that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar
That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?
I also live in California, I don't care what the state legislature calls them. Assault weapons are well-defined and semi-automatic weapons do not fit the definition. There is no functional difference between a gun that looks like a military full-auto assault weapon and a gun that does not, unless the one that looks like the assault weapon actually is full-auto. They both fire bullets, one per trigger pull.
Nah, nobody needs an assault rifle. Even for military use, they're not necessary. Of course, an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and those are banned (existing fully automatic weapons are allowed and can even be sold and transferred, but must be registered -- nobody is using a registered weapon to commit a crime). What was used here was not an assault rifle, it was a rifle, just like any other rifle, functionally equivalent to any hunting rifle but with a design that looks a lot more like a military assault rifle.
Let me tell you this: what a gun looks like doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Were I so inclined, I could go buy a rifle, like one you might consider using for hunting, right now, wait the obligatory 10 days (California, gotta love this place), go pick it up, and commit a mass shooting with it on my way home. I'm talking about a single-fire.22LR rifle like this one. Yes, just as deadly as the one used in the Orlando shooting.
One, the media refers to (erroneously, as it is not fully automatic) as an "assault weapon". The other they refer to as something Dick Cheney might take with him on a hunting trip. Both are just as deadly.
What's more deadly? Actual assault weapons. Go ahead and ban them.
Since you're familiar with that particular weapon, can you tell me how likely it is for someone who bought one only days prior to be familiar enough with it to be able to cycle the trigger that fast?
are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
Everyone? No. Rifles? No. Defensive carry of handguns should be more common, though.
The only reason I don't carry is because I live in a shall-not-issue county in California where I'm so unlikely to get a permit unless it's for work as an armed guard that I haven't bothered applying. Well, that and I don't own a gun, but that mostly comes down to not being able to legally carry and having other means of home defense available.
The gun range I frequent rents guns for range use. Yes, I've sent more than a handful of rounds down-range.
You do realize that outlawing guns won't get rid of them, right? They're already out there in the population and, while a few people might turn their guns in, most won't; and even if every (currently) law-abiding citizen turned their guns in overnight. you know who wouldn't? Criminals.
And when criminals know they're the only ones with guns[1], what do you think criminals will do?
[1] When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. It doesn't matter if police also have guns if they don't show up until the robbery has already been committed or the active shooter has already used up all of their ammo and left the scene.
Canada, most parts of the UK, Japan, and most Scandanavian countries are much more respectful cultures than most of the US. As for France, well, I think you're wrong about France.
Odd, it's difficult to get a gun in France, as well... yet...
Also, the 27,000 remaining licensed rifles beg to differ, along with all of the shotguns. Airguns, as well, but meh, nobody's shooting up a place with an airgun. And yes, I'm talking about Japan.
There are plenty of guns in the hands of Japanese citizens, but the Japanese culture is also one based on respect. Perhaps that's why there are so few shootings.
Someone mod this guy insightful; someone else mod him funny. I mean, he completely missed the point I was making, but I'm certain that was on purpose and, well...
Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.
Yes, with an assault rifle, which would be fully automatic and not legally purchased by our shooter. What he had was an "assault rifle", in that it looked menacing, but was a single-fire semi-automatic weapon legally purchased days before the shooting. Had it been an actual assault rifle, gun bans would have done nothing to prevent the shooting anyway, as those are already illegal.
Probably because the range on a rifle is much farther than the range of a can of pepper spray and you can still pull the trigger while blinded. Which, you know, works just as well when your aim is to put as many holes as possible in as many people as possible.
I haven't read the detailed reports but it would make sense that the guards were the first targets. If random unidentified citizens had been armed, any one of them could have stepped in and put a stop to the event.
"Let's see... hmm... there are two guards, I know they're armed, and nobody else is likely to be. Take out the two guards and I'm home free."
-vs-
"There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."
