You think I like the spew of SJW that slashdot has become?
I'm like you, I don't want to see that shit on slashdot, and I, like you, longed for the day when they would pack it up and let/. be about computers and technology again.
But I grew up. Every one of these bullshit articles is an opportunity. An opportunity to stand up and be seen, showing the undecideds that Cultural Marxism isn't inevitable. An opportunity to spread the counterculture, to give people the vocabulary to understand and fight back against the crybullies. An opportunity to remind the silent majority that they aren't alone, but are, in fact, the majority.
I'm not here to argue the merits of any particular case. This guy might be a total dickwad that deserves a public execution. I don't care, other people can deal with that. Some of these incidents surely are bad, but others are imaginary, and (most importantly) all of them are being used to push an agenda. I'm here to fight against that agenda. I'm here to shine the light of day on the opponent, to expose their goals, to provide them with the ridicule they so richly deserve.
The Soviets broke the ties of community in the countries they ruled. They convinced the Polish that everyone had abandoned God. The Poles hadn't, of course, but each one was convinced that they were alone, that their neighbors would shun them if they admitted it. Pope John Paul the second was Polish himself, and he asked for permission to visit his homeland. The Soviets couldn't exactly say no. They actually thought it was an opportunity. They bullied the people into silence, and took that silence as a proof that the hearts of the country were empty. They expected the Pope to be get a chilly reception; a couple of crazies and a lot of empty space, proof of their victory over the souls of Poland.
They were wrong. Karol was greeted by huge, excited crowds. Catholics in Poland were amazed to see that the country still had faith, and emboldened by the crowds, they came out of the closet and talked to their neighbors. That marked the turning point for Poland, the grip of fear was shattered, the control faded and eventually the whole evil empire collapsed into dust.
I am the pope here, and so can you! Yes, you! Join the fight. Speak your mind. Post anonymously if you need to. Use your moderator and meta-moderator points to support your values. (The SJWs sure do.)
It was the first search result that included the material and didn't spoil the punchline in the URL preview. I've never read that site beyond making sure the page I linked was what I expected.
Oh, and the "American women suck" meme is most commonly heard from the PUA community, generally from guys with hundreds of notches. I'm sure the site's owner, or any random PUA, can fill you in on the details.
Pressuring the victim to resign is the SJW tactic of choice. It allows them to maintain the pretense that this wasn't really all their fault
Until we mandate that kid start memorizing the survival guide's key points in elementary school, specifically "6: Do Not Resign!", a resignation is the marker of a successful victimization, not an admission of guilt.
As to the investigation, I think that pretty much everyone pictures the same Australian marsupial when they close their eyes and try to imagine what kind of hearing the guy was getting in the People's Republic of Berkeley.
Last, the survey is self-refuting. Mind reading technology sufficiently advanced to detect the motives of people performing "unwelcome conduct", whatever the hell that is, would make a survey pointless.
Bonus points: SJWs have stretched the word "sexist" to the point that it now means anything or nothing at all, but only when men say it, so the only way to interpret "sexist remarks" is as "words from a man".
Note to slashdot editors: Please keep the SJW stories coming. Each one turns a few more people to the alt-right, and inoculates dozens more.
If we all get together, we can end this deplorable practice in a few months. There is no reason why we have to allow this harassment to go on! It really pisses me off that most victims have to face this alone and afraid.
If you know anyone who might be a victim of this pernicious evil, or who falls into one of the demographics likely to be exploited by it, please make sure that they get a copy of the Survival Guide ASAP. It can literally change his life.
Don't assume malice. When it comes to routing customer-provided IP blocks (eBGP), there are two types of companies:
The first will demand, inspect and understand your documentation. Their routers will accept announcements from your end only for the ranges have been registered to the ASN that you've proved belongs to your organization.
The other doesn't really know what BGP does, but when you asked for it, they read the manual for their router and figured out how to activate it on your port.
