You need to understand what the case really is about. The way it's discussed in the media, it sounds like Department of State had some kind of prohibition on 3D-printed gun schematics, and the Trump admin removed it. But that's not the case.
The reason why distribution of those files were previously limited, is because Defense Distributed was distributing them to *everyone* on their website. Including people who are not US residents. At that point, it becomes export, and international treaties apply - and, in particular, ITAR.
ITAR is a treaty that regulates export of defense and military technology. The way US implements it, it maintains a list of things that are regulated; this includes firearms, but also "technical data" pertaining to other categories. It has long been held that controlling exports and imports is a legitimate government function that does not infringe on fundamental rights, although to what extent this works when 1A is in the picture is still an open case. Either way, DoS, which is in charge of maintaining the munitions list, decided that DD schematics fall into the "technical data" category.
However, for ITAR to apply, the technical data in question must be of defensive or military value. DD, in challenging DoS classification in court, has argued that technical data for manufacturing a single-shot.380 handgun do not have any such value - and it's hard to disagree with them (you're welcome to try to find any military, even irregular, anywhere in the world, that arms itself with such a firearm). The case has been going on for a long time now, but under Trump, the administration decided to settle it - they didn't quite drop the case outright, but instead came up with guidelines as to which firearms would and wouldn't be considered "military", and nothing that DD distributes falls in that category. DD agreed to that settlement.
Somehow I don't see people being hysterical about knife crime in places like Japan
Try UK for a change. They currently have an ongoing campaign to convince people to surrender sharp-tipped kitchen knives, because they are "dangerous weapons" that are "often used in knife crime". For now it's all voluntary, but there's already several prominent politicians pushing for a law along these lines. In fact, even some of the rhetoric is eerily similar - the proposed ban is framed as "banning dagger-type knives", which directly mirrors labels like "military-style" in US.
Why do you assume it's "the same people" in both cases?
For that matter, why do you assume that pro-gun people are Republicans? It's certainly true that there are more Republicans like that, statistically speaking. But there are also plenty of Democrats who own guns, including "assault weapons" and such. And who believe that, indeed, the root cause of gun violence is precisely what you mentioned - lack of proper healthcare, high income inequality, low social mobility, poverty etc.
It's ironic that you mention a moral panic in this context, because the whole gun control debate is a moral panic right now - but on the left. It's gotten to the point where, in sufficiently "woke" circles, even just mentioning that you own a gun that's not a hunting rifle is enough to get branded "child murderer" - literally the same language as Repubs use wrt abortion (which, coincidentally, is an actual moral panic on the right). Any attempts to talk about the specifics of various proposals, and their flaws due to misunderstanding of how guns work, or how the existing regulation of them works, are shut down on emotions. The new term for this is "gunsplaining", which basically means disagreeing in any way, shape or form with MDA and Everytown talking points - for example, if you read an article that makes false claims about terminal ballistics to justify an AR-15 ban, and you try to challenge that, then you're "gunsplaining". Even using "inappropriate" terminology draws ire - e.g. in a conversation about silencers, I used the term "suppressor" once, and was immediately shouted down for "promoting NRA propaganda" - because, apparently, that term is "invented by the NRA".
All in all, it has been an eye opening experience. I've long been wondering how so many people on the right can be so hysterical about abortion for such a long time, to the point where it's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with them. Now I can see the same close up on my side of the aisle, and, apparently, the trick is still the same old, and it still works wonderfully:
- Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. - Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. - Give only one side of the argument. - Continuously criticize your opponents. - Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
Do you understand the very definition of the word "patch"? A patch is inherently a derived work.
And if X is a derived work from Y, then licensing terms of X apply. This has always been the case, it's not some new concept. Indeed, GPL (a large part of FOSS) is built on that concept.
Qt implements a great deal more than just widgets, too: QtCore (which includes things such as I/O), QtNetwork, QtSQL etc. In fact, the closest analogy would be the Java or.NET standard library.
Yes, and that's basically correct. Except back then it was not "too late" to avoid catastrophic consequences (they were naive enough to believe that people would actually care). Now it's too late for that - but it's not too late to avoid our own extinction. But it's still going to suck no matter what we do.
