so fed up that they knew they were throwing a bull into a china shop. They didnt care what he broke, they just felt washington needed to be punished. I see hate coming from all sides. However, i do agree there is a whole lot of 'thats not hate' coverup from the left.
Lesson learned.... when you get elected president you're supposed to put partisanship behind and represent ALL the people. When you run a campaign insulting and calling half the nation a basket of deplorables, there is no pretending you ever will. Political suicide. At least now some candidates are trying to convince themselves and their party that trump supporters were 'conned', 'duped', and 'misled'. The idea being that your never going to get them to come around to you if you keep pushing them away and ostracizing them. She knew the poll results when she said it. The polls were showing, albeit inaccurately we now now, a 46/48 split between DJT and HRC. Insulting 46% of the nation calling them effectively the scum of the earth was a huge self inflicted wound.
someone, using actual logic, needs to explain how a business has the right to refuse a platform for Alex Jones, because its their company to do as they please, and at the same time say another business, such as a bakery, does NOT have the right to refuse service to a gay couple wanting a wedding cake?? This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy the breeds more conflict and will eventually start a conflict of violent proportions.
thats not why trump got elected. It's certainly what got him popular at some rally's but it wasnt enough to get him elected. He got elected because more people hated Hillary than liked her. It could have been another candidate but the media went and meddled. Go back and look at the headlines leading up to the primaries. Watch how media worked with HRCs campaign to deliberately tilt the table in favor or HRC. At first the media was pushing Jeb Bush out in front. They wanted nothing more than another Bush vs Clinton election. Why? Because both dynasties and their supporters have potential BILLIONS in money to spend in advertising. Directly and via PACs, the media was selling the country out for their own profits. When the ratings on Jeb kept coming back flat (just not as personable as his brother) they started pushing DJT up front. They kept building him up, most papers were positive. They figured if they got DJT into the primaries he would be easily defeated. He was bound to say something to screw up his campaign.
We now know, after the Podesta emails were circulated, how HRC worked with the media to rig the primaries and push everyone out. So as the finish line approached and DJT secures the nomination, now the media turns on him. But then HRC does the unthinkable, she literally decides to insult anyone who listens to trump, calling them a basket of deplorables. People tend to push back when they feel insulted, and a lot of people felt she was directly attacking them. So they dig in further, even people that didn't even particularly care for DJT started paying more attention and getting involved. Then the news hit about HRC stealing the primary election from Sanders. The suspicion that the media was helping her got confirmed. Then it was discovered that the media was slipping her campaign the debate questions in advance. The suspicious 'hearing aid' during the debates where people were feeding her answers so she wouldn't look like an idiot.
More people got fed up. They _really_ did not like the idea they were being manipulated and they _really_ did not like her or her personality. How do you insult 48% of the nation calling them names, and even remotely pretend that when you are president you will govern everyone the same? Nobody believed it. Its well known just how vengeful she is. It came down to the Never Hillaries vs the Never Trumps. More people hated her in the end.
The sad part of the whole thing is that had the media just did their job and objectively _report_ events instead of trying to use their influence to line their pockets, HRC might have lost the primaries. There were other potential candidates that got wiped out early without a fighting chance that could have garnered more support than even Sanders. Had the media just stayed out of it, we probably would have had a completely different president right now.
Its not that he won because there are so many people buying into the rhetoric. He won because the majority was so angry at the revelation of being taken as a fool to be manipulated, they retaliated out of spite and elected him because they just wanted to screw everything up and punish washington and the media for trying to fuck over the people. For the most part I'd say that pretty much has happened. The media is constantly under attack as being fake news. Washington is in a complete disarray. The staff positions at the white house are like a revolving door. Its one of the most tumultuous times I can remember. All because the media companies were driven by pure greed.
No my friend, I lay his election squarely at the feet of the media, and the piss poor choice of trying to put that soulless cow, with more baggage than a sampsonite factory, into the oval office. The hate speech only riled up a small pocket of people. The bulk of the support came from the people retaliating.
time and time again these idiots pull this power shit and do this without ever thinking that one day, some other group is going to use it against me.
