Guns are a just fantasy item, essentially pornographic
No, I think that gun owners are your fantasy item. Your obsessive, lustful loathing sounds just like a repressed nun scolding about public displays of affection.
the "stopping power" of hollow points vs jacketed rounds are lovingly debated
Have you ever actually chosen ammunition based on what it actually does? Have you ever actually chosen to have venison for dinner instead of commercially slaughtered beef, or tofu? When you choose to kill an animal, you do have to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Shooting the groundhog that's digging leg-breaking holes in the pasture next to your hay barn isn't the same as shooting coyotes, or shooting that elk you're going to eat all winter. Caliber, projectile type, muzzle velocity, and the rest all contribute to getting the job done, no more or less. I spent the other morning debating whether to use #7-1/2 or #6 shot, in 7/8th, 1-ounce, or 1-1/8th ounce loads. Why? Because the partridges were bigger than expected, and they were flushing up into higher winds than expected. If you want good dinner birds, you want something a dog can still retrieve, and not too shot up. But you also don't want to risk merely breaking a wing or a leg and leaving a wounded bird on the move. Is there nothing you do in your life where specs matter? Do you only have one size screwdriver? Only one kitchen knife? Only one wine glass? Only one camera lens, or only one type of external storage for your data, or only one hat?
Are people who talk about which shoes are best for running trails vs. which ones are best for running on pavement just talking "shoe porn" as far as you're concerned? Are people who get online and talk about different types of hydrogen fuel cells just swapping energy porn? Your anxiousness to paint absurd stereotypes just points out your ignorance, cowardice, and the danger you pose to other people because of them.
Personally, I own a gun to protect me from people like you. Intolerant, hate filled assholes who assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them are stupid.
Um, so if you deem someone to be intolerant, full of hate, and perceive that they consider you to be stupid... you'd shoot them?
OK, how's this for BS, Heston joined the NRA because it protects us from the government and the KKK isn't a racist organization...
How's this: Heston joined the NRA because he came to actually realize that what they do is important to him (specifically - especially at the time he became involved - look out for the rights of gun owners as many people were trying to remove or reduce those rights in a hamfisted attempt to make violent criminals behave better).
The KKK doesn't have any more to do with this than the Black Panthers have to (meaningfully) do with the NAACP or the ANCF, or anything to do with policies and procedures in the US Senate, despite long-time Democrat senator Byrd (WV) having once been a pretty high muckity-muck in the Klan. Your attempt to somehow associate my desire to legally own the guns I use with anti-black racism says a lot about how poorly informed you are, or about how craven your world view is. And about how weak you know your argument (pathetic, and such as it is) is.
So if you (as a pro-gun person) don't fear other people, then why do you need a gun...
I didn't say that it's unreasonable to fear some other person or group. You SHOULD be afraid of what might happen if someone with a machete (or a gun, or a knife, or just plain malice, no matter what instrument they're carrying) breaks into your house in the middle of the night. The point is to recognize that it's not the machete or the gun that causes them to do so. But having the choice to defend yourself is a fundamental thing.
It's not like your only two options are walking around in abject fear or being such a rube that you think there are no bad people in the world. You're also leaving out the many other uses for a firearm (lots of enjoyable sports, putting meat in the freezer, controlling pests... ). Self defense - if you ever have to actually use or brandish a weapon in that cause - is for most people a rare event. But if it comes to that, you'll be very pleased to have had the option. I know I was. But guns are just tools. Fearing them is like fearing screwdrivers or hard drives. The reason it's awkward for some people to admit that it's people they should really worry about is because it's harder to confront and fix cultural problems than it is to just clumsily ban tools in response to a feel-good vote-getting promise to do so made to folks who haven't thought it through or who don't want to admit that other parents (or, "villages," if you're Hillary) sometimes raise generations of little monsters.
Violence is a cultural problem. In some cases it's a medical problem. It's never a tool problem.
It was the height of irony when Charlton Heston appeared as an ape in the "Planet of the Apes" remake...and gave an anti-gun speech.
No, it wasn't. He wasn't giving an anti-gun speech at all, in that role. He was showing (as an ape) the fear and loathing of the intellect that could make the guns...