See how those situations might play out differently? In the latter, the shooting might never occur to begin with; and if it does, the shooter will find himself on the wrong side of a room full of barrels before he can select his second victim.
Ah, yes... I'm feeling very [pistol emoji] today. Because a pistol is an emotion. Likewise with knife, crossed swords, and bomb. Oh, and apple. I think I might be feeling very apple later this evening.
Eh? I'm pretty sure firing a cake (especially if frozen) from a cannon might cause instant death if the shot were placed correctly. So, then, the use of a cake as a cannon ball can cause instant death, no?
You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.
If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.
Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.
More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.
You still have not explained why else you would do it mr false equivalence guy.
Eh? Then you haven't been paying attention. What about the post where I quote myself explaining and clarifying no fewer than 11 times? And the 11 posts I quoted therein?
here's a clue kid - that stuff you are pushing as ordinary is pretty fucking rare and unusual
I never said it was ordinary. You keep insisting I'm claiming it's ordinary, but I've stated several times that I know it is not. It doesn't have to be ordinary to be a problem.
not a lot of people get called rapists in relationship breakups without the police getting involved
And it never happened to me, either; I was never in a relationship with either of the women who didn't go to the police. And the third one, with whom I was, did.
and now you are trying to backtrack and pretend you never wrote it.
I never said I didn't write it, I said you misread it, as you claimed I called you a rapist when, very clearly (in what you just quoted) I did not.
So much for your "upbringing", you really are letting those who raised you down.
How? By standing my ground? Right. It's really not my fault you refuse to read the words I write and take them for what they are. Stop reading so much into shit, you're letting down your profession; an engineer is supposed to see what is in front of them, not what they want what's in front of them to be.
Since your other stuff turned out to be false equivalence
An accusation is an accusation; and the one woman who did go to the police counts as... what, exactly?
and you've hid behind that victim card dozens of times
It's funny what constitutes hiding nowadays.
your very unlikely story is getting incredibly hard to believe
Still hard for me to believe myself, sometimes, and I was there. This isn't the first (or second) time I've acknowledged that my story is hard to take at face value. You'd think that might be a hint that I don't think it's common, yet you keep saying I think it is. Huh. Funny how you ignore such subtle hints as "it's the kind of thing that, if I hadn't experienced it myself, I'd think, well... exactly what you think, honestly. It really is something that belongs in a movie" and "I don't expect that you'll believe it; as I said earlier, had it not happened to me, I myself would not believe most of it". Wait... those weren't subtle at all, they were actually pretty blunt.
Even if it was true you have used it shamelessly as an offtopic distraction
Yes, rape and domestic abuse are off-topic when replying to a post that explicitly mentions rape and domestic abuse. Do you have a blog I can follow? Your ideas intrigue me.
a victim card to try to stop people questioning your other statements
Except that I've been doing just fine at defending those statements. The only reason I might want you to stop questioning them is because you're flat-out wrong and it's really getting old now; but, if you're right (and I am), don't back down.
All attempts to discuss things separate from your victim card led to a lot of anger and whining.
Frustration, perhaps, but no anger, and certainly no whining. No liar stands behind his words with as much conviction as I have, standing behind my words right here; that should tell you something.
Sorry kid, it's looking more and more like a petty argument tactic than reality, and I wish you would stop acting like a kid.
Sorry, reality is what reality is and this, sir, is reality. I wish it wasn't; nobody should have to experience what I've experienced, but, well... it is what it is.
Yes, but NetBIOS didn't gain the ability to use it until Win95 and WFW never supported WPAD or ISATAP, one or the other of which was required, in conjunction with NetBIOS over TCP/IP, in order to exploit the flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar
That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?
Hey, it worked for us back in the 1700's, didn't it?
I also live in California, I don't care what the state legislature calls them. Assault weapons are well-defined and semi-automatic weapons do not fit the definition. There is no functional difference between a gun that looks like a military full-auto assault weapon and a gun that does not, unless the one that looks like the assault weapon actually is full-auto. They both fire bullets, one per trigger pull.