Even now they go gunning for bakeries that refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, because they don't have a right to deny service. Then they cheer the restaurants who refuse service to cabinet members and say they have the right to refuse service to anyone because its their business and thats their right. They cheer sites that take down Alex Jones saying its their right because its there site; but if facebook started banning accounts because the accounts were promoting gay sex, they would be strung up and an outcry to make a law forcing facebook to allow it would be circulating within days.
hows this for hate speech.... everyone guilty of profound hypocrisy should be rounded up and executed summarily. Better for the species as a whole. LOL
so if you say something like "lawyers are the scum of the earth, they should all be loaded on buses and driven off a cliff" , which is most likely not a real call to action, is hate speech?
Here is what pisses me off... we tell providers they have the right to refuse to allow someone like Alex Jones to air his content on their site because they do not agree with what he says. Fine. But at the same time they condemn a bakery for refusing to make a wedding cake for someones position they do not agree with. The 1st amendment assures you free speech, the 14th amendment assures you equal protection. If we bend the rule to allow providers to pick and choose whom they allow to have accounts and post based on whether we agree with what they say or political agenda, what grounds do they have to go after a baker for doing the exact same thing?
when the RIAA and the MPAA are directly, and indirectly, responsible for MILLIONS and MILLIONS or campaign contributions, we get laws that make it a felony to copy their shit. Lets say I am a software developer, and lets say I make a product (I actually do but thats not relevant to the analogy). If you copy my product and go about selling it as your own, It's my responsibility to file a civil suit against you, fight it out in court for years, just to keep the other guy from continuing to make money selling something that's my intellectual property. The exact same crime, selling bootleg movies or music, is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Is that equal protection under the law? Nope. Im not a rhino, but historically its the Dems that pushed for all these damn laws, mostly because these companies represent a lot of Hollywood doners. When my software get the same legal protections and felony charges that the MPAA and RIAA get for violating copyright, I'll give a fuck about those over protected pieces of shit. Until them I hope their whole fucking house of cards comes down around them. If there is ever a 'zombie apocalypse' (as in total anarchy devoid of any sort of law and order) I will personally make sure that those assholes are not around by the time law and order ever gets restored. Maybe I'll arrange for them to be exiled to a deserted island in the pacific where they eat what they can catch or kill; even If I have to haul them there myself. So sick of those over protected pieces of shit.
RTFA. The data centers donâ(TM)t provide hardly shit for jobs. Itâ(TM)s one thing to bend over backwards when a factory opens up and youâ(TM)ve got 800 to 2000 new jobs. Itâ(TM)s entirely another when the same footprint shows up and you created 15 damn jobs
unsure I'd call an ambien coma 'high'. Definitely out of their mind. Right now the VA still treats PTSD with ambien. Now Ambien is not an actual treatment for PTSD, but the docs figure it will help them sleep. So lets take a vet with PTSD, someone prone to night terrors, and give them a drug that lists sleep walking as a side effect. The Ft Hood shooter was a PTSD patient taking ambien. I believed Roseanne Barr when she said it was a 2am Ambien rant. Just use some cannabis and get some sleep already. Never once heard of cannabis causing sleep walking.
I would prefer to have none, thanks. But technically this would be closer to Fascism, where private businesses and government work hand in hand, without actual consideration of the people.
exactly, unless you move somewhere else where you can buy cheap again. Or retire and move to Costa Rica. With inflation going the way it has been (real cost of living increases not just what is admitted) no nest egg will let someone retire for more than 10-15 years before that same monthly amount becomes 1/2 of what it used to provide.
dont forget establishing a 'legacy'. But otherwise, no truer statement has ever been uttered. The shit deal is these data centers only create a handful of jobs. Should require amazon to provide their own Tokamak, lol
call me jaded, disgruntled, pessimistic, or just a crochety old guy; my angle on this was not so much Amazon 'taking incentives offered' but more greasing the palms of the 5-6 people that decided, for the entire city, to cut these deals and sack the residents to augment the funds. At this point I have little faith in any level of government doing things outside of all the tricks that are nothing more than loopholes to have 'legalized bribery'.