Heston spent many years pointing out that people who fear the gun are too chickenshit to admit that it's really other people they fear. His ape character was a really good, (classically Heston!) over the top indictment of the irrational habit of blaming the tool and/or the symbol, rather than the person who uses them in a way you dislike. It was brilliant, and the only irony to be found is in the mis-comprehension of what he chose do with it by so many people who saw it.
it was the fact that the source was utterly lacking in credibility on this particular issue
And the fact that the "document" exactly matches the default spacing, kerning, and margins of Microsoft Word. Not a decades old typewriter and formatting habits of the time. The forensics are part of the reason that the source has no credibility.
I think it's possible that Neal himself has been sealed in a Monastary for 3,400 years, actually. I don't know how else he could have written the Baroque Cycle, along with the works mentioned, and still have had time to come up for air and produce something new, too. Looking forward to it. Are you watching, George Martin? See? Wriiiite... publish!
Which scandal are you referring to, exactly? The scandalous way that the people we need to listen in on were informed about how their international calls to their buddies in the states were being tracked? Or the scandalous way in which the party that doesn't have the White House just now is looking to make all sorts of partisan propoganda points over an issue that - when you actually pin them down on it - they say they wouldn't actually change? I've got a fine sense of humor. There's just nothing funny about that particular issue (except the hypocrisy, I suppose - but that's only funny if it doesn't happen continually, which it does... you can tell because the party screaming the loudest can't actually make a pursuasive case that they believe their own rhetoric on this issue, and can't muster anything like enough legislative votes to change the landscape one bit).
Would that be the sound of numerous slashdot users nodding their heads in unison because they absolutely believe that any IT company doing business with the NSA is evil? Because if you bother to read the comments following up on ANY article that touches on these subjects, you'll see the very loud, utterly humorless, non-stop blathering of uninformed, clueless groupthink drones who drool that exact sentiment onto their keyboards every day.
Or Mythbusters? I think with a little more effort and some archeological good fortune, the Lazurus Bowl will prove to pre-date this bit of Frenchiness.
"Herr Fuhrer" is just a title, literally translated as Mr. Leader.... just like we use Mr. President
Well... um... who do you suppose that that title is actually most associated with? Hint: Germany's current president does not use that title, or any variation on it.
I don't think you understand how a faucet works...
Faucet: Hmm, I'm thirsty and want some water. Oh look! With my eyes, I see, fifty feet from me, with nothing inbetween me and it, a faucet, which will give me water if I choose to reach out and use it.
Bandwidth: Hmm, I want to use the internet. Oh look! With my WiFi device, I see, within reach, with nothing in between me and it, a router, which will give me bandwidth if I choose to reach out and use it.
Faucet: Completely lacking in security beyond the honor involved in not stealing what it is there to provide from the person who paid to put it there and supply it with water. All you need to do is know how to engage it.
Bandwidth: Sometimes lacking in security beyond the honor involved in not steaking what it is there to provide from the person who paid to put it there and supply it with a connection to the internet. All you need to do is know how to engage it.
How do you know that it's not acceptable to steal someone's water? Because that's a reasonable expectation. Someone who wants you to take water from them, contrary to the very reasonable expectation that they probably would not, can put up a sign inviting you to use it. The lack of that sign, rather than a sign saying you may not use it, is a perfectly reasonable indication that it's not yours for the taking.
How do you know that it's not acceptable to steal someone's bandwidth? Because that's also a reasonable expectation. Someone who wants you to use some or all of their bandwidth, contrary to the very reasonable expectation that they would not, can set up their router to announce that fact with a positive directive. "Free WiFi," or "Public Node" etc. The lack of such a pronouncement, rather than a mechanism to make it harder for you to steal it, is a perfectly reasonable indication that it's not yours for the taking.
Perhaps I don't want to have to memorize long keys, program MAC addresses, and take other precautions just so that I and my visiting guests can use my broadband. Just like I don't want to have to hand out passwords so they can flush the toilet, or fill up their dog's water bowl from the hose outside. Basic decency dictates that you don't get to reach out and use that hose just because I haven't set up mechanisms to stop you. Not enough people are equipped with that sense of decency, and some are actually malevolent enough to seek out available private services and use them to commit fraud or worse (never mind simply eating up someone's upload quota, etc, so they can get more throughput from their torrent client while pirating movies).
You're busy fussing over semantics related to whether or not you're stealing water from a faucet that you haven't asked to use (as opposed to tricking the butler into doing it for you because you're not on the butler's blacklist)... which is just sophistry aimed at turning the conversation away from the simple fact that you're looking for a way to not experience consequences for doing something that you know is wrong. It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's actually pretty pathetic, since it's so transparent.
