If you are unwilling to stand behind your beliefs and accept persecution for them, you didn't really believe in them.
Do not take that the wrong way. I'm glad that you can post as an AC. I'd not have it any other way. It just means that you don't believe in your views enough to put your UUID them and be held accountable for them at even that level. That would be why they're called "cowards." I quite agree with the idea.
Not everyone has beliefs strong enough to get the past the stage of cowardice. That's fine. The world is full of cowards. Most people are cowards, so it seems by observation. Push come to shove, will you accept the death penalty for saying your boss is a wanker? No? Then you don't really hold that belief, at least not to the level where it is significant.
That's okay. You don't have to. You're allowed to be a coward and I'm glad you're given a voice.
At a personal level, I not only like being held accountable, I want to be held accountable. It encourages me to use logic, reason, and hold viable beliefs. I like accountability and I think we'd be better off if more people did. However, I'd never want to force you to post with attribution. Instead, I'd encourage you to do so while being sure to let you know that being cowardly is a normal human trait and something to overcome.
I truly like being accountable for my views and expressions. That accountability is what makes the freedom and liberty so valuable in the end.
I am not a religious person, certainly not a Christian, but I think the appropriate quote is: "More weight."
Well, I opened this thread with the intent of finding an appropriate place and asking if they'd be willing to share an address. I've got a few bucks and I like doing stuff to help people out. If they get in touch with you and you decide you need financial assistance to accomplish this goal, let me know. From the looks of things, you've got it covered. I'll probably just make it a point to buy some hardware in the future - as I just so happen to be playing with a robot that I've named Rex.
I should add, Rex is stupid and lazy. He still does not come when called BUT he reliable moves when called. Now, if I could just get him to follow the sound of my voice or even use the damned camera (someone has to have a library in C) then I'd be happier. But, alas, Rex is stupid and lazy - he's also probably high. Maybe I'll just make him flash a light so I can go find him. He's supposed to bring the remote to me. The remote is to control T. T is Rex's sister. She's not a robot. She just sits there and is supposed to play media on command - via a remote. She doesn't do anything yet but she should be easy. Her brother, on the other hand... Like I said, he's lazy and stupid.
For JFK it was a TV (if you had one or had access to one) or it was the radio. I was 6. That day stands out in my memory pretty well. The whole world stopped then, or as soon as they found out, and listened or watched - waiting for any tidbit of news. When I first heard the news, he'd only been shot and they hadn't announced he was dead yet. That wasn't for quite a while, as I recall. There was a lot of speculating that he'd died. When it was confirmed, people shit bricks.
That seems to be a recurring theme. Bricks were shat across the globe and collectively. Angst was displayed, anger was displayed, frustration was displayed, but it was mostly gossip, clucking of tongues, and a sentiment that something had to be done being expressed. I imagine, albeit slower, equal sentiments were expressed at other tragedies. Can you imagine how the Persians must have clung on to every word, sought every bit of news, and stood around the water cooler for weeks afterwards when they found out what Rome had done to Carthage? Bricks were shat!
I was home and had just finished a tuna fish sandwich and was watching the television to see the launch. My kids were not yet born. I'd just returned to school that fall - I'd returned to the Marines to get access to more funding via the GI Bill and was back out, back in school, and wasn't doing much of anything at the time. I didn't do much that day and classes were optional or canceled, depending on the professor, for the rest of the week as I recall.
For 9/11? I was actually working for the government on a project that was stupidly classified. If you know my posting history, you can guess what I did. That such was classified is absolutely absurd. Anyhow, I was prevented from going in to work (even though I had clearance) for three weeks. After three weeks I was able to go in and retrieve some personal property. After about six weeks, I was allowed back on site along with the employee that I had brought with me.
Borderline retarded, all around, in the 9/11 matter. I can say that I modeled traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. I was working at a military base and had to work on site as the data was, for some retarded reason, considered classified material. Some educated guesses can probably figure out what I was doing. If you can figure out why it was classified as secret (and not something like FOUO) then you're doing better than I am.