as someone who has built AKs and ARs from parts, and has had to build the receiver part; AKs are much more work than ARs for sure. If you mill out the lower receiver of an AR everything else just connects with a simple Armorers wrench and a small torque wrench. For making an AK receiver you need jigs to bend the receiver; a jig to rivet the trigger guard, a jig to rivet the rear trunion and front trunion; a spot welder to attach the rails for the bolt carrier; map gas to heat the drilled holes to heat-treat harden them; a shop press to rivet, press the barrel into the front trunion, populate the rear sight block, gas block, and front sight block; A drill press to cross mill the barrel for the 5mm cross pin as well as the 3mm pins for the other barrel parts. Personally, I love making AKs. I find it significantly more challenging from a skill perspective. The biggest trick to AKs is that, unlike AR, the parts no dont fit like a swiss watch. You need to go back with a drimel tool and tweak the clearances because there is always a slight difference between polish parts, russian parts, yugo parts, romanian parts etc.
FYI to make it fully-auto you need another jig/template that will line up the correct holes for the 5mm and 7mm to support the 3rd axis pin that holds the autosear. Its doable but you would be surprised how many people do not understand how it works. In order to make it
Fucking morons who should have their Bar membership removed. Disbar them for being fucktards who display complete ineptitude of legal process and precedence. We have so many fucking lawyers that lawyers cant even get a good job. Fucking disbar them and let some other trust fund flunky have a shot.
its the material. eventually this will not be the case. they cant ban blueprints for the same reason that they cant ban the Anarchy Cookbook. I can try to follow the recipe for making a pipe bomb, and I might blow myself up. Thats not a good enough reason to ban it. Blowing myself up just takes one more asshole out of the genepool who intended to make explosive devices. Problem solved.
this is not a gun, this is the same thing as the Anarchy Cookbook. Its just a howto document. Just like the US Army manual of Improvised Explosive Devices.
you don't need a CNC, just a jig, some bits, and a router (not the network type). This is 100% legal as per the 1968 Gun Control Act. These states ARE going to lose. blueprints are NOT guns for the same reason the Anarchy Cookbook is NOT explosives or drugs. In fact 3d printed guns are completely shit at the moment. The plastic only withstands a few shots at best. Hell a zip gun (spring, nail, and pile) is more durable than the 3d printed varieties right now. It's a lawsuit filed by fucking retarded lawyers with more time than fucking brains. Hell, if this system ever does get abused, I hope these fucking dumbass lawyers are the first to get killed by one.
Close to right. In theory 'net neutrality' was sold that way. In fact many people believe that is exactly what they got, simply because they never experienced selective traffic shaping or blocking content all together. In reality what we got was a executive _policy_ that forced the carriers to subsidize the cost of content providers, whom themselves were not subject to the _exact_ same policy of neutrality. In _theory_ I am all for the idea of an AGNOSTIC internet. One that will say 'show me a court order to block this shit, otherwise shut the fuck up because I have a business to run'. Instead the government talks out of both sides of their mouth. How does the concept of Net Neutrality (true neutrality) mesh with the same government that expects private industry to be the ones to be responsible for censoring 'terrorist propaganda'. If your job is to be Neutral, then it needs to be someone else's damn job to determine what gets blocked, You cannot expect the same entity to be both neutral and responsible for censorship and filtering. As much as I hate FB, I cannot see anything wrong with them selling ad space to Internet Research Group during the 2016 campaign. Its not their job to interpret what IS or IS NOT, ok. If there isnt already a specific law banning a certain activity, their answer should be 'fuck off.. I sell ad space, they paid for an ad. There was nothing illegal about their ad. Don't like it, change the fucking law to make it illegal. Until then, shut the fuck up and let me get back to my job'. Instead what we get is them being anything BUT neutral now.
See some of my other posts that illustrate that neutrality rules wouldnt even be damn necessary if we didnt turn these companies into monopolies in the first place. Take back the last-mile portion from the providers. Create a network where any company can lease a space, buy a huge pipe to the internet, then pay this last-mile company for a cross-connect to your residence. Every town would have 5 or 6 options where they only have 1 or 2 now.
