Women have better voices for marketing, plain and simple. The majority of commercials have female voices for the same reason these "robots" (sorry, I don't consider them robots) do.
Certain female voices are hard on the ears, but the range of woman's voices considered pleasant dwarfs male's.
TFA misses that basic information and jumps right to the typical rants about discrimination, which have been verified false over and over and over. Social engineering does not like or want facts, they want to manipulate. So far, they are doing just that because the populous does not fact check anything. Even those that claim to be scientific use bias at least as often than facts.
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
Fallacy much?
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
A soldier running a recon mission is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them so that they can all run recon. You further lack both combat knowledge and the ability to read the basic specs of the drone in question. If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracking systems which would actually fail when a number of these things are in operation. I doubt Daesh has any of this kind of equipment.
Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.
Which is why encryption and jam resistance is important and one reason why civilian drones will not be sufficient.
While it's nice to see that you are not completely ignorant, you still miss the obvious. You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption. For these the concern is not reading video as much as jamming or feeding bogus data. The latter would be harder, but Iran has shown that even large drones are susceptible to these type of attacks.
The concept being discussed goes back to the Army (FCS) project work which ended up being cut. The idea of drones for recon is not new at all, the new part is trying to attach them directly to soldiers instead of specialists, vehicles, and robots. Those latter 2 present very low risk to individual soldiers and were favored by pretty much everyone. The drones can be larger, more reliable, less susceptible to jamming/interception, etc... The drone specialist was not well developed for exactly the reason I described. There was a fitbit type sensor for soldiers which was also dropped out of a standard build, because the risk is way too high for soldiers.
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all. There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets. I say this as a Veteran (US Army) in case you weigh things by experience.
Communications is important, but so is a lack of communications. Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide, they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Save a soldier's life and write Congress. Tech companies don't need to make money off of soldier's lives.
Yup, nothing wrong with the status quo, they only have your best interests at heart. History shows that leaders change all on their own and Government gets fair all on it's own.
Oh wait, that's really a fantasy that people want. Reality is that the only way to fix corruption is by revolt. Soft revolution can work as well as violent, but some will be hurt in the process.
Nope, I'm not saying to vote Trump nor am I saying to vote Sanders. I'm just saying that when the Government is deeply corrupt the status quo won't fix a damn thing. But hell, you have sexbots in a foreign country so why do you care?
TFA causes a loss in IQ - Labels like "toy", "Fad", and even "Game changing" are simply labels. There are far more failures than successes. Basic mathematics should be all it takes to realize that the label makes no difference in the statement. Things labelled "toys" failed at roughly the same rate as things labelled "game changers", and "must have", and "earth shattering", etc.. etc...
Society ends up placing the proper label on things. The label does not make the product, the product makes the label.
If the RIAA/MPAA installs any software doing what they suggest, the developers and businesses should all be jailed under the US Computer Espionage and Hacking laws.
If you or I even attempted to look at their networks without written and explicit permission, we are in violation of the law. Accessing software inside their systems is at least 2 felonies.
Hold people accountable, and if the Government does not then it's time to replace people in Government.
Actually, you do know that a lot of parents keep parenting duties long after their children become the arbitrary adult age don't you?
Not on topic, poor attempt justifying your position with a red herring.
And as far as your apparent knowledge that your child will only ever have an email address pre approved and password known by you, is charming, but public libraries, friends computers, and all manner of other methods are available to work around your rules.
Strawman. It is also possible for your kid to get a gun and shoot someone, knock up chicks, smoke crack, etc... etc... If you are actually parenting the chances for this is greatly reduced across the board. Which by chance happens to be my primary argument, though you probably didn't realize that your correlation demonstrates my point.
Were you actually a teenager who never ever stepped outside of the boundaries set by your parents? You would be one of the only ones.
It really isn't being all that sneaky anyhow. Just an attempt at a little independence. It's just a child trying to become an adult, something that today's parents are fighting tooth and nail against for some reason. That's those boundaries you fear. And it isn't good for the children either, they tend to not be very happy, and cannot make a decision without Mommy and Daddy's guidance.
