Wasn't there an outcry, not long ago, over iOS location services still recording your location even when disabled? Also, is this the story you read? Seems Apple is doing the same thing; at least according to that source. If you think there's a whole lot of difference between a ping ever 15 minutes and a ping every 1.5 minutes (or 18 and 90), when the location granularity is something like 30-80ft (actually look at GPS accuracy numbers in real world use sometime, you rarely see better than that) you're mistaken.
Also, you must be completely blind to Apple's underhanded practices. The stories abound, so you have to be actively trying to avoid them.
If you think you would like Android, try it. It's no worse than iOS and Google is no worse than Apple.
Apply some critical thinking: Apple didn't become the richest company in the world on the backs of the smallest market share in the industry by being open and honest.
Sent from my 2016 MacBook Pro. No, really, I'm not an Apple hater, just a realist.
If you're going to do that, you have to make sure to also fill up your (diesel) truck while you're out. Otherwise, you'll just get a friendly knock on the door.
I was going to post this, as well... It's like people in other countries think we can walk into a convenience store and just buy a gun in the US. So wrong they all are.
Ugh... sorry for the harsh tone of that reply, I just saw that the threading is screwed up here. Try clicking "Parent" on my post to see what I was replying to, or looking at what I quoted and seeing that it wasn't something you had said. I'll assume you thought I was replying to you due to Slashdot's screwed up threading.
I was pointing out that my guns aren't for defense, in response to the allegation that I bought them out of fear because I couldn't defend myself without them. Read what I was responding to and get some context, maybe?
Yup, another point people seem to miss. Or, if they get that, they shoot back (pun intended) "it didn't matter that they were illegal there, since they're so easy to get a hold of anyway" to which I say "well, duh, that's why making them illegal here won't work."
They're too easy to get illegally already! You think that will change if they become entirely illegal? Nope. People who don't want the liability will sell or give them to someone who doesn't mind. And who doesn't mind the liability of an illegal firearm? Criminals top that list.
The guns aren't going to disappear just because they're made illegal, it will just become easier for criminals to get their hands on them as law abiding citizens rush to get rid of them.
The NRA are a bunch of cucks. This wasn't always the case, and I'm only a member today by way of having become a lifetime member before they became their current shitshow.
Please, don't equate their actions to reflect the majority of the gun community. They havne't been that for nearly a decade.
you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm
Funny, I seem to get the impression that I'd have to keep it loaded and ready to go, rather than locked up when I'm not at the range, in order for it to be an effective self defense tool.
I get the impression you seem to feel like your assumptions are solid truth. Sorry to burst your bubble.
If I carried, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on; but you should probably take a seat now.
I have insurance in case something bad happens. I'm not afraid it will happen, just smart enough to know it's better to be prepared than to be caught off guard.
And if you completely subtract firearms-related homicide from that, it's still true. Guns aren't the problem; people wanting to kill each other is. Fix mental health in this country (start with your own if you think you're the type who might harm someone simply because you have a gun available -- that is NOT normal) and there is no reason to take guns from anyone who hasn't shown themselves incapable of handling them.
It's funny, these people are terrified of the toys with which we put holes in paper and the tools with which we hunt for food, yet they try to claim that we are scared and that's why we want guns. A tiny bit of critical thought and looking at the issue from a few different angles is all that is needed to realize that guns aren't the problem, but they do make the problem better; I'd rather someone hell-bent on killing a lot of people do so in a way I can defend against.
Until we come together and solve that problem, guns are a benefit to all. Even those who don't own them.
Once we solve that problem, there's no reason for anyone to want to take my guns, so they can continue being a benefit to me.
So the 2nd was intended to prevent us from forming a standing army that might be abused by tyrants... and us now having a large standing army that might be abused by tyrants is a reason we don't need the 2nd amendment? If anything, the opposite is true.
But you go ahead and repeal the 2nd, thinking you'll just defend yourself with a knife, or a club, or pepper spray, or your keys, or a rick you found on the ground, or a stick... go ahead and do that.
All of those things are arms.
Which you must keep, bear, or both, in order to use.
I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.
I love how you ignore that someone else, with an anti-gun bent, opened that can of worms. It's okay to compare the first- and third-world when arguing one side, but not the other? Well, then, how is one supposed to properly respond to that argument?
He went home, got the gun, and came back, according to other reports I've read. Seems they'd know that from security footage showing him leaving and returning some time later.
That said, your second paragraph nailed it. Absent the gun he may have been unstable enough to buy a few gallons of diesel and a couple bags of fertilizer instead.
Yes, so let's say half as many people are inclined to do so, but the means they must use, absent guns, kill 3x as many people per incident, on average.
Did we do better, because the number of incidents decreased by 50%? Or worse, because the death toll increased by 50%?
At least with a gun you can take cover, GTFO, or return fire when you hear the first shots. With an IED, it really only makes one sound and by the time you hear it the worst has already happened.