You'll find roughly the same distribution of competence with outgoing ANI if you still have a PRI on your PBX, except that you know in advance what you are getting. The ILEC will let you put any ANI you want on your outgoing calls, as long as it's yours. The CLECs don't know/care if you forge your ANI to make your calls look like they are coming from the White House.
Keynes lived well into the era of "indoor plumbing through electrically pumped water". That technology was going to raise the standard of living for just about everyone, at that point, wasn't so much a prediction as an observation of the blatantly obvious.
Which vehicles would those be? Do you imagine vaults with diving boards, like Scrooge McDuck had? What would it be filled with? You have a cash shortage in your area?
Even worse are vendors that forbid and actively try to prevent the use of generic accounts. bobsmith@ is quite a busy guy. He's the contact for like 6 companies.
If the first function is breakable, the whole chain is breakable because hashes are deterministic.
Always use input constraints. Most (all?) hash breaks involve the ability to shovel arbitrary garbage into the hash function. For example, if you want to forge an HTML document with the same MD5 as another HTML document, you embed your carefully crafted junk in a HTML comment, so that it isn't a visible part of the document. If your electronic policies disallow invisible HTML elements, and your human policies disallow gibberish, no one can forge that document, even with a weak hash function.
A real world example in widespread use today is Bitcoin, which uses weak-ish hashes in some places, but the valid inputs have so few constraints that exploiting them is impossible.
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes here, since you didn't bother reading the exact same information earlier in the thread but:
If you have an obligation to do a background check, you are obligated to do it at a gun show too. If you are not obligated to do a background check, there is nothing to circumvent.
The 2nd Amendment was written with much stronger language than the 1st. "Congress shall make no law" is a restriction on Congress. "The Right of the People... shall not be infringed" is a command to the new Federal entity not to allow anyone else to even nibble around the edges (fringe = edge) of that right.
Does it say "shall not be infringed by Congress"? Or "shall not be infringed by your state government"? Or does it say "can be infringed, as long as it isn't completely extinguished"?
No, it doesn't say any of those things. It says shall not be infringed, without qualification.
At any rate, it was clearly intended at the time it was written to keep infantry weapons, at the very least, in the hands of the citizens, and we have failed at even that low bar. (If you don't know what infantry weapons are, you might want to educate yourself before you demonstrate that ignorance to the public by commenting.)
"legal" is defined by law (congress), and it is not currently legal to violate HIPAA, even if Obama says you should. If you do something that is illegal now, even if done because of a promise from the current president not to prosecute you, you can still be prosecuted later, because the law is what the law says, not what the president wishes it said.
The leading candidate for the office can promise to prosecute in the future. People will need to decide if they want to take that risk or not based on their assessment of his chances.
I'm trying to avoid quoting the whole article because he is an excellent writer and deserves the traffic (also, I have to manually convert his unicode apostrophes into ASCII for slashdot, which is annoying), but here is another chunk that might address some of your concerns:
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it's 75%. In Milwaukee it's 77% percent. In New Orleans, it's 64%. In Baltimore, it's 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago's problem isn't guns; it's gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.
America's murder rate isn't the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America's murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
If you spent as much time reading the article as you did assembling your talking points, you'd have noticed that Mr. Greenfield mentioned Chicago as "America's mass shooting capital", not "America's murder capital".
Your facebook memes are weak. How many states do you think preempt local firearms laws? Just the three you mentioned? No, 47 states (out of 50!) have preemption laws. 2 of those were partial and I didn't feel like looking up the specifics, so we are looking at 90% to 94% of the states.
Also, the three cities with the highest homicide rates have a lot in common beyond being in a few of the many states with pre-emption laws. For one thing, they have been dominated by Democrat politicians for decades. Obviously, that means they are stuffed full of Democrat voters. Which is the point of Mr. Greenfield's article.
America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.
Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.
2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.
These cities are the heartland of America's real gun culture. It isn't the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it's Obama's own voting base.
Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago's murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago's murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.
But Chicago isn't even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.