Another strawman. I previously stated that kids do exactly this. In fact from a psychological perspective an adolescent (including teens) has a full time job of testing boundaries. It is the adult's job to maintain the boundary and let them know when they have crossed over. It is further the adult's job to ensure accountability for any negative effects of crossing that boundary. You are fully retarded if you believe that the only way to do either of those things is by removing decisions.
One of the happiest moments in my life was when I became an actual adult. As I recall vividly, childhood really stunk. Today's parenting style of never-ending childhood rules would be a nightmare for me, and I don't think it is working out for the permanent children it produces all that well either.
The happiest moments of my life were when as a parent my kid was honest and open about things most kids would not be. I doubt you have ever been a parent, and given the severe mental conditions you demonstrate, I sincerely hope that you are sterile and will never attempt to adopt a kid.
I'm not asking an adult for their password, I'm telling my kid that they don't have a choice but to share their password with me. Trust is not a given, especially with a child who is going to push the boundaries to know their place.
The fact that you can't differentiate parental duties from asking a different adult for their password/passcode is a huge psychological deficiency.
I don't find it surprising that you have an expectation of being lied to, and not testing facts to ensure boundaries are established.
First, my condolences to the father. My kid is in college now, but I would have taken his phone away if he locked me out of it. Why? Trust is always a two way street. Sadly many people neglect that fact, which results in issues like TFA is appealing and a massive amount of social problems. Your kid giving you the password does not indicate that you have to use it, and in a healthy relationship the parent would not even have to ask. The parent not using the password to snoop is the opposite direction on that two way street. Parents need to learn that lesson, or continue down the same old path of "I can't access my kids phone after something happened to them.", and "I never knew my kid was on drugs.", and "I never knew they were seeing an older person which led to something bad.", etc.. etc.. you get the point.
The reason I called this a whopper of a fallacy is that it's an appeal to emotion on a massive scale (child, death, personal loss, disease). No matter how many appeals to emotion you stack up, it's still an appeal to emotion and fallacious argument.
The fact that this massive appeal comes from an adult reeks of propaganda. Adults are often foolish enough to attempt to use an appeal, but media is usually better about not using them when they are so obvious. If it's a legit person and request, I can hope that they learn to rationalize their thoughts and then teach others to do the same.
Every other currency also uses tons of electricity. The Bank of London does not hand carry over paper pounds to exchange for paper dollars, this is all done electronically. Banks are constantly manipulating and forecasting, and I don't hear people complaining about the electricity use for speculation.
Missing context. In the "study" your favorite scientist would be labelled an introverted asshole. The fact that you notice mistakes is the only criteria, yet context is essential. Email from someone in the personal space is different than business email. Subject matter plays a part also. If someone goes on a rant about the latest cool tech and the message contains grammatical errors and typos I notice and take note. There are varying degrees of errors which I trust intellect, but at a point I lose faith in that aspect of a person.
The underlying message is that noticing an error is bad. Which is foolish, as an easy way to improve yourself is to notice errors that other people make so that you don't repeat their errors. Teaching someone how to improve can only be done by pointing out the errors to them. Ridiculing someone for making errors would be the sign of an asshole.
The group in question is a LOBBY group, not a "Tech group". This same group lobbies for increases in H1B, lower taxes for themselves, lower protection for workers, reduced regulations at the expense of those same workers, etc.. etc.. etc..
Call it what it is.
When a big part of their mantra is "protecting foreign profits" you know it's all about globalization.
I'm going to suggest that healthcare was not a problem until recently because it wasn't very expensive.
Partially true, sure. Medical practice was also quite different. As was the amount of Government requirements for all of the above.
You didn't have to worry about expensive treatments for cancer, because you just died.
You are making two very frightening implications. First, the only reason Medical treatment has improved is because "Government", which is verifiably false. You are further implying that Government made the system economically viable for all people to participate and all people to receive the same care. Which is also verifiably false./p
Health insurance was not a problem until the Government got involved (a reoccurring theme). I grew up in the 70s and got to see the collapse and corruption of just about everything thanks to Government "help". Pre Obamacare is 25 years of regulated monopolization and wealth redistribution which resulted in the collapse of thousands and thousands of free hospitals and clinics. Attorneys, Bureaucrats, and their executive buddies got rich and everyone else got screwed.
Too long of a discussion here, but go read some Milton Friedman for starters.