There are ways to detect encrypted payloads in such cases. And they don't need to make a foolproof case of it. They just need to sound convincing enough to the judge, and then you just get slapped with contempt of court.
It all started to go downhill when kids snuck features like "while" and "for" into our PLs, when everyone knows that a conditional with a goto is perfectly readable and works just as well.
The amazing thing is that this insight (that free markets get overrun by monopolies) is literally as old as Adam Smith - yet we're still arguing about this shit.
It's worth noting that not all primitive societies are warlike. The problem is that those that aren't, generally don't tend to stick around for long, because of stuff like this.
Illegal immigrants do, in fact, pay federal taxes.
For starters, you don't need an SSN - you just need an ITIN, which anyone can apply for, not even a citizen (its whole point is to allow non-citizens to pay taxes when they owe them, but aren't otherwise eligible for an SSN).
Now it's true that many illegal immigrants get a fake Social Security card, so that they can look for jobs that require one. However, since federal taxes are withheld by the employer, they still end up paying those taxes. IRS has special tracking for that sort of thing - when a tax return comes in that has an SSN that's not in their database, they archive that return separately (but the money still goes into the same fund, and interest from it is used to fund citizens' welfare). Two years ago, they had 340 million such returns on file. Not all of these are necessarily illegal immigrants - sometimes people just misspell SSN etc - but the estimated amount of federal taxes paid by illegal immigrants yearly is over $10 billion. That's just federal - there's about as much on top of that in state and local taxes.
And the vast majority of those illegal immigrants do pay taxes one way or another voluntarily, because past amnesties often included that as a requirement for eligibility - so the assumption is that any future immigration reform that would include an amnesty would also do the same (esp. if it's a bipartisan compromise).
The best part, though, is that immigrants are not eligible for any benefits that those welfare taxes subsidize. And not just illegal - if you're an H1B, say, you still pay all that stuff, but you're eligible for none of it.
A single person can't change the system with their vote.
On the other hand, if you imprison so many people that letting them vote would actually change the result, I don't think such a law could be reasonably described as "punished fairly" in any context.
They are not actively interfering with anything. They just refuse to spend any of their resources to assist - and that includes state and municipal law enforcement. The feds are not owed any assistance from the latter, so when the states explicitly prohibit their LEOs from cooperating with the feds, it's all perfectly legal.
Looking at the comments here, the incessant bootlicking and worship of authority is insane. What happened to Slashdot? Did all the libertarians finally come out as trumptards?
These people are beyond reasoning. Don't bother. Just make mental notes of who's justifying concentration camps for children around you, and make their lives difficult in any legal way you have.
One doesn't choose to be a German. But one does choose or not choose to be an ICE employee.
And let's be clear: right now, everyone working at ICE is complicit, even if they're not directly involved in those deportations, because they maintain the system and the infrastructure that enables those who do. In a similar vein, a secretary in SS was also complicit in the crimes that organization carried out.
If all these people resigned en masse in an explicit refusal to enforce these laws, the laws would be changed - and then they could be back and implement them without moral qualms.
Thank you for clarifying. Then I don't get what his problems with accepting their CoC really are (and he claims that it's the crux of the problem, not Outreachy).
Someone has quoted this in another comment, presumably from the CoC in question:
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
This does sound overly broad. For example, under these rules, it would appear that one of the "penetration is always rape" radfems could tell a cis white male that they're a rapist (which is a valid accusation if you subscribe to these notions) - and the latter would have no recourse, because it would be "reverse sexism", no complaints accepted. In fact, they would even be unable to ask why they're so accused, since that would involve "explaining or debating social justice concepts". You could argue that this isn't an example of such - but those people would sincerely disagree, and who decides what is a valid social justice concern, and what isn't?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to understand what the case really is about. The way it's discussed in the media, it sounds like Department of State had some kind of prohibition on 3D-printed gun schematics, and the Trump admin removed it. But that's not the case.