Net Neutrality became needed because Congress and the FCC legislated monopolies after the patriot act went into effect. It was easier to spy on the whole country via 10 access points than via thousands. So your choices went to shit. The problem with Net Neutrality is it still keeps these assholes in power, still taking your money, still going unpunished financially for how they treat you as a customer. In my scenario there wouldn't need to be a neutrality rule, you simply fire their ass and hire someone else the same way you fire your landscaper when he starts doing a shitty job. How would you feel about having to pay the same SOB to cut your grass regardless of how rude he was, and your only caveat was that a new rule required him to at least cut your grass within a certain parameter of acceptable. I would prefer firing his ass and hiring a new landscaper. Current last-mile circumstances (ie getting from the service provider to your house) would be the same as only 2 landscape companies in your town with thousands wanting to be landscapers, but only these 2 hold a license to even buy lawn mowing equipment.
the difference between budget billing and ISP billing is that my Budget plan is based on an average of the last 12 months. If my consumption goes up then next year my budget bill would also go up. At no point am I paying less per month than my lowest consumed month of power. All I am effectively doing is paying more during low consumption months to pre-pay the difference during high consumption months. At no point would my neighbor get my $200/mo electric pricing while continuing to consume $400/mo, every month, worth of electricity. His budget price would have no relationship at all based on MY consumption and MY bill shouldnt go up to subsidize his massive amount of grow lamps or whatever is drinking all that electricity.
Essentially, neutrality, as it once was implemented, did effectively do that to the end consumer. There was tremendous pressure for lower cost but things like 4K content was driving up the cost with no way to individualize this. Per-byte billing would solve this in a way that no carrier would give a shit what content flowed on their network. You want to use 10x the average in usage and stream 4k video all day long, even while nobody is at home, because your dumb ass left the tv running? Here's your bill.
Per-byte billing, even on a budget plan, is unpopular, but it has the strongest chances of neutrality. Yes it should be run similarly to utilities. The last-mile carrier should be independent and provide NOTHING outside of last-mile connectivity, Nor should they have any investments or affiliation with a service provider. This will give you the freedom of picking between several service providers and open the market to more competition. ISPs would then be free to connect to you via said last-mile company and provide you layer3 access to the internet, at which time you pay for the data you consume. Even if an ISP decided it was going to block Netflix (lets say they decided to boycot netflix because the CEO made private donations to a pro-life group, not directly through netflix or its subsidiaries, but just a personal check out of his personal account) you could just pick up the phone and use a different carrier that fast, because of the vast equal access that the independent last-mile carrier allows for.
blocking content is blocking content. the word Net Neutrality, and its support by the populace is that no provider (not limited to just isp) should have the right to censor or restrict access to what you want to access.
How is saying we are going to censor content on our hard drives any different than saying we are going to censor content on our switches? If Verizon decided to restrict all content related to gay rights, its a violation. But Facebook wouldn't be in violation if they did the exact same thing? The word is NET NEUTRALITY, not ISP Neutrality. Facebook is on the fucking internet isnt it? They provide content don't they? This is why the policy was thrown out in the first place. It was never applied equally and uniformly.
Such policies are always troublesome and eventually always fail. Come up with a policy that applies to every single person and corporation across the board. The same fucking law that some states passed that says a cake baker cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay couple should apply the same way to Facebook, regardless if Facebook is censoring content based on LGBT or gun rights, it shouldn't fucking matter. I have yet to see any state take FB to court for refusing to let people talk about gun rights btw, despite the exact wording of the laws requiring store owners to sell cakes to gay couples being worded in such a way that actual puts FB in violation of the same law. No pun intended but these half-baked laws are bullshit. The reason there is so much polarization in this country right now is exactly for reasons JUST LIKE THIS. We pass laws to punish those we disagree with and do nothing about those we do agree with violating the same spirit of the law. Make laws that will apply to everyone in such a way that NOBODY gets a free pass. 2 things will happen. We will make less damn laws, and people will make sure the laws they DO pass are not unjust as they will have to live by them too.
Slashdot Mirror
so fed up that they knew they were throwing a bull into a china shop. They didnt care what he broke, they just felt washington needed to be punished. I see hate coming from all sides. However, i do agree there is a whole lot of 'thats not hate' coverup from the left.