Ah well... It was pretty lucrative and we got extra time to finish the contract and were paid the appropriate penalty fees for having had to remain on-site longer. It was a pretty long project but we weren't on-site for all of it. There were a few phases. Anyhow, it was already locked down pretty tight to begin with but we then had greater difficulty in getting on-base. That really kind of messed with us as we had limited access times for certain parts of the project.
Oh, and yes I was a victim of the OPM attack. I didn't find out until the holidays but that's partially my fault. I should have found out in early October.
Back home, I have DSL. Cable is not an option. Because DSL uses the phone lines, the company is obligated to reasonably lease (and they do - we've an aggressive PUC) lines to others. I can get DSL service from any company, anywhere on the globe, that is willing to provide service. I kind of like that.
That said, does it count as a wi-fi hotspot if I have guest access enabled? I do. They are not allowed access to anything other than the internet. They do not get LAN access. However, I don't actually have any neighbors or anything - the nearest village is 24 miles away from my house. I do have a neighboring farm, they're the closest too me, and it's about a mile away by road or about a half mile by woods.
I guess I'm a public hotspot provider. Yay! Does this get me carrier protections or am I still liable for activity on my network? How about for civil offenses?
Then again, my ISP doesn't really seem to give two shits how much I download, upload, or how many torrents I keep active. Down here, in Florida, I've got cable. I get a full 50 Mb/sec and I don't actually need or use all that bandwidth. I'm quite content with my paltry 14-15 Mb/sec at home. I'm not only content with it - it's more than I need. It's fast enough that I'd actually like to reduce the download speed and increase the upload speed. Alas, nobody seems to offer it.
Meh, if you want to go all in, and don't live in California, you can actually buy a Barrett, chambered in.50, and then ensure you get great optics and learn to actually use it. (The key point is the end of that sentence but I suspect you know that.)
Now, it is absolutely insane to buy one UNLESS you've got a few dollars. I have a few dollars.;-)
I've seen them at kinda reasonable prices on the used market. They're not at shows. You need to find someone who has a lot of money and bought one thinking that they were going to be a sniper. Three things seem to happen... They realize the price to shoot one makes them even more insane to own. They realize that they have no idea how to operate one and improper operation actually hurts. They realize that they're huge and you need to maintain them properly which is a hole lot like work when you've just gone out and put a box of rounds through it.
Oh, and plan on lots and lots of ammunition so that you can actually get to the point where you're accurate with one. And ensure you get the bipod... They are heavy and you don't just stand up and fire them. At least I haven't nor have I actually let anyone do so. They will hurt you. They will break your collarbone. They are every bit as awesome as you might imagine. We have a "machine gun shoot" where the profits go to vets with PTSD and vets shoot free. That's one of the ones that I bring with me and no - not everyone gets to fire it, even seated, prone, bipod, or whatnot. No, it's not funny to have your 110 lb girlfriend fire it and hurt herself. No, your 9 year old son is not going to "be a man" and fire it. It will hurt you - at either end.
Also, there's a time and a place for a.50. A pistol is probably not one of those times. I do not own, nor will I ever probably buy, a Desert Eagle. I suppose they look good in movies. I can not imagine a time and place where that actually makes a good choice for your weapon. I guess, if you have absolutely nothing else... Even then, you might just want to point it at them or hit them with it. I've a friend who bought one but he bought it knowing that it was stupid to do so. They are not even all that much fun to fire. They're too big for my hands to hold comfortably.
I should add, it does not help matters one bit that I have a friend of mine who retired to Maine before I did. He was a gunsmith and owned his own store. He still does some business but is not an open store and is nominally retired. He's been getting rid of his collection, for years now, to help fund his retirement. *sighs* I have picked up a LOT of stray firearms that needed a good home and someone to care for them. It really is ridiculous. I can honestly say that I own more firearms than I should.:/
The good thing is that, should things go the way of Syria, you'll have a reliable firearm. I own an absolutely retarded number of firearms - as in a whole slew of 'em, I could outfit this entire thread - probably multiple times. I'm an avid collector but, not by any means, an expert in all things firearm related.