The reason why distribution of those files were previously limited, is because Defense Distributed was distributing them to *everyone* on their website. Including people who are not US residents. At that point, it becomes export, and international treaties apply - and, in particular, ITAR.
ITAR is a treaty that regulates export of defense and military technology. The way US implements it, it maintains a list of things that are regulated; this includes firearms, but also "technical data" pertaining to other categories. It has long been held that controlling exports and imports is a legitimate government function that does not infringe on fundamental rights, although to what extent this works when 1A is in the picture is still an open case. Either way, DoS, which is in charge of maintaining the munitions list, decided that DD schematics fall into the "technical data" category.
However, for ITAR to apply, the technical data in question must be of defensive or military value. DD, in challenging DoS classification in court, has argued that technical data for manufacturing a single-shot .380 handgun do not have any such value - and it's hard to disagree with them (you're welcome to try to find any military, even irregular, anywhere in the world, that arms itself with such a firearm). The case has been going on for a long time now, but under Trump, the administration decided to settle it - they didn't quite drop the case outright, but instead came up with guidelines as to which firearms would and wouldn't be considered "military", and nothing that DD distributes falls in that category. DD agreed to that settlement.
The US states do not have well trained militia
They do, actually - that's exactly what the National Guard and the State Defense Forces are.
Somehow I don't see people being hysterical about knife crime in places like Japan
Try UK for a change. They currently have an ongoing campaign to convince people to surrender sharp-tipped kitchen knives, because they are "dangerous weapons" that are "often used in knife crime". For now it's all voluntary, but there's already several prominent politicians pushing for a law along these lines. In fact, even some of the rhetoric is eerily similar - the proposed ban is framed as "banning dagger-type knives", which directly mirrors labels like "military-style" in US.
Why do you assume it's "the same people" in both cases?
For that matter, why do you assume that pro-gun people are Republicans? It's certainly true that there are more Republicans like that, statistically speaking. But there are also plenty of Democrats who own guns, including "assault weapons" and such. And who believe that, indeed, the root cause of gun violence is precisely what you mentioned - lack of proper healthcare, high income inequality, low social mobility, poverty etc.
It's ironic that you mention a moral panic in this context, because the whole gun control debate is a moral panic right now - but on the left. It's gotten to the point where, in sufficiently "woke" circles, even just mentioning that you own a gun that's not a hunting rifle is enough to get branded "child murderer" - literally the same language as Repubs use wrt abortion (which, coincidentally, is an actual moral panic on the right). Any attempts to talk about the specifics of various proposals, and their flaws due to misunderstanding of how guns work, or how the existing regulation of them works, are shut down on emotions. The new term for this is "gunsplaining", which basically means disagreeing in any way, shape or form with MDA and Everytown talking points - for example, if you read an article that makes false claims about terminal ballistics to justify an AR-15 ban, and you try to challenge that, then you're "gunsplaining". Even using "inappropriate" terminology draws ire - e.g. in a conversation about silencers, I used the term "suppressor" once, and was immediately shouted down for "promoting NRA propaganda" - because, apparently, that term is "invented by the NRA".
All in all, it has been an eye opening experience. I've long been wondering how so many people on the right can be so hysterical about abortion for such a long time, to the point where it's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with them. Now I can see the same close up on my side of the aisle, and, apparently, the trick is still the same old, and it still works wonderfully:
- Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
- Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
- Give only one side of the argument.
- Continuously criticize your opponents.
- Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
Do you understand the very definition of the word "patch"? A patch is inherently a derived work.
And if X is a derived work from Y, then licensing terms of X apply. This has always been the case, it's not some new concept. Indeed, GPL (a large part of FOSS) is built on that concept.
Qt implements a great deal more than just widgets, too: QtCore (which includes things such as I/O), QtNetwork, QtSQL etc. In fact, the closest analogy would be the Java or .NET standard library.
Yes, and that's basically correct. Except back then it was not "too late" to avoid catastrophic consequences (they were naive enough to believe that people would actually care). Now it's too late for that - but it's not too late to avoid our own extinction. But it's still going to suck no matter what we do.