Lesson learned.... when you get elected president you're supposed to put partisanship behind and represent ALL the people. When you run a campaign insulting and calling half the nation a basket of deplorables, there is no pretending you ever will. Political suicide. At least now some candidates are trying to convince themselves and their party that trump supporters were 'conned', 'duped', and 'misled'. The idea being that your never going to get them to come around to you if you keep pushing them away and ostracizing them. She knew the poll results when she said it. The polls were showing, albeit inaccurately we now now, a 46/48 split between DJT and HRC. Insulting 46% of the nation calling them effectively the scum of the earth was a huge self inflicted wound.
someone, using actual logic, needs to explain how a business has the right to refuse a platform for Alex Jones, because its their company to do as they please, and at the same time say another business, such as a bakery, does NOT have the right to refuse service to a gay couple wanting a wedding cake?? This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy the breeds more conflict and will eventually start a conflict of violent proportions.
thats not why trump got elected. It's certainly what got him popular at some rally's but it wasnt enough to get him elected. He got elected because more people hated Hillary than liked her. It could have been another candidate but the media went and meddled. Go back and look at the headlines leading up to the primaries. Watch how media worked with HRCs campaign to deliberately tilt the table in favor or HRC. At first the media was pushing Jeb Bush out in front. They wanted nothing more than another Bush vs Clinton election. Why? Because both dynasties and their supporters have potential BILLIONS in money to spend in advertising. Directly and via PACs, the media was selling the country out for their own profits. When the ratings on Jeb kept coming back flat (just not as personable as his brother) they started pushing DJT up front. They kept building him up, most papers were positive. They figured if they got DJT into the primaries he would be easily defeated. He was bound to say something to screw up his campaign.
We now know, after the Podesta emails were circulated, how HRC worked with the media to rig the primaries and push everyone out. So as the finish line approached and DJT secures the nomination, now the media turns on him. But then HRC does the unthinkable, she literally decides to insult anyone who listens to trump, calling them a basket of deplorables. People tend to push back when they feel insulted, and a lot of people felt she was directly attacking them. So they dig in further, even people that didn't even particularly care for DJT started paying more attention and getting involved. Then the news hit about HRC stealing the primary election from Sanders. The suspicion that the media was helping her got confirmed. Then it was discovered that the media was slipping her campaign the debate questions in advance. The suspicious 'hearing aid' during the debates where people were feeding her answers so she wouldn't look like an idiot.
More people got fed up. They _really_ did not like the idea they were being manipulated and they _really_ did not like her or her personality. How do you insult 48% of the nation calling them names, and even remotely pretend that when you are president you will govern everyone the same? Nobody believed it. Its well known just how vengeful she is. It came down to the Never Hillaries vs the Never Trumps. More people hated her in the end.
The sad part of the whole thing is that had the media just did their job and objectively _report_ events instead of trying to use their influence to line their pockets, HRC might have lost the primaries. There were other potential candidates that got wiped out early without a fighting chance that could have garnered more support than even Sanders. Had the media just stayed out of it, we probably would have had a completely different president right now.
Its not that he won because there are so many people buying into the rhetoric. He won because the majority was so angry at the revelation of being taken as a fool to be manipulated, they retaliated out of spite and elected him because they just wanted to screw everything up and punish washington and the media for trying to fuck over the people. For the most part I'd say that pretty much has happened. The media is constantly under attack as being fake news. Washington is in a complete disarray. The staff positions at the white house are like a revolving door. Its one of the most tumultuous times I can remember. All because the media companies were driven by pure greed.
No my friend, I lay his election squarely at the feet of the media, and the piss poor choice of trying to put that soulless cow, with more baggage than a sampsonite factory, into the oval office. The hate speech only riled up a small pocket of people. The bulk of the support came from the people retaliating.
time and time again these idiots pull this power shit and do this without ever thinking that one day, some other group is going to use it against me.