Using the bandwidth on someone else's router is more like knocking on their door and the maid letting you in
So, why isn't that the same for using his electricity or his water? Should he use password-protected faucets and outlets on his house lest he be accused of encouraging theft of those utilities?
Let's see, what would be some other examples? How about... making it not OK to take your neighbor's car out for a spin? Or, watering your grass with his hose? Recharging your electric car every night by sneaking next door with an extension cord and using his outside outlet? Using his street address as a return address for your mail fraud activities? Tapping into his phone line at the NID so you can make long distance calls to your bookie in Aruba?
Here's a thought: how about instead of trotting out the usual slashdot fear words (Fascists! Orwell! Corporations! Microsoft! SUVs! The Man!), how about just acknowledging that this is about people who deliberately heist someone else's paid-for services, and recognize that? Are you so anxious to make sure that no nerds are never labeled as criminals that you're really willing to consider the theft of your neighbor's personal bandwidth as different than the theft of anything else that he pays for? Either admit your hypocrisy, or make a good case for also stealing his other services without consequence.
You don't hide information, unless you're doing something illegal, right!?
Maybe that's why YOU hide things you do. But a technology or method used to intercept communications between people planning your death or the ruin of the economy in which you live, or looking to do another London or a Madrid in San Fransisco or Seattle do NOT need to know the nature of - or the policy particulars surrounding - the means by which we'd stop them. Not if we intend to actually stop them.
do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns are a just fantasy item, essentially pornographic
No, I think that gun owners are your fantasy item. Your obsessive, lustful loathing sounds just like a repressed nun scolding about public displays of affection.
the "stopping power" of hollow points vs jacketed rounds are lovingly debated
Have you ever actually chosen ammunition based on what it actually does? Have you ever actually chosen to have venison for dinner instead of commercially slaughtered beef, or tofu? When you choose to kill an animal, you do have to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Shooting the groundhog that's digging leg-breaking holes in the pasture next to your hay barn isn't the same as shooting coyotes, or shooting that elk you're going to eat all winter. Caliber, projectile type, muzzle velocity, and the rest all contribute to getting the job done, no more or less. I spent the other morning debating whether to use #7-1/2 or #6 shot, in 7/8th, 1-ounce, or 1-1/8th ounce loads. Why? Because the partridges were bigger than expected, and they were flushing up into higher winds than expected. If you want good dinner birds, you want something a dog can still retrieve, and not too shot up. But you also don't want to risk merely breaking a wing or a leg and leaving a wounded bird on the move. Is there nothing you do in your life where specs matter? Do you only have one size screwdriver? Only one kitchen knife? Only one wine glass? Only one camera lens, or only one type of external storage for your data, or only one hat?
Are people who talk about which shoes are best for running trails vs. which ones are best for running on pavement just talking "shoe porn" as far as you're concerned? Are people who get online and talk about different types of hydrogen fuel cells just swapping energy porn? Your anxiousness to paint absurd stereotypes just points out your ignorance, cowardice, and the danger you pose to other people because of them.
Personally, I own a gun to protect me from people like you. Intolerant, hate filled assholes who assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them are stupid.
Um, so if you deem someone to be intolerant, full of hate, and perceive that they consider you to be stupid... you'd shoot them?
OK, how's this for BS, Heston joined the NRA because it protects us from the government and the KKK isn't a racist organization ...
How's this: Heston joined the NRA because he came to actually realize that what they do is important to him (specifically - especially at the time he became involved - look out for the rights of gun owners as many people were trying to remove or reduce those rights in a hamfisted attempt to make violent criminals behave better).
The KKK doesn't have any more to do with this than the Black Panthers have to (meaningfully) do with the NAACP or the ANCF, or anything to do with policies and procedures in the US Senate, despite long-time Democrat senator Byrd (WV) having once been a pretty high muckity-muck in the Klan. Your attempt to somehow associate my desire to legally own the guns I use with anti-black racism says a lot about how poorly informed you are, or about how craven your world view is. And about how weak you know your argument (pathetic, and such as it is) is.
That's some pretty breathtakingly BS crap, there. Wow.
So if you (as a pro-gun person) don't fear other people, then why do you need a gun...