However, the AK-style weapons are good options at fine prices. I have an actual classed (and lawfully owned) AK-47. Well, technically it is the Chinese M-22. It's a fine firearm. It's reliable, accurate enough for its purposes, and was (at one time) inexpensive. I have made zero modifications to it nor will I. Can I hit a target, from a prone position, out at 500 yards? Err... Probably not. I'd think an effective firing range would be 200 yards, standing. I might push it out to 300 in prone or kneeling positions. I could probably hit the target at 500 yards, just not reliably. It just doesn't have the tolerances for that.
So, I think you've won a fine rifle. I'm not that prejudiced. I'll buy two of each and let a friend use one. I even own not one, but two, Jennings. Oh, I don't fire them. They might only be a.22 LR but I'm more afraid of them falling apart in my hands and hurting me than I am of hurting anyone that they are vaguely pointed at. I have fired them. I put some sub-sonics through one of them once - still cycled fine most of the time. I've only fired the other one once - for a magazine's worth of "snake" shot. They're.22 LR that's got shot shells and really tiny shot in them. I was able to hit a soda can at about 20' so it was marginally better than I expected. The first one, I've fired that a few times, and you're lucky to hit a soda can at 20' with regular ammo. No amount of adjusting seemed to help matters any.
Sadly, I know a lady who swears by hers. I've never seen her fire it and I hope I never do. I've offered to GIVE her something better - I even offered a nice Ruger. Nope... She swears by her Jennings. It is a.25 or.32 (I don't remember which) and I hope her life never depends on it if the attacker is more than a few feet away.
At any rate, for what they are, the AK is a fine weapon and anyone who suggests otherwise is probably not qualified to opine on the subject. Note: I did not say the best or even the best for certain circumstances. They're reliable, fire an adequate round, accurate enough, and reasonably priced. They're not just a "fine for what they are." They're fine. I'd never scoff at one or mock someone for owning one. I'd use one to defend myself if I needed to. I'd even elect to use one over many other firearms.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the select-fire M16. In a prone position, and properly using your firearm, you should be able to qualify as at least a marksman at 500 yards. Competition uses these rifles - standard issue but I think they use hand-loaded rounds, to hit out to 600 yards. This is done without the use of optics. Optics can, in certain environments, slow the user down and that must also be taken into consideration.
That is not to say that you're wrong. It is just to state that I qualified above that level, at 500 yards, with the select fire version of this same firearm. It is also timed, you don't just get to sit there and wait for the wind to adjust.
Every single Marine, from accountant to cook, is first and foremost a rifleman. Even the lady Marines are rifleman. Each and every one of them qualifies, at 500 yards, at at least the marksman level. If they do not qualify, they are not Marines. This is not a basic entry point to joining the ranks as a Marine. It is THE entry point. Basic is tough, sure, but anyone can do that with a little bit of mental and physical discipline. However, every single Marine qualifies at 500 yards. Else they do not get to use the tile Marine.
The Army has a 300 yard qualification. The Navy has similar (though the Marines are a Department of the Navy). The Air Force gets to look at a rifle and be able to point out the business end. They practice with lawn darts. The 500 yard qualification, that's a long ways in case you're curious, is mandatory and there is no Marine who has not demonstrated their ability to do so. Regardless of your school (MOS), you will be a rifleman. Your gender is not important nor is your job. You will be a rifleman and demonstrate proficiency with your rifle. You do not get optics to make your qualifying shots.
How do you shoot a target that is 1500 feet away and looks smaller than the site itself? Lots of practice and knowing your rifle and maintaining your rifle.
If you're curious about what it is that all Marines have in common - that's it. Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman. That means, as I said, that you can hit an object 500 yards away. In other words, this is standard practice. However, it is the tradition of the Corps that each and every Marine is trained as a rifleman. You might be vaguely familiar with it as the Rifleman's Creed. Every Marine is intimately familiar with this. You know it as something that begins with this:
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine."