Even now they go gunning for bakeries that refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, because they don't have a right to deny service. Then they cheer the restaurants who refuse service to cabinet members and say they have the right to refuse service to anyone because its their business and thats their right. They cheer sites that take down Alex Jones saying its their right because its there site; but if facebook started banning accounts because the accounts were promoting gay sex, they would be strung up and an outcry to make a law forcing facebook to allow it would be circulating within days.
hows this for hate speech.... everyone guilty of profound hypocrisy should be rounded up and executed summarily. Better for the species as a whole. LOL
so if you say something like "lawyers are the scum of the earth, they should all be loaded on buses and driven off a cliff" , which is most likely not a real call to action, is hate speech?
Here is what pisses me off... we tell providers they have the right to refuse to allow someone like Alex Jones to air his content on their site because they do not agree with what he says. Fine. But at the same time they condemn a bakery for refusing to make a wedding cake for someones position they do not agree with. The 1st amendment assures you free speech, the 14th amendment assures you equal protection. If we bend the rule to allow providers to pick and choose whom they allow to have accounts and post based on whether we agree with what they say or political agenda, what grounds do they have to go after a baker for doing the exact same thing?
when the RIAA and the MPAA are directly, and indirectly, responsible for MILLIONS and MILLIONS or campaign contributions, we get laws that make it a felony to copy their shit. Lets say I am a software developer, and lets say I make a product (I actually do but thats not relevant to the analogy). If you copy my product and go about selling it as your own, It's my responsibility to file a civil suit against you, fight it out in court for years, just to keep the other guy from continuing to make money selling something that's my intellectual property. The exact same crime, selling bootleg movies or music, is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Is that equal protection under the law? Nope. Im not a rhino, but historically its the Dems that pushed for all these damn laws, mostly because these companies represent a lot of Hollywood doners. When my software get the same legal protections and felony charges that the MPAA and RIAA get for violating copyright, I'll give a fuck about those over protected pieces of shit. Until them I hope their whole fucking house of cards comes down around them. If there is ever a 'zombie apocalypse' (as in total anarchy devoid of any sort of law and order) I will personally make sure that those assholes are not around by the time law and order ever gets restored. Maybe I'll arrange for them to be exiled to a deserted island in the pacific where they eat what they can catch or kill; even If I have to haul them there myself. So sick of those over protected pieces of shit.
RTFA. The data centers donâ(TM)t provide hardly shit for jobs. Itâ(TM)s one thing to bend over backwards when a factory opens up and youâ(TM)ve got 800 to 2000 new jobs. Itâ(TM)s entirely another when the same footprint shows up and you created 15 damn jobs
but we keep having to change out memory chips on the servers. They seem to have a problem retaining short term data.
What is The MATRIX?
unsure I'd call an ambien coma 'high'. Definitely out of their mind. Right now the VA still treats PTSD with ambien. Now Ambien is not an actual treatment for PTSD, but the docs figure it will help them sleep. So lets take a vet with PTSD, someone prone to night terrors, and give them a drug that lists sleep walking as a side effect. The Ft Hood shooter was a PTSD patient taking ambien. I believed Roseanne Barr when she said it was a 2am Ambien rant. Just use some cannabis and get some sleep already. Never once heard of cannabis causing sleep walking.
I would prefer to have none, thanks. But technically this would be closer to Fascism, where private businesses and government work hand in hand, without actual consideration of the people.
exactly, unless you move somewhere else where you can buy cheap again. Or retire and move to Costa Rica. With inflation going the way it has been (real cost of living increases not just what is admitted) no nest egg will let someone retire for more than 10-15 years before that same monthly amount becomes 1/2 of what it used to provide.
dont forget establishing a 'legacy'. But otherwise, no truer statement has ever been uttered. The shit deal is these data centers only create a handful of jobs. Should require amazon to provide their own Tokamak, lol
call me jaded, disgruntled, pessimistic, or just a crochety old guy; my angle on this was not so much Amazon 'taking incentives offered' but more greasing the palms of the 5-6 people that decided, for the entire city, to cut these deals and sack the residents to augment the funds. At this point I have little faith in any level of government doing things outside of all the tricks that are nothing more than loopholes to have 'legalized bribery'.
depends on who is to be believed. If we take that whistleblower's word for it, they exist to smuggle drugs into the main factory. lol
it was written right into the 1968 gun control act. You can build yourself a firearm without any oversight or background checking.