Trump should declare that when he is president, he will direct the US Attorneys to fully prosecute (aka seek draconian fines and jail time) for doctors and administrative staff that personally violate HIPAA (and other laws), as written by congress, to provide this information illegally, regardless of any rules or desires expressed by the current president. The very records the FBI would use to deny Americans their rights without due process of law would effectively be signed confessions.
What doctor would take the risk? Obama can't pardon John Does, he can't change what the law actually says, and an executive promise not to prosecute today doesn't mean shit to his successor.
It is big and bold, it assumes and thinks beyond the sale, and it would stop this madness before it starts. It would secure his support among gun owners. It would also show the voters that Trump, not even technically a nominee yet, is already more powerful than the sitting president.
I have this mental picture of you cursing at me from your mom's basement. You should probably get out more if you think I'm being witty. Ask her if she can drop you off at the mall.
Wait, sorry, I figured it out. You weren't replying to me, but to an anonymous post that you thought was from me.
I'm not posting anonymous in this thread. I didn't know Ian, never met him, don't really know anything about him except what I've heard anecdotally. (Patrick Volkerding has a story about him, from back when Debian was just an idea.)
For all I know he was a raging racist, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. I reject the notion that using the word "nigger" automatically makes a person a racist, and I've already posted my analysis of the sentence in question.
When you sober up, please explain what you were trying to say here. It may help to read what I wrote, and the post to which I was replying, too.
P.S. I'm posting on my actual account. Between my 4 digit user ID and the quality of your post, it is entirely possible that I've been posting here since before you were born.
Speaking of history, I guess all those historians that studied the Poor Laws were delusional then. After all, since charity was invented on August 14th, 1935, they had no system in need of reform in the 16th and 17th centuries. And I guess the ancient almshouses were 900-year hoaxes.
Yup, totally a coincidence that a bunch of people that considered themselves to be Marxists just happened to decide, out of the blue, to implement a couple of the things that Marx identified as being necessary to advance his utopian scheme to turn people into ants. Not a plot at all, no siree bob.
Slashdot Mirror
You think I like the spew of SJW that slashdot has become?
I'm like you, I don't want to see that shit on slashdot, and I, like you, longed for the day when they would pack it up and let /. be about computers and technology again.
But I grew up. Every one of these bullshit articles is an opportunity. An opportunity to stand up and be seen, showing the undecideds that Cultural Marxism isn't inevitable. An opportunity to spread the counterculture, to give people the vocabulary to understand and fight back against the crybullies. An opportunity to remind the silent majority that they aren't alone, but are, in fact, the majority.
I'm not here to argue the merits of any particular case. This guy might be a total dickwad that deserves a public execution. I don't care, other people can deal with that. Some of these incidents surely are bad, but others are imaginary, and (most importantly) all of them are being used to push an agenda. I'm here to fight against that agenda. I'm here to shine the light of day on the opponent, to expose their goals, to provide them with the ridicule they so richly deserve.
The Soviets broke the ties of community in the countries they ruled. They convinced the Polish that everyone had abandoned God. The Poles hadn't, of course, but each one was convinced that they were alone, that their neighbors would shun them if they admitted it. Pope John Paul the second was Polish himself, and he asked for permission to visit his homeland. The Soviets couldn't exactly say no. They actually thought it was an opportunity. They bullied the people into silence, and took that silence as a proof that the hearts of the country were empty. They expected the Pope to be get a chilly reception; a couple of crazies and a lot of empty space, proof of their victory over the souls of Poland.
They were wrong. Karol was greeted by huge, excited crowds. Catholics in Poland were amazed to see that the country still had faith, and emboldened by the crowds, they came out of the closet and talked to their neighbors. That marked the turning point for Poland, the grip of fear was shattered, the control faded and eventually the whole evil empire collapsed into dust.
I am the pope here, and so can you! Yes, you! Join the fight. Speak your mind. Post anonymously if you need to. Use your moderator and meta-moderator points to support your values. (The SJWs sure do.)
It was the first search result that included the material and didn't spoil the punchline in the URL preview. I've never read that site beyond making sure the page I linked was what I expected.
