouseover, and deliver malware are precisely the reason that I have adblock stuff installed myself.
I don't mind advertising as long as it isn't obnoxious though, and I don't mind the content provider making a little money on every page view. They're giving something to me that doesn't cost anything but time and bandwidth. It's a pretty good deal for me.
This is why I specifically allow Google AdWords to load on the ad blocking stuff: It isn't obnoxious and doesn't make me want to have seizures or throw my computer out the window. I don't mind that stuff.
Do NOT give them any ideas.
In my experience, people who criticize Mormonism and call it "batshit insane" don't know anything about it other than "Magic Underwear! Har har har!" and the other tripe they've seen on TV. Nor do they actually know any Mormons. They don't know a thing about the history, the reasons why they do, or don't do, certain things.
It's pretty obnoxious. Mormons are good people - they have different values and traditions than a lot of others, and some of them are certainly weird from an outsider's perspective, but they're good people. You don't see Mormons blowing up buildings. They're more likely to be seen helping needy people - and not making a big deal out of it.
I'd rather live next to a dozen Mormon families than be surrounded by "trollololol spageti monster har har arent i funy" types.
And no, not those fringe cults that bonk 12 year old girls say they're Mormon - because they're not.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to defend a Mormon though, because this is Slashdot and FSM forbid I actually, you know, say anything GOOD about religious people...
Doesn't matter now, damage has already been done. It's amazing how whenever the news media doesn't like a politician they will release half-truths, outright lies, and stuff taken out of context and plaster the world with it. Then a few days later a little snippet of, "Oh, we were bad, we're sorry, honest!"