This is the 6th story on the main page with the same company name all framed in goodwill fashion. Slashvertising needed a boost? or just a really really slow day?
I agree with everything you said, but you missed a huge motivation for the FBI to at least give the impression that they hacked the phone. FUD is a very powerful tool. Not only can they intimidate suspects with "we'll get it anyway", but they can intimidate companies the same way.
People want him to be president because he's got a pulpit with which to shout their stupidity and insecurity.
We know, everyone that supports trump is an ignorant bigot right? Which is why where he wins he wins with minorities, educated, and yes women. I don't agree with Trump on just about everything, but I certainly see the appeal and why people _are_ supporting him. No, it's not what you or the media claims about hate speech and bigotry. That is the facade people are trying to paint but lets ask a question. Who do you think is more racist, Trump or Clinton? Yeah, that's what I thought, there is no way you can fairly separate them.
So what is the appeal of Trump? As GP said it is the same as Sanders. People are tired of the career politician who promises change, bullshit their way into office, get support and cash from the wealthiest of the wealthy, and once they get their office they maintain the status quo. The rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.
Trump's sincerity is certainly a fair question, but how is that different than anyone else? I guess some we know are simply dishonest, but others have problems of their own. Hillary is dishonest, gets us another term of Obama with even less accountability and transparency than we currently have, and it really can not get much lower. Sanders may be honest but has the dreams of Utopia and no way of paying for it, so nothing will happen. Cruz is extremely dishonest and changes his stance and position more than you and I change socks and underwear. Kasich may be the only person who does not look dirty, but to be fair I have simply never investigated him since he has not gone very high in polls.
"Juicer" typically indicates that you make your own beverage from fresh fruits and veggies, which is not at all unhealthy (1)(2). "Fruit Juice" as TFA is discussing is processed fruit juice, generally chemically reduced to concentrate and added to sugar water (HFCS specifically). The primary difference between soda and 99% of the commercially produced "Fruit Juices" is the lack of carbonation in the latter. In many cases, there is more sugar added to juices than there is in soda.
1. Eating large quantities of certain vegetables and fruits will cause severe illness. Research, research, and research! 2. Juice bars have a variety of drinks, some of which contain sorbet and other sources and forms of sugar. Research is important here too!
Having weak defense is better than having none at all. The purpose is still the same, and your poor rationalization does not change it. Winning does not require that all the soldiers on a battle field get killed, and it never has.
The fact that we had to have a standing army to both win a revolution and defend ourselves right at the end of that war just means that Jefferson was overruled. Just like many of the founders didn't want slavery to be legal and were forced to compromise. Many to most wanted no taxes at all at the Federal level, and that was not successful either.
You can absolutely cherry pick lots of "but that one guy said" statements, but as I said above the founders were far above average intelligence. They understood that certain ideals are far too Utopian (no standing Army, no taxes) to have any real world value. They all figured out the best compromises they could make at the time (allowing the citizens arms so that they could fight the Government if needed). The standing Army was small because civilians would fight an invader just like the standing Army.
Different day, same old bullshit line from the progressive propaganda playbook. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Read the Federalist papers, read the Declaration of Independence, read memoirs and biographies. Nowhere do they say it's for only an army, or because they hate the army, or anything else you want to pull out of your ass as a fairy tale. Tyranny is a repeating theme throughout all of written history, you should really spend time learning and repeating history instead of propaganda.
The founders were extremely intelligent, each studied Political Philosophy and contributed to the creation and method of maintaining a Republic. All of the "They never saw this one coming." is pure bullshit. Just because you are a sucker that fell for the lines does not mean other people should be tricked into that way of thinking.
People who had Ron Paul bumper stickers were placed on DHS watch lists, which we all know gets shared with everyone else _including_ the FBI (Remember fusion centers right?). It only takes 1 of something to get you on a list, and like TFA demonstrates simply following a particular band like ICP will get you labelled and placed on a list.
Oh, and to be perfectly clear, we _KNOW_ that people were put on lists for being Ron Paul supporters. It took years for people to get removed and of course the Government "claims" that they don't do that any more. If you believe the Government.. well, you are beyond help.
Slashdot Mirror
Women have better voices for marketing, plain and simple. The majority of commercials have female voices for the same reason these "robots" (sorry, I don't consider them robots) do.