Oh, and the "American women suck" meme is most commonly heard from the PUA community, generally from guys with hundreds of notches. I'm sure the site's owner, or any random PUA, can fill you in on the details.
Pressuring the victim to resign is the SJW tactic of choice. It allows them to maintain the pretense that this wasn't really all their fault
Until we mandate that kid start memorizing the survival guide's key points in elementary school, specifically "6: Do Not Resign!", a resignation is the marker of a successful victimization, not an admission of guilt.
As to the investigation, I think that pretty much everyone pictures the same Australian marsupial when they close their eyes and try to imagine what kind of hearing the guy was getting in the People's Republic of Berkeley.
Last, the survey is self-refuting. Mind reading technology sufficiently advanced to detect the motives of people performing "unwelcome conduct", whatever the hell that is, would make a survey pointless.
Bonus points: SJWs have stretched the word "sexist" to the point that it now means anything or nothing at all, but only when men say it, so the only way to interpret "sexist remarks" is as "words from a man".
Note to slashdot editors: Please keep the SJW stories coming. Each one turns a few more people to the alt-right, and inoculates dozens more.
If we all get together, we can end this deplorable practice in a few months. There is no reason why we have to allow this harassment to go on! It really pisses me off that most victims have to face this alone and afraid.
If you know anyone who might be a victim of this pernicious evil, or who falls into one of the demographics likely to be exploited by it, please make sure that they get a copy of the Survival Guide ASAP. It can literally change his life.
The rest of the book is pretty good too.
Don't assume malice. When it comes to routing customer-provided IP blocks (eBGP), there are two types of companies:
The first will demand, inspect and understand your documentation. Their routers will accept announcements from your end only for the ranges have been registered to the ASN that you've proved belongs to your organization.
The other doesn't really know what BGP does, but when you asked for it, they read the manual for their router and figured out how to activate it on your port.
You'll find roughly the same distribution of competence with outgoing ANI if you still have a PRI on your PBX, except that you know in advance what you are getting. The ILEC will let you put any ANI you want on your outgoing calls, as long as it's yours. The CLECs don't know/care if you forge your ANI to make your calls look like they are coming from the White House.
I said virtually nothing.
Keynes lived well into the era of "indoor plumbing through electrically pumped water". That technology was going to raise the standard of living for just about everyone, at that point, wasn't so much a prediction as an observation of the blatantly obvious.
Keynes was a nitwit. Virtually nothing he wrote was right, mostly because he was writing to his ideology.
Which vehicles would those be? Do you imagine vaults with diving boards, like Scrooge McDuck had? What would it be filled with? You have a cash shortage in your area?
Even worse are vendors that forbid and actively try to prevent the use of generic accounts. bobsmith@ is quite a busy guy. He's the contact for like 6 companies.
If the first function is breakable, the whole chain is breakable because hashes are deterministic.
Always use input constraints. Most (all?) hash breaks involve the ability to shovel arbitrary garbage into the hash function. For example, if you want to forge an HTML document with the same MD5 as another HTML document, you embed your carefully crafted junk in a HTML comment, so that it isn't a visible part of the document. If your electronic policies disallow invisible HTML elements, and your human policies disallow gibberish, no one can forge that document, even with a weak hash function.
A real world example in widespread use today is Bitcoin, which uses weak-ish hashes in some places, but the valid inputs have so few constraints that exploiting them is impossible.
> How in the seven hells is that modded +5 Insightful?
Welcome to slashdot.
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes here, since you didn't bother reading the exact same information earlier in the thread but:
If you have an obligation to do a background check, you are obligated to do it at a gun show too. If you are not obligated to do a background check, there is nothing to circumvent.
The 2nd Amendment was written with much stronger language than the 1st. "Congress shall make no law" is a restriction on Congress. "The Right of the People ... shall not be infringed" is a command to the new Federal entity not to allow anyone else to even nibble around the edges (fringe = edge) of that right.
Does it say "shall not be infringed by Congress"? Or "shall not be infringed by your state government"? Or does it say "can be infringed, as long as it isn't completely extinguished"?