as someone who has built AKs and ARs from parts, and has had to build the receiver part; AKs are much more work than ARs for sure. If you mill out the lower receiver of an AR everything else just connects with a simple Armorers wrench and a small torque wrench. For making an AK receiver you need jigs to bend the receiver; a jig to rivet the trigger guard, a jig to rivet the rear trunion and front trunion; a spot welder to attach the rails for the bolt carrier; map gas to heat the drilled holes to heat-treat harden them; a shop press to rivet, press the barrel into the front trunion, populate the rear sight block, gas block, and front sight block; A drill press to cross mill the barrel for the 5mm cross pin as well as the 3mm pins for the other barrel parts. Personally, I love making AKs. I find it significantly more challenging from a skill perspective. The biggest trick to AKs is that, unlike AR, the parts no dont fit like a swiss watch. You need to go back with a drimel tool and tweak the clearances because there is always a slight difference between polish parts, russian parts, yugo parts, romanian parts etc.
FYI to make it fully-auto you need another jig/template that will line up the correct holes for the 5mm and 7mm to support the 3rd axis pin that holds the autosear. Its doable but you would be surprised how many people do not understand how it works. In order to make it
Fucking morons who should have their Bar membership removed. Disbar them for being fucktards who display complete ineptitude of legal process and precedence. We have so many fucking lawyers that lawyers cant even get a good job. Fucking disbar them and let some other trust fund flunky have a shot.
its the material. eventually this will not be the case. they cant ban blueprints for the same reason that they cant ban the Anarchy Cookbook. I can try to follow the recipe for making a pipe bomb, and I might blow myself up. Thats not a good enough reason to ban it. Blowing myself up just takes one more asshole out of the genepool who intended to make explosive devices. Problem solved.
this is not a gun, this is the same thing as the Anarchy Cookbook. Its just a howto document. Just like the US Army manual of Improvised Explosive Devices.
you don't need a CNC, just a jig, some bits, and a router (not the network type). This is 100% legal as per the 1968 Gun Control Act. These states ARE going to lose. blueprints are NOT guns for the same reason the Anarchy Cookbook is NOT explosives or drugs. In fact 3d printed guns are completely shit at the moment. The plastic only withstands a few shots at best. Hell a zip gun (spring, nail, and pile) is more durable than the 3d printed varieties right now. It's a lawsuit filed by fucking retarded lawyers with more time than fucking brains. Hell, if this system ever does get abused, I hope these fucking dumbass lawyers are the first to get killed by one.
they really seem to like 'three strikes' type laws. How about 3 strikes and they remove you from office.
Close to right. In theory 'net neutrality' was sold that way. In fact many people believe that is exactly what they got, simply because they never experienced selective traffic shaping or blocking content all together. In reality what we got was a executive _policy_ that forced the carriers to subsidize the cost of content providers, whom themselves were not subject to the _exact_ same policy of neutrality. In _theory_ I am all for the idea of an AGNOSTIC internet. One that will say 'show me a court order to block this shit, otherwise shut the fuck up because I have a business to run'. Instead the government talks out of both sides of their mouth. How does the concept of Net Neutrality (true neutrality) mesh with the same government that expects private industry to be the ones to be responsible for censoring 'terrorist propaganda'. If your job is to be Neutral, then it needs to be someone else's damn job to determine what gets blocked, You cannot expect the same entity to be both neutral and responsible for censorship and filtering. As much as I hate FB, I cannot see anything wrong with them selling ad space to Internet Research Group during the 2016 campaign. Its not their job to interpret what IS or IS NOT, ok. If there isnt already a specific law banning a certain activity, their answer should be 'fuck off.. I sell ad space, they paid for an ad. There was nothing illegal about their ad. Don't like it, change the fucking law to make it illegal. Until then, shut the fuck up and let me get back to my job'. Instead what we get is them being anything BUT neutral now.
See some of my other posts that illustrate that neutrality rules wouldnt even be damn necessary if we didnt turn these companies into monopolies in the first place. Take back the last-mile portion from the providers. Create a network where any company can lease a space, buy a huge pipe to the internet, then pay this last-mile company for a cross-connect to your residence. Every town would have 5 or 6 options where they only have 1 or 2 now.