I didn't say that it's unreasonable to fear some other person or group. You SHOULD be afraid of what might happen if someone with a machete (or a gun, or a knife, or just plain malice, no matter what instrument they're carrying) breaks into your house in the middle of the night. The point is to recognize that it's not the machete or the gun that causes them to do so. But having the choice to defend yourself is a fundamental thing.
It's not like your only two options are walking around in abject fear or being such a rube that you think there are no bad people in the world. You're also leaving out the many other uses for a firearm (lots of enjoyable sports, putting meat in the freezer, controlling pests... ). Self defense - if you ever have to actually use or brandish a weapon in that cause - is for most people a rare event. But if it comes to that, you'll be very pleased to have had the option. I know I was. But guns are just tools. Fearing them is like fearing screwdrivers or hard drives. The reason it's awkward for some people to admit that it's people they should really worry about is because it's harder to confront and fix cultural problems than it is to just clumsily ban tools in response to a feel-good vote-getting promise to do so made to folks who haven't thought it through or who don't want to admit that other parents (or, "villages," if you're Hillary) sometimes raise generations of little monsters.
Violence is a cultural problem. In some cases it's a medical problem. It's never a tool problem.
It was the height of irony when Charlton Heston appeared as an ape in the "Planet of the Apes" remake...and gave an anti-gun speech.
No, it wasn't. He wasn't giving an anti-gun speech at all, in that role. He was showing (as an ape) the fear and loathing of the intellect that could make the guns...
Heston spent many years pointing out that people who fear the gun are too chickenshit to admit that it's really other people they fear. His ape character was a really good, (classically Heston!) over the top indictment of the irrational habit of blaming the tool and/or the symbol, rather than the person who uses them in a way you dislike. It was brilliant, and the only irony to be found is in the mis-comprehension of what he chose do with it by so many people who saw it.
Doesn't the universe realize that it can get a Venti Black Hole for only $0.25 more?
it was the fact that the source was utterly lacking in credibility on this particular issue
And the fact that the "document" exactly matches the default spacing, kerning, and margins of Microsoft Word. Not a decades old typewriter and formatting habits of the time. The forensics are part of the reason that the source has no credibility.
I think it's possible that Neal himself has been sealed in a Monastary for 3,400 years, actually. I don't know how else he could have written the Baroque Cycle, along with the works mentioned, and still have had time to come up for air and produce something new, too. Looking forward to it. Are you watching, George Martin? See? Wriiiite... publish!
recent domestic spying scandal
Which scandal are you referring to, exactly? The scandalous way that the people we need to listen in on were informed about how their international calls to their buddies in the states were being tracked? Or the scandalous way in which the party that doesn't have the White House just now is looking to make all sorts of partisan propoganda points over an issue that - when you actually pin them down on it - they say they wouldn't actually change? I've got a fine sense of humor. There's just nothing funny about that particular issue (except the hypocrisy, I suppose - but that's only funny if it doesn't happen continually, which it does... you can tell because the party screaming the loudest can't actually make a pursuasive case that they believe their own rhetoric on this issue, and can't muster anything like enough legislative votes to change the landscape one bit).
WHOOOOOOOSH!
Would that be the sound of numerous slashdot users nodding their heads in unison because they absolutely believe that any IT company doing business with the NSA is evil? Because if you bother to read the comments following up on ANY article that touches on these subjects, you'll see the very loud, utterly humorless, non-stop blathering of uninformed, clueless groupthink drones who drool that exact sentiment onto their keyboards every day.
If the NSA can get to Google
... treason!
You mean... with a purchase order? To buy search appliances? Just like they also buy air conditioning equipment, sandwiches, and carpeting?
Have they redefined "treason" as well?
Right, because being a vendor to federal IT users is
How do you even function, day to day, behind all of that tinfoil? I mean, doesn't it get hot and itchy after a while?
sounds to Scarry
Not as scary as your spelling, though.
Or Mythbusters? I think with a little more effort and some archeological good fortune, the Lazurus Bowl will prove to pre-date this bit of Frenchiness.
Let's hear it for signal to noise drowning them out. Not that they'd get the analogy, what with never using any RF devices.
In part because she's a woman...
Which part of "any variation" was I unclear about? I don't think she uses Frau Fuhrer, either.
On top of the fact that that it's a puny, albeit strategic, $12 million we're talking about, compared to a debt that is in the trillions of dollars.
So... it does make sense to put that pint of Godiva ice cream on a credit card? Mmmmm.... ice cream.