There are ways to detect encrypted payloads in such cases. And they don't need to make a foolproof case of it. They just need to sound convincing enough to the judge, and then you just get slapped with contempt of court.
It all started to go downhill when kids snuck features like "while" and "for" into our PLs, when everyone knows that a conditional with a goto is perfectly readable and works just as well.
Because Canada, and Vancouver especially, is known as a place for sweatshops, right?
The amazing thing is that this insight (that free markets get overrun by monopolies) is literally as old as Adam Smith - yet we're still arguing about this shit.
It's worth noting that not all primitive societies are warlike. The problem is that those that aren't, generally don't tend to stick around for long, because of stuff like this.
Illegal immigrants do, in fact, pay federal taxes.
For starters, you don't need an SSN - you just need an ITIN, which anyone can apply for, not even a citizen (its whole point is to allow non-citizens to pay taxes when they owe them, but aren't otherwise eligible for an SSN).
Now it's true that many illegal immigrants get a fake Social Security card, so that they can look for jobs that require one. However, since federal taxes are withheld by the employer, they still end up paying those taxes. IRS has special tracking for that sort of thing - when a tax return comes in that has an SSN that's not in their database, they archive that return separately (but the money still goes into the same fund, and interest from it is used to fund citizens' welfare). Two years ago, they had 340 million such returns on file. Not all of these are necessarily illegal immigrants - sometimes people just misspell SSN etc - but the estimated amount of federal taxes paid by illegal immigrants yearly is over $10 billion. That's just federal - there's about as much on top of that in state and local taxes.
And the vast majority of those illegal immigrants do pay taxes one way or another voluntarily, because past amnesties often included that as a requirement for eligibility - so the assumption is that any future immigration reform that would include an amnesty would also do the same (esp. if it's a bipartisan compromise).
The best part, though, is that immigrants are not eligible for any benefits that those welfare taxes subsidize. And not just illegal - if you're an H1B, say, you still pay all that stuff, but you're eligible for none of it.
A single person can't change the system with their vote.
On the other hand, if you imprison so many people that letting them vote would actually change the result, I don't think such a law could be reasonably described as "punished fairly" in any context.
Now take a look at Printz v. United States.
No law is above the Constitution.
They are not actively interfering with anything. They just refuse to spend any of their resources to assist - and that includes state and municipal law enforcement. The feds are not owed any assistance from the latter, so when the states explicitly prohibit their LEOs from cooperating with the feds, it's all perfectly legal.
Looking at the comments here, the incessant bootlicking and worship of authority is insane. What happened to Slashdot? Did all the libertarians finally come out as trumptards?
No. We have the rights so long as we choose to not let them take them away.
These people are beyond reasoning. Don't bother. Just make mental notes of who's justifying concentration camps for children around you, and make their lives difficult in any legal way you have.
One doesn't choose to be a German. But one does choose or not choose to be an ICE employee.
And let's be clear: right now, everyone working at ICE is complicit, even if they're not directly involved in those deportations, because they maintain the system and the infrastructure that enables those who do. In a similar vein, a secretary in SS was also complicit in the crimes that organization carried out.
If all these people resigned en masse in an explicit refusal to enforce these laws, the laws would be changed - and then they could be back and implement them without moral qualms.
The USSR was failing long before Reagan. Take it from someone who actually lived in it.
Even for that configuration, it's an insane price.
Fake news is propaganda, but not all propaganda is fake news. In fact, the best propaganda is truthful.
Thank you for clarifying. Then I don't get what his problems with accepting their CoC really are (and he claims that it's the crux of the problem, not Outreachy).
Someone has quoted this in another comment, presumably from the CoC in question:
This does sound overly broad. For example, under these rules, it would appear that one of the "penetration is always rape" radfems could tell a cis white male that they're a rapist (which is a valid accusation if you subscribe to these notions) - and the latter would have no recourse, because it would be "reverse sexism", no complaints accepted. In fact, they would even be unable to ask why they're so accused, since that would involve "explaining or debating social justice concepts". You could argue that this isn't an example of such - but those people would sincerely disagree, and who decides what is a valid social justice concern, and what isn't?