Nah, nobody needs an assault rifle. Even for military use, they're not necessary. Of course, an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and those are banned (existing fully automatic weapons are allowed and can even be sold and transferred, but must be registered -- nobody is using a registered weapon to commit a crime). What was used here was not an assault rifle, it was a rifle, just like any other rifle, functionally equivalent to any hunting rifle but with a design that looks a lot more like a military assault rifle.
.22LR rifle like this one. Yes, just as deadly as the one used in the Orlando shooting.
Let me tell you this: what a gun looks like doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Were I so inclined, I could go buy a rifle, like one you might consider using for hunting, right now, wait the obligatory 10 days (California, gotta love this place), go pick it up, and commit a mass shooting with it on my way home. I'm talking about a single-fire
One, the media refers to (erroneously, as it is not fully automatic) as an "assault weapon". The other they refer to as something Dick Cheney might take with him on a hunting trip. Both are just as deadly.
What's more deadly? Actual assault weapons. Go ahead and ban them.
But is not an assault weapon and, thus, shouldn't be referred to as one.
are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
Everyone? No. Rifles? No. Defensive carry of handguns should be more common, though.
The only reason I don't carry is because I live in a shall-not-issue county in California where I'm so unlikely to get a permit unless it's for work as an armed guard that I haven't bothered applying. Well, that and I don't own a gun, but that mostly comes down to not being able to legally carry and having other means of home defense available.
The gun range I frequent rents guns for range use. Yes, I've sent more than a handful of rounds down-range.
Did I blame the victims? No. The shooter is still at fault for pulling the trigger. It cold have been prevented, though.
You do realize that outlawing guns won't get rid of them, right? They're already out there in the population and, while a few people might turn their guns in, most won't; and even if every (currently) law-abiding citizen turned their guns in overnight. you know who wouldn't? Criminals.
And when criminals know they're the only ones with guns[1], what do you think criminals will do?
[1] When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. It doesn't matter if police also have guns if they don't show up until the robbery has already been committed or the active shooter has already used up all of their ammo and left the scene.
Canada, most parts of the UK, Japan, and most Scandanavian countries are much more respectful cultures than most of the US. As for France, well, I think you're wrong about France.
You're probably wrong about the UK, as well.
Odd, it's difficult to get a gun in France, as well... yet...
Also, the 27,000 remaining licensed rifles beg to differ, along with all of the shotguns. Airguns, as well, but meh, nobody's shooting up a place with an airgun. And yes, I'm talking about Japan.
There are plenty of guns in the hands of Japanese citizens, but the Japanese culture is also one based on respect. Perhaps that's why there are so few shootings.
The star emoji looks like it might have 5 of them.
Someone mod this guy insightful; someone else mod him funny. I mean, he completely missed the point I was making, but I'm certain that was on purpose and, well...
Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.
Yes, with an assault rifle, which would be fully automatic and not legally purchased by our shooter. What he had was an "assault rifle", in that it looked menacing, but was a single-fire semi-automatic weapon legally purchased days before the shooting. Had it been an actual assault rifle, gun bans would have done nothing to prevent the shooting anyway, as those are already illegal.
Probably because the range on a rifle is much farther than the range of a can of pepper spray and you can still pull the trigger while blinded. Which, you know, works just as well when your aim is to put as many holes as possible in as many people as possible.
I haven't read the detailed reports but it would make sense that the guards were the first targets. If random unidentified citizens had been armed, any one of them could have stepped in and put a stop to the event.
"Let's see... hmm... there are two guards, I know they're armed, and nobody else is likely to be. Take out the two guards and I'm home free."
-vs-
"There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."
See how those situations might play out differently? In the latter, the shooting might never occur to begin with; and if it does, the shooter will find himself on the wrong side of a room full of barrels before he can select his second victim.