"Herr Fuhrer" is just a title, literally translated as Mr. Leader.... just like we use Mr. President
Well... um... who do you suppose that that title is actually most associated with? Hint: Germany's current president does not use that title, or any variation on it.
He must get "Herr Fuhrer" jokes all fricking day
Is it actually possible to Godwin a thread about microprocessor engineering?
I don't think you understand how a faucet works...
... which is just sophistry aimed at turning the conversation away from the simple fact that you're looking for a way to not experience consequences for doing something that you know is wrong. It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's actually pretty pathetic, since it's so transparent.
Faucet: Hmm, I'm thirsty and want some water. Oh look! With my eyes, I see, fifty feet from me, with nothing inbetween me and it, a faucet, which will give me water if I choose to reach out and use it.
Bandwidth: Hmm, I want to use the internet. Oh look! With my WiFi device, I see, within reach, with nothing in between me and it, a router, which will give me bandwidth if I choose to reach out and use it.
Faucet: Completely lacking in security beyond the honor involved in not stealing what it is there to provide from the person who paid to put it there and supply it with water. All you need to do is know how to engage it.
Bandwidth: Sometimes lacking in security beyond the honor involved in not steaking what it is there to provide from the person who paid to put it there and supply it with a connection to the internet. All you need to do is know how to engage it.
How do you know that it's not acceptable to steal someone's water? Because that's a reasonable expectation. Someone who wants you to take water from them, contrary to the very reasonable expectation that they probably would not, can put up a sign inviting you to use it. The lack of that sign, rather than a sign saying you may not use it, is a perfectly reasonable indication that it's not yours for the taking.
How do you know that it's not acceptable to steal someone's bandwidth? Because that's also a reasonable expectation. Someone who wants you to use some or all of their bandwidth, contrary to the very reasonable expectation that they would not, can set up their router to announce that fact with a positive directive. "Free WiFi," or "Public Node" etc. The lack of such a pronouncement, rather than a mechanism to make it harder for you to steal it, is a perfectly reasonable indication that it's not yours for the taking.
Perhaps I don't want to have to memorize long keys, program MAC addresses, and take other precautions just so that I and my visiting guests can use my broadband. Just like I don't want to have to hand out passwords so they can flush the toilet, or fill up their dog's water bowl from the hose outside. Basic decency dictates that you don't get to reach out and use that hose just because I haven't set up mechanisms to stop you. Not enough people are equipped with that sense of decency, and some are actually malevolent enough to seek out available private services and use them to commit fraud or worse (never mind simply eating up someone's upload quota, etc, so they can get more throughput from their torrent client while pirating movies).
You're busy fussing over semantics related to whether or not you're stealing water from a faucet that you haven't asked to use (as opposed to tricking the butler into doing it for you because you're not on the butler's blacklist)
The router is the gatekeeper
So is the faucet on the outside of the house. You choose to use his bandwidth, and you choose to use his water. Again, what's the difference?
Using the bandwidth on someone else's router is more like knocking on their door and the maid letting you in
So, why isn't that the same for using his electricity or his water? Should he use password-protected faucets and outlets on his house lest he be accused of encouraging theft of those utilities?
This is another example of an Orwellian society
Let's see, what would be some other examples? How about... making it not OK to take your neighbor's car out for a spin? Or, watering your grass with his hose? Recharging your electric car every night by sneaking next door with an extension cord and using his outside outlet? Using his street address as a return address for your mail fraud activities? Tapping into his phone line at the NID so you can make long distance calls to your bookie in Aruba?
Here's a thought: how about instead of trotting out the usual slashdot fear words (Fascists! Orwell! Corporations! Microsoft! SUVs! The Man!), how about just acknowledging that this is about people who deliberately heist someone else's paid-for services, and recognize that? Are you so anxious to make sure that no nerds are never labeled as criminals that you're really willing to consider the theft of your neighbor's personal bandwidth as different than the theft of anything else that he pays for? Either admit your hypocrisy, or make a good case for also stealing his other services without consequence.
You don't hide information, unless you're doing something illegal, right!?
Maybe that's why YOU hide things you do. But a technology or method used to intercept communications between people planning your death or the ruin of the economy in which you live, or looking to do another London or a Madrid in San Fransisco or Seattle do NOT need to know the nature of - or the policy particulars surrounding - the means by which we'd stop them. Not if we intend to actually stop them.
do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.