Certain female voices are hard on the ears, but the range of woman's voices considered pleasant dwarfs male's.
TFA misses that basic information and jumps right to the typical rants about discrimination, which have been verified false over and over and over. Social engineering does not like or want facts, they want to manipulate. So far, they are doing just that because the populous does not fact check anything. Even those that claim to be scientific use bias at least as often than facts.
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
Fallacy much?
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
A soldier running a recon mission is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them so that they can all run recon. You further lack both combat knowledge and the ability to read the basic specs of the drone in question. If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracking systems which would actually fail when a number of these things are in operation. I doubt Daesh has any of this kind of equipment.
Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.
Which is why encryption and jam resistance is important and one reason why civilian drones will not be sufficient.
While it's nice to see that you are not completely ignorant, you still miss the obvious. You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption. For these the concern is not reading video as much as jamming or feeding bogus data. The latter would be harder, but Iran has shown that even large drones are susceptible to these type of attacks.
The concept being discussed goes back to the Army (FCS) project work which ended up being cut. The idea of drones for recon is not new at all, the new part is trying to attach them directly to soldiers instead of specialists, vehicles, and robots. Those latter 2 present very low risk to individual soldiers and were favored by pretty much everyone. The drones can be larger, more reliable, less susceptible to jamming/interception, etc... The drone specialist was not well developed for exactly the reason I described. There was a fitbit type sensor for soldiers which was also dropped out of a standard build, because the risk is way too high for soldiers.
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all. There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets. I say this as a Veteran (US Army) in case you weigh things by experience.
Communications is important, but so is a lack of communications. Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide, they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Save a soldier's life and write Congress. Tech companies don't need to make money off of soldier's lives.
Yup, nothing wrong with the status quo, they only have your best interests at heart. History shows that leaders change all on their own and Government gets fair all on it's own.
Oh wait, that's really a fantasy that people want. Reality is that the only way to fix corruption is by revolt. Soft revolution can work as well as violent, but some will be hurt in the process.
Nope, I'm not saying to vote Trump nor am I saying to vote Sanders. I'm just saying that when the Government is deeply corrupt the status quo won't fix a damn thing. But hell, you have sexbots in a foreign country so why do you care?
TFA causes a loss in IQ - Labels like "toy", "Fad", and even "Game changing" are simply labels. There are far more failures than successes. Basic mathematics should be all it takes to realize that the label makes no difference in the statement. Things labelled "toys" failed at roughly the same rate as things labelled "game changers", and "must have", and "earth shattering", etc.. etc...
Society ends up placing the proper label on things. The label does not make the product, the product makes the label.
If the RIAA/MPAA installs any software doing what they suggest, the developers and businesses should all be jailed under the US Computer Espionage and Hacking laws.
If you or I even attempted to look at their networks without written and explicit permission, we are in violation of the law. Accessing software inside their systems is at least 2 felonies.
Hold people accountable, and if the Government does not then it's time to replace people in Government.
Actually, you do know that a lot of parents keep parenting duties long after their children become the arbitrary adult age don't you?
Not on topic, poor attempt justifying your position with a red herring.
And as far as your apparent knowledge that your child will only ever have an email address pre approved and password known by you, is charming, but public libraries, friends computers, and all manner of other methods are available to work around your rules.
Strawman. It is also possible for your kid to get a gun and shoot someone, knock up chicks, smoke crack, etc... etc... If you are actually parenting the chances for this is greatly reduced across the board. Which by chance happens to be my primary argument, though you probably didn't realize that your correlation demonstrates my point.
Were you actually a teenager who never ever stepped outside of the boundaries set by your parents? You would be one of the only ones.
It really isn't being all that sneaky anyhow. Just an attempt at a little independence. It's just a child trying to become an adult, something that today's parents are fighting tooth and nail against for some reason. That's those boundaries you fear. And it isn't good for the children either, they tend to not be very happy, and cannot make a decision without Mommy and Daddy's guidance.
Another strawman. I previously stated that kids do exactly this. In fact from a psychological perspective an adolescent (including teens) has a full time job of testing boundaries. It is the adult's job to maintain the boundary and let them know when they have crossed over. It is further the adult's job to ensure accountability for any negative effects of crossing that boundary. You are fully retarded if you believe that the only way to do either of those things is by removing decisions.