Beside that, how do you propose we manage who can get them easily when most people who misuse them have no disqualifying factors until the first time they misuse them (e.g. after they own one)? Now, I don't disagree with you, and more than one shooting in recent history could have been prevented if the FBI and local police had acted on legitimate tips from the public, but that's different from managing who can get them. I'm genuinely curious how you propose that.
Ah, and for the fact that you can make a workable firearm from about $30 in Home Depot parts. It might only survive a handful of rounds being fired, but that's all that's needed for a mass shooting: 9 shots fired, 5 dead (including the shooter) and multiple injured.
Well, here in the US we have these things called warrants. Usually, bad things happen if you don't comply with one of those. Not sure how things work in Thailand or Burma, but the worst case for law enforcement is that they need a warrant; it may well be that they just need to show up at the office with guns.
Except? I just stated it, you're not excepting anything here.
It's neutral only in aggregate.
First you say it may be neutral, now you agree that it is. We're getting somewhere.
You're still being pushed to one side
Nobody on Facebook is pushed anywhere*; Facebook's users are free to stay put, follow the pack that Facebook makes easy for them, or actively seek other viewpoints. What Facebook does is, in a neutral manner, show you what your "friends" are saying, doing, and thinking; it only appears non-neutral to most people because most people tend to only associate with people who share their own beliefs. Try friending people who challenge you and you suddenly have a much different experience. That human nature's lack of neutrality, not Facebook's. What's being called for in response to Facebook's supposed lack of neutrality is for Facebook to actually not be neutral.
Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform.
Indeed, they due, trained by their own biases and lack of neutrality, not that of the platform. That was my point; the platform, in the neutral way in which it amplifies what users want and shields them from any opposing viewpoints, is dangers. But still neutral.
Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
You're right. You know what else it's not? A trait of the platform. Know what it is? A trait of the users.
*: That's not 100% accurate; some of us are pushed away from the platform because we don't like echo chambers.
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber
You mean when you amplify someone's own thoughts, beliefs, wants, and desires, those things become stronger? This is the danger of showing people what they want in a neutral and nonjudgmental manner; rather, it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there an outcry, not long ago, over iOS location services still recording your location even when disabled? Also, is this the story you read? Seems Apple is doing the same thing; at least according to that source. If you think there's a whole lot of difference between a ping ever 15 minutes and a ping every 1.5 minutes (or 18 and 90), when the location granularity is something like 30-80ft (actually look at GPS accuracy numbers in real world use sometime, you rarely see better than that) you're mistaken.
Also, you must be completely blind to Apple's underhanded practices. The stories abound, so you have to be actively trying to avoid them.
If you think you would like Android, try it. It's no worse than iOS and Google is no worse than Apple.
Apply some critical thinking: Apple didn't become the richest company in the world on the backs of the smallest market share in the industry by being open and honest.
Sent from my 2016 MacBook Pro. No, really, I'm not an Apple hater, just a realist.
If you're going to do that, you have to make sure to also fill up your (diesel) truck while you're out. Otherwise, you'll just get a friendly knock on the door.
I was going to post this, as well... It's like people in other countries think we can walk into a convenience store and just buy a gun in the US. So wrong they all are.
Yes, let's. It won't take long for them to decide bullets are more important than internet this month.
Probably Canada
I'm pretty sure we are, as well; I was replying to someone who was arguing with you on the matter.
Happens all the time. Damnit Slashdot.
Ugh... sorry for the harsh tone of that reply, I just saw that the threading is screwed up here. Try clicking "Parent" on my post to see what I was replying to, or looking at what I quoted and seeing that it wasn't something you had said. I'll assume you thought I was replying to you due to Slashdot's screwed up threading.
I was pointing out that my guns aren't for defense, in response to the allegation that I bought them out of fear because I couldn't defend myself without them. Read what I was responding to and get some context, maybe?
Yup, another point people seem to miss. Or, if they get that, they shoot back (pun intended) "it didn't matter that they were illegal there, since they're so easy to get a hold of anyway" to which I say "well, duh, that's why making them illegal here won't work."
They're too easy to get illegally already! You think that will change if they become entirely illegal? Nope. People who don't want the liability will sell or give them to someone who doesn't mind. And who doesn't mind the liability of an illegal firearm? Criminals top that list.
The guns aren't going to disappear just because they're made illegal, it will just become easier for criminals to get their hands on them as law abiding citizens rush to get rid of them.
The NRA are a bunch of cucks. This wasn't always the case, and I'm only a member today by way of having become a lifetime member before they became their current shitshow.
Please, don't equate their actions to reflect the majority of the gun community. They havne't been that for nearly a decade.
you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm
Funny, I seem to get the impression that I'd have to keep it loaded and ready to go, rather than locked up when I'm not at the range, in order for it to be an effective self defense tool.
I get the impression you seem to feel like your assumptions are solid truth. Sorry to burst your bubble.
If I carried, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on; but you should probably take a seat now.
I have insurance in case something bad happens. I'm not afraid it will happen, just smart enough to know it's better to be prepared than to be caught off guard.