Ah, yes... I'm feeling very [pistol emoji] today. Because a pistol is an emotion. Likewise with knife, crossed swords, and bomb. Oh, and apple. I think I might be feeling very apple later this evening.
And nobody's gonna go shoot up a place with their phone because someone sent them a rifle emoji.
Your sig... after that post... just...
I don't know why but...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Eh? I'm pretty sure firing a cake (especially if frozen) from a cannon might cause instant death if the shot were placed correctly. So, then, the use of a cake as a cannon ball can cause instant death, no?
You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.
If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.
Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.
More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.
You still have not explained why else you would do it mr false equivalence guy.
Eh? Then you haven't been paying attention. What about the post where I quote myself explaining and clarifying no fewer than 11 times? And the 11 posts I quoted therein?
here's a clue kid - that stuff you are pushing as ordinary is pretty fucking rare and unusual
I never said it was ordinary. You keep insisting I'm claiming it's ordinary, but I've stated several times that I know it is not. It doesn't have to be ordinary to be a problem.
not a lot of people get called rapists in relationship breakups without the police getting involved
And it never happened to me, either; I was never in a relationship with either of the women who didn't go to the police. And the third one, with whom I was, did.
and now you are trying to backtrack and pretend you never wrote it.
I never said I didn't write it, I said you misread it, as you claimed I called you a rapist when, very clearly (in what you just quoted) I did not.
So much for your "upbringing", you really are letting those who raised you down.
How? By standing my ground? Right. It's really not my fault you refuse to read the words I write and take them for what they are. Stop reading so much into shit, you're letting down your profession; an engineer is supposed to see what is in front of them, not what they want what's in front of them to be.
Since your other stuff turned out to be false equivalence
An accusation is an accusation; and the one woman who did go to the police counts as ... what, exactly?
and you've hid behind that victim card dozens of times
It's funny what constitutes hiding nowadays.
your very unlikely story is getting incredibly hard to believe
Still hard for me to believe myself, sometimes, and I was there. This isn't the first (or second) time I've acknowledged that my story is hard to take at face value. You'd think that might be a hint that I don't think it's common, yet you keep saying I think it is. Huh. Funny how you ignore such subtle hints as "it's the kind of thing that, if I hadn't experienced it myself, I'd think, well... exactly what you think, honestly. It really is something that belongs in a movie" and "I don't expect that you'll believe it; as I said earlier, had it not happened to me, I myself would not believe most of it". Wait... those weren't subtle at all, they were actually pretty blunt.
Even if it was true you have used it shamelessly as an offtopic distraction
Yes, rape and domestic abuse are off-topic when replying to a post that explicitly mentions rape and domestic abuse. Do you have a blog I can follow? Your ideas intrigue me.
a victim card to try to stop people questioning your other statements
Except that I've been doing just fine at defending those statements. The only reason I might want you to stop questioning them is because you're flat-out wrong and it's really getting old now; but, if you're right (and I am), don't back down.
All attempts to discuss things separate from your victim card led to a lot of anger and whining.
Frustration, perhaps, but no anger, and certainly no whining. No liar stands behind his words with as much conviction as I have, standing behind my words right here; that should tell you something.
Sorry kid, it's looking more and more like a petty argument tactic than reality, and I wish you would stop acting like a kid.
Sorry, reality is what reality is and this, sir, is reality. I wish it wasn't; nobody should have to experience what I've experienced, but, well... it is what it is.
glucose in thigh enough levels
It seems you missed something. In high enough levels your liver will process the hell out of glucose to get rid of it.
Here's a good lecture on the topic.
Did they support WPAD and/or ISATAP?
Yes, but NetBIOS didn't gain the ability to use it until Win95 and WFW never supported WPAD or ISATAP, one or the other of which was required, in conjunction with NetBIOS over TCP/IP, in order to exploit the flaw.
They actually released the Windows TCP/IP stack in 3.11a or b, I forget which. NetBIOS didn't use it until Win95, though.