One of the happiest moments in my life was when I became an actual adult. As I recall vividly, childhood really stunk. Today's parenting style of never-ending childhood rules would be a nightmare for me, and I don't think it is working out for the permanent children it produces all that well either.
The happiest moments of my life were when as a parent my kid was honest and open about things most kids would not be. I doubt you have ever been a parent, and given the severe mental conditions you demonstrate, I sincerely hope that you are sterile and will never attempt to adopt a kid.
I'm not asking an adult for their password, I'm telling my kid that they don't have a choice but to share their password with me. Trust is not a given, especially with a child who is going to push the boundaries to know their place.
The fact that you can't differentiate parental duties from asking a different adult for their password/passcode is a huge psychological deficiency.
I don't find it surprising that you have an expectation of being lied to, and not testing facts to ensure boundaries are established.
First, my condolences to the father. My kid is in college now, but I would have taken his phone away if he locked me out of it. Why? Trust is always a two way street. Sadly many people neglect that fact, which results in issues like TFA is appealing and a massive amount of social problems. Your kid giving you the password does not indicate that you have to use it, and in a healthy relationship the parent would not even have to ask. The parent not using the password to snoop is the opposite direction on that two way street. Parents need to learn that lesson, or continue down the same old path of "I can't access my kids phone after something happened to them.", and "I never knew my kid was on drugs.", and "I never knew they were seeing an older person which led to something bad.", etc.. etc.. you get the point.
The reason I called this a whopper of a fallacy is that it's an appeal to emotion on a massive scale (child, death, personal loss, disease). No matter how many appeals to emotion you stack up, it's still an appeal to emotion and fallacious argument.
The fact that this massive appeal comes from an adult reeks of propaganda. Adults are often foolish enough to attempt to use an appeal, but media is usually better about not using them when they are so obvious. If it's a legit person and request, I can hope that they learn to rationalize their thoughts and then teach others to do the same.
Every other currency also uses tons of electricity. The Bank of London does not hand carry over paper pounds to exchange for paper dollars, this is all done electronically. Banks are constantly manipulating and forecasting, and I don't hear people complaining about the electricity use for speculation.
Missing context. In the "study" your favorite scientist would be labelled an introverted asshole. The fact that you notice mistakes is the only criteria, yet context is essential. Email from someone in the personal space is different than business email. Subject matter plays a part also. If someone goes on a rant about the latest cool tech and the message contains grammatical errors and typos I notice and take note. There are varying degrees of errors which I trust intellect, but at a point I lose faith in that aspect of a person.
The underlying message is that noticing an error is bad. Which is foolish, as an easy way to improve yourself is to notice errors that other people make so that you don't repeat their errors. Teaching someone how to improve can only be done by pointing out the errors to them. Ridiculing someone for making errors would be the sign of an asshole.
The group in question is a LOBBY group, not a "Tech group". This same group lobbies for increases in H1B, lower taxes for themselves, lower protection for workers, reduced regulations at the expense of those same workers, etc.. etc.. etc..
Call it what it is.
When a big part of their mantra is "protecting foreign profits" you know it's all about globalization.
I'm going to suggest that healthcare was not a problem until recently because it wasn't very expensive.
Partially true, sure. Medical practice was also quite different. As was the amount of Government requirements for all of the above.
You didn't have to worry about expensive treatments for cancer, because you just died.
You are making two very frightening implications. First, the only reason Medical treatment has improved is because "Government", which is verifiably false. You are further implying that Government made the system economically viable for all people to participate and all people to receive the same care. Which is also verifiably false./p
Health insurance was not a problem until the Government got involved (a reoccurring theme). I grew up in the 70s and got to see the collapse and corruption of just about everything thanks to Government "help". Pre Obamacare is 25 years of regulated monopolization and wealth redistribution which resulted in the collapse of thousands and thousands of free hospitals and clinics. Attorneys, Bureaucrats, and their executive buddies got rich and everyone else got screwed.
Too long of a discussion here, but go read some Milton Friedman for starters.
Hrm, if it's in San Francisco I may need to go buy eggs and toilet paper.. *mwuahahahaha*
kidding of course
or am I?