Try again?
It's a third world country with high levels of corruption in government, massive poverty, and massive wealth inequality.
High levels of corruption in government: check.
Massive poverty: check.
Massive wealth inequality: check.
Didn't realize the US was third-world, though. Have we really gotten that bad?
And if you completely subtract firearms-related homicide from that, it's still true. Guns aren't the problem; people wanting to kill each other is. Fix mental health in this country (start with your own if you think you're the type who might harm someone simply because you have a gun available -- that is NOT normal) and there is no reason to take guns from anyone who hasn't shown themselves incapable of handling them.
but most murders are just normal people who happen to have a gun nearby when a conflict escalates
Most murders don't involve a gun at all, so I fail to see how that's even likely to be factual.
It's funny, these people are terrified of the toys with which we put holes in paper and the tools with which we hunt for food, yet they try to claim that we are scared and that's why we want guns. A tiny bit of critical thought and looking at the issue from a few different angles is all that is needed to realize that guns aren't the problem, but they do make the problem better; I'd rather someone hell-bent on killing a lot of people do so in a way I can defend against.
Until we come together and solve that problem, guns are a benefit to all. Even those who don't own them.
Once we solve that problem, there's no reason for anyone to want to take my guns, so they can continue being a benefit to me.
Your concealed-carry permit is not a right required under the constitution.
No, it is not. But, according to the 9th Circuit Court, open carry is.
So the 2nd was intended to prevent us from forming a standing army that might be abused by tyrants... and us now having a large standing army that might be abused by tyrants is a reason we don't need the 2nd amendment? If anything, the opposite is true.
But you go ahead and repeal the 2nd, thinking you'll just defend yourself with a knife, or a club, or pepper spray, or your keys, or a rick you found on the ground, or a stick... go ahead and do that.
All of those things are arms.
Which you must keep, bear, or both, in order to use.
The 2nd protects that, as well.
I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.
I love how you ignore that someone else, with an anti-gun bent, opened that can of worms. It's okay to compare the first- and third-world when arguing one side, but not the other? Well, then, how is one supposed to properly respond to that argument?
He went home, got the gun, and came back, according to other reports I've read. Seems they'd know that from security footage showing him leaving and returning some time later.
That said, your second paragraph nailed it. Absent the gun he may have been unstable enough to buy a few gallons of diesel and a couple bags of fertilizer instead.
Personally, I prefer the gun.
Yes, so let's say half as many people are inclined to do so, but the means they must use, absent guns, kill 3x as many people per incident, on average.
Did we do better, because the number of incidents decreased by 50%? Or worse, because the death toll increased by 50%?
At least with a gun you can take cover, GTFO, or return fire when you hear the first shots. With an IED, it really only makes one sound and by the time you hear it the worst has already happened.
Beside that, how do you propose we manage who can get them easily when most people who misuse them have no disqualifying factors until the first time they misuse them (e.g. after they own one)? Now, I don't disagree with you, and more than one shooting in recent history could have been prevented if the FBI and local police had acted on legitimate tips from the public, but that's different from managing who can get them. I'm genuinely curious how you propose that.
Ah, and for the fact that you can make a workable firearm from about $30 in Home Depot parts. It might only survive a handful of rounds being fired, but that's all that's needed for a mass shooting: 9 shots fired, 5 dead (including the shooter) and multiple injured.
Well, here in the US we have these things called warrants. Usually, bad things happen if you don't comply with one of those. Not sure how things work in Thailand or Burma, but the worst case for law enforcement is that they need a warrant; it may well be that they just need to show up at the office with guns.
"follow the pack" should be "follow the path", though I suppose what I actually wrote works as well in context
Except that's exactly what it does.
Except? I just stated it, you're not excepting anything here.
It's neutral only in aggregate.
First you say it may be neutral, now you agree that it is. We're getting somewhere.
You're still being pushed to one side
Nobody on Facebook is pushed anywhere *; Facebook's users are free to stay put, follow the pack that Facebook makes easy for them, or actively seek other viewpoints. What Facebook does is, in a neutral manner, show you what your "friends" are saying, doing, and thinking; it only appears non-neutral to most people because most people tend to only associate with people who share their own beliefs. Try friending people who challenge you and you suddenly have a much different experience. That human nature's lack of neutrality, not Facebook's. What's being called for in response to Facebook's supposed lack of neutrality is for Facebook to actually not be neutral.
Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform.
Indeed, they due, trained by their own biases and lack of neutrality, not that of the platform. That was my point; the platform, in the neutral way in which it amplifies what users want and shields them from any opposing viewpoints, is dangers. But still neutral.
Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
You're right. You know what else it's not? A trait of the platform. Know what it is? A trait of the users.
*: That's not 100% accurate; some of us are pushed away from the platform because we don't like echo chambers.
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber
You mean when you amplify someone's own thoughts, beliefs, wants, and desires, those things become stronger? This is the danger of showing people what they want in a neutral and nonjudgmental manner; rather, it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.