No, it doesn't say any of those things. It says shall not be infringed, without qualification.
At any rate, it was clearly intended at the time it was written to keep infantry weapons, at the very least, in the hands of the citizens, and we have failed at even that low bar. (If you don't know what infantry weapons are, you might want to educate yourself before you demonstrate that ignorance to the public by commenting.)
"legal" is defined by law (congress), and it is not currently legal to violate HIPAA, even if Obama says you should. If you do something that is illegal now, even if done because of a promise from the current president not to prosecute you, you can still be prosecuted later, because the law is what the law says, not what the president wishes it said.
The leading candidate for the office can promise to prosecute in the future. People will need to decide if they want to take that risk or not based on their assessment of his chances.
I'm trying to avoid quoting the whole article because he is an excellent writer and deserves the traffic (also, I have to manually convert his unicode apostrophes into ASCII for slashdot, which is annoying), but here is another chunk that might address some of your concerns:
Between 45 and 47 states, out of 50, have preemption laws.
If you spent as much time reading the article as you did assembling your talking points, you'd have noticed that Mr. Greenfield mentioned Chicago as "America's mass shooting capital", not "America's murder capital".
Your facebook memes are weak. How many states do you think preempt local firearms laws? Just the three you mentioned? No, 47 states (out of 50!) have preemption laws. 2 of those were partial and I didn't feel like looking up the specifics, so we are looking at 90% to 94% of the states.
Also, the three cities with the highest homicide rates have a lot in common beyond being in a few of the many states with pre-emption laws. For one thing, they have been dominated by Democrat politicians for decades. Obviously, that means they are stuffed full of Democrat voters. Which is the point of Mr. Greenfield's article.
America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem
America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.
Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.
2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.
These cities are the heartland of America's real gun culture. It isn't the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it's Obama's own voting base.
Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago's murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago's murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.
But Chicago isn't even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.
Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent. ...
(Go read the whole article, it is worth it)
Trump should declare that when he is president, he will direct the US Attorneys to fully prosecute (aka seek draconian fines and jail time) for doctors and administrative staff that personally violate HIPAA (and other laws), as written by congress, to provide this information illegally, regardless of any rules or desires expressed by the current president. The very records the FBI would use to deny Americans their rights without due process of law would effectively be signed confessions.
What doctor would take the risk? Obama can't pardon John Does, he can't change what the law actually says, and an executive promise not to prosecute today doesn't mean shit to his successor.
It is big and bold, it assumes and thinks beyond the sale, and it would stop this madness before it starts. It would secure his support among gun owners. It would also show the voters that Trump, not even technically a nominee yet, is already more powerful than the sitting president.
I have this mental picture of you cursing at me from your mom's basement. You should probably get out more if you think I'm being witty. Ask her if she can drop you off at the mall.
LOL. Are you sure you understand how the "Post Anonymously" box works?
Wait, sorry, I figured it out. You weren't replying to me, but to an anonymous post that you thought was from me.
I'm not posting anonymous in this thread. I didn't know Ian, never met him, don't really know anything about him except what I've heard anecdotally. (Patrick Volkerding has a story about him, from back when Debian was just an idea.)
For all I know he was a raging racist, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. I reject the notion that using the word "nigger" automatically makes a person a racist, and I've already posted my analysis of the sentence in question.
When you sober up, please explain what you were trying to say here. It may help to read what I wrote, and the post to which I was replying, too.
P.S. I'm posting on my actual account. Between my 4 digit user ID and the quality of your post, it is entirely possible that I've been posting here since before you were born.
Speaking of history, I guess all those historians that studied the Poor Laws were delusional then. After all, since charity was invented on August 14th, 1935, they had no system in need of reform in the 16th and 17th centuries. And I guess the ancient almshouses were 900-year hoaxes.
Yup, totally a coincidence that a bunch of people that considered themselves to be Marxists just happened to decide, out of the blue, to implement a couple of the things that Marx identified as being necessary to advance his utopian scheme to turn people into ants. Not a plot at all, no siree bob.