This is the 6th story on the main page with the same company name all framed in goodwill fashion. Slashvertising needed a boost? or just a really really slow day?
How do you know it hasn't ALREADY BEEN DONE?!? Have you read 4chan EVER?
FTFY
The Post is exactly on topic you censors.
I agree with everything you said, but you missed a huge motivation for the FBI to at least give the impression that they hacked the phone. FUD is a very powerful tool. Not only can they intimidate suspects with "we'll get it anyway", but they can intimidate companies the same way.
People want him to be president because he's got a pulpit with which to shout their stupidity and insecurity.
We know, everyone that supports trump is an ignorant bigot right? Which is why where he wins he wins with minorities, educated, and yes women. I don't agree with Trump on just about everything, but I certainly see the appeal and why people _are_ supporting him. No, it's not what you or the media claims about hate speech and bigotry. That is the facade people are trying to paint but lets ask a question. Who do you think is more racist, Trump or Clinton? Yeah, that's what I thought, there is no way you can fairly separate them.
So what is the appeal of Trump? As GP said it is the same as Sanders. People are tired of the career politician who promises change, bullshit their way into office, get support and cash from the wealthiest of the wealthy, and once they get their office they maintain the status quo. The rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.
Trump's sincerity is certainly a fair question, but how is that different than anyone else? I guess some we know are simply dishonest, but others have problems of their own. Hillary is dishonest, gets us another term of Obama with even less accountability and transparency than we currently have, and it really can not get much lower. Sanders may be honest but has the dreams of Utopia and no way of paying for it, so nothing will happen. Cruz is extremely dishonest and changes his stance and position more than you and I change socks and underwear. Kasich may be the only person who does not look dirty, but to be fair I have simply never investigated him since he has not gone very high in polls.
"Juicer" typically indicates that you make your own beverage from fresh fruits and veggies, which is not at all unhealthy (1)(2). "Fruit Juice" as TFA is discussing is processed fruit juice, generally chemically reduced to concentrate and added to sugar water (HFCS specifically). The primary difference between soda and 99% of the commercially produced "Fruit Juices" is the lack of carbonation in the latter. In many cases, there is more sugar added to juices than there is in soda.
1. Eating large quantities of certain vegetables and fruits will cause severe illness. Research, research, and research!
2. Juice bars have a variety of drinks, some of which contain sorbet and other sources and forms of sugar. Research is important here too!
Having weak defense is better than having none at all. The purpose is still the same, and your poor rationalization does not change it. Winning does not require that all the soldiers on a battle field get killed, and it never has.
The fact that we had to have a standing army to both win a revolution and defend ourselves right at the end of that war just means that Jefferson was overruled. Just like many of the founders didn't want slavery to be legal and were forced to compromise. Many to most wanted no taxes at all at the Federal level, and that was not successful either.
You can absolutely cherry pick lots of "but that one guy said" statements, but as I said above the founders were far above average intelligence. They understood that certain ideals are far too Utopian (no standing Army, no taxes) to have any real world value. They all figured out the best compromises they could make at the time (allowing the citizens arms so that they could fight the Government if needed). The standing Army was small because civilians would fight an invader just like the standing Army.
Different day, same old bullshit line from the progressive propaganda playbook. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Read the Federalist papers, read the Declaration of Independence, read memoirs and biographies. Nowhere do they say it's for only an army, or because they hate the army, or anything else you want to pull out of your ass as a fairy tale. Tyranny is a repeating theme throughout all of written history, you should really spend time learning and repeating history instead of propaganda.
The founders were extremely intelligent, each studied Political Philosophy and contributed to the creation and method of maintaining a Republic. All of the "They never saw this one coming." is pure bullshit. Just because you are a sucker that fell for the lines does not mean other people should be tricked into that way of thinking.
People who had Ron Paul bumper stickers were placed on DHS watch lists, which we all know gets shared with everyone else _including_ the FBI (Remember fusion centers right?). It only takes 1 of something to get you on a list, and like TFA demonstrates simply following a particular band like ICP will get you labelled and placed on a list.
Oh, and to be perfectly clear, we _KNOW_ that people were put on lists for being Ron Paul supporters. It took years for people to get removed and of course the Government "claims" that they don't do that any more. If you believe the Government.. well, you are beyond help.