Net Neutrality became needed because Congress and the FCC legislated monopolies after the patriot act went into effect. It was easier to spy on the whole country via 10 access points than via thousands. So your choices went to shit. The problem with Net Neutrality is it still keeps these assholes in power, still taking your money, still going unpunished financially for how they treat you as a customer. In my scenario there wouldn't need to be a neutrality rule, you simply fire their ass and hire someone else the same way you fire your landscaper when he starts doing a shitty job. How would you feel about having to pay the same SOB to cut your grass regardless of how rude he was, and your only caveat was that a new rule required him to at least cut your grass within a certain parameter of acceptable. I would prefer firing his ass and hiring a new landscaper. Current last-mile circumstances (ie getting from the service provider to your house) would be the same as only 2 landscape companies in your town with thousands wanting to be landscapers, but only these 2 hold a license to even buy lawn mowing equipment.
the difference between budget billing and ISP billing is that my Budget plan is based on an average of the last 12 months. If my consumption goes up then next year my budget bill would also go up. At no point am I paying less per month than my lowest consumed month of power. All I am effectively doing is paying more during low consumption months to pre-pay the difference during high consumption months. At no point would my neighbor get my $200/mo electric pricing while continuing to consume $400/mo, every month, worth of electricity. His budget price would have no relationship at all based on MY consumption and MY bill shouldnt go up to subsidize his massive amount of grow lamps or whatever is drinking all that electricity.
Essentially, neutrality, as it once was implemented, did effectively do that to the end consumer. There was tremendous pressure for lower cost but things like 4K content was driving up the cost with no way to individualize this. Per-byte billing would solve this in a way that no carrier would give a shit what content flowed on their network. You want to use 10x the average in usage and stream 4k video all day long, even while nobody is at home, because your dumb ass left the tv running? Here's your bill.
Per-byte billing, even on a budget plan, is unpopular, but it has the strongest chances of neutrality. Yes it should be run similarly to utilities. The last-mile carrier should be independent and provide NOTHING outside of last-mile connectivity, Nor should they have any investments or affiliation with a service provider. This will give you the freedom of picking between several service providers and open the market to more competition. ISPs would then be free to connect to you via said last-mile company and provide you layer3 access to the internet, at which time you pay for the data you consume. Even if an ISP decided it was going to block Netflix (lets say they decided to boycot netflix because the CEO made private donations to a pro-life group, not directly through netflix or its subsidiaries, but just a personal check out of his personal account) you could just pick up the phone and use a different carrier that fast, because of the vast equal access that the independent last-mile carrier allows for.
blocking content is blocking content. the word Net Neutrality, and its support by the populace is that no provider (not limited to just isp) should have the right to censor or restrict access to what you want to access.
How is saying we are going to censor content on our hard drives any different than saying we are going to censor content on our switches? If Verizon decided to restrict all content related to gay rights, its a violation. But Facebook wouldn't be in violation if they did the exact same thing? The word is NET NEUTRALITY, not ISP Neutrality. Facebook is on the fucking internet isnt it? They provide content don't they? This is why the policy was thrown out in the first place. It was never applied equally and uniformly.
Such policies are always troublesome and eventually always fail. Come up with a policy that applies to every single person and corporation across the board. The same fucking law that some states passed that says a cake baker cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay couple should apply the same way to Facebook, regardless if Facebook is censoring content based on LGBT or gun rights, it shouldn't fucking matter. I have yet to see any state take FB to court for refusing to let people talk about gun rights btw, despite the exact wording of the laws requiring store owners to sell cakes to gay couples being worded in such a way that actual puts FB in violation of the same law. No pun intended but these half-baked laws are bullshit. The reason there is so much polarization in this country right now is exactly for reasons JUST LIKE THIS. We pass laws to punish those we disagree with and do nothing about those we do agree with violating the same spirit of the law. Make laws that will apply to everyone in such a way that NOBODY gets a free pass. 2 things will happen. We will make less damn laws, and people will make sure the laws they DO pass are not unjust as they will have to live by them too.