It goes on. I could type it for you but you can just as easily Google it now that you're aware of the name. The difference between the rifle that I was issued and an AR-15 is that the selector switch (and internals) has four positions on an M16. Those positions are Safe, Single, Burst, and Automatic. Safe means that when you put your booger hook on the bang-bang switch nothing should happen. Do not rely on this. The safety is in between your ears. Keep your booger hook off bang-bang switch until you're ready to fire. Single means just that. When you squeeze (you do not pull) the trigger AND hold it, a single round is fired. Each successive round will require an additional pull of the trigger to make it go boom. Burst means that a single pull and holding of the trigger will discharge three rounds and only three rounds. If you want to make it boom three more times, pull it again. Automatic (also known as awesome) means you unleash holy hell when you pull and hold the trigger. Pressing and holding the bang-bang switch means that it keeps going bang until the magazine is empty.
(It is a magazine, not a clip. There are clips. The M16 does not use a clip, the cartridges are contained in a magazine. Those aren't bullets, in case you're curious. Bullets are the things that go in the direction the barrel is pointed when you pull the bang-bang switch. When they go bang, they spit out a casing. By work of pure magic, this cycles and the little genie inside slides a new cartridge into place - that enables
Maybe they DO have operational security and their code is hidden in the verbiage? They're saying, "No, make sure you don't brandish your firearm Ted. We don't want to be seen like a threat - remember, we're not going to hurt anybody, no matter what!" What that really means is, "Go down to the watering hole, relieve Joe from his post, and shoot anyone who doesn't use the password - today's password is 'brandish.'"
Said in the clear, you've delivered a recorded sound bite for the media - implied that you're not going to harm anyone, given directions, and let the folks know what the password is and where the password will be in the next communication. There might also be a way to indicate that they're compromised and transmitting under duress. It's plain and in the clear code.
If it were me, and I were high as fuck (I'd have to be to do this sort of thing so that should be assumed), then I'd be having fun with the radio transmissions. I'd be saying stuff like, "Elephants don't wear pajamas and Suzy Tuesday's yellow ribbon can be seen on her left shoulder. Repeat, left shoulder." Oh, it'd be complete and total gibberish and intentionally so. Some of it might actually mean something, to certain people - either internally or externally, and it could be pretty effective during a run-up. It's not likely that they truly need mass, rapid, broadcast communications. Certainly not constantly. I'd probably get sick of it after a few hours and wander off for some munchies.
I've been a little active in getting weed legalized for medical use (with recreational use being the end goal). One of the things that has always made me worry, and we're seeing come into play, is that it may (legitimately or not) be cracked down on due to interstate commerce laws. How? Well... I figured it would happen, and it has. The weed facilitated trend know colloquially as "Green Tourism."
That is (even if they're not bringing it back with them) arguably interstate commerce. It'd suck for them to prosecute based on it but I'd not put it past them to argue it in court and I'd not put it past the courts to find them guilty and then uphold the convictions. It'd be really damned unfortunate. If something can be both legitimate and illegitimate at the same time, that might qualify. Well, let's just say that it might be lawful but it wouldn't be acceptable for them to prosecute based on it.
I own a shit-ton of land. An obscene number of acreage is owned by me. After I'm dead and gone, it will go into a trust. Why? To ensure that the public access is maintained as a right. Almost all of the land was owned by a paper company prior to my purchasing of the various bits in auctions. If there's an auction and it is for a connected piece - I will buy it. Hell, even if it is disconnected but there's a probability of the pieces becoming connected, I will buy it. I will exceed any other bid offered but all purchases have been pretty reasonable so far.
In other words, a corporation will hold the land and manage the land and do so to maintain public access.
I even had special signs printed up (as well as some extras) that have the opposite of the normal "NO TRESPASSING" on them. They say, "PUBLIC WELCOME" and, in smaller letters, ask people to care for the land and to take out anything they bring in. I ask motorized vehicles to remain on marked trails. There is a phone number and I ask people to call that number. I don't want them to call it so that I can give them permission, I want them to call and leave a message. No human answers the phone and the answering machine will be checked only in case of emergency. I want them to leave a message saying when and where they went in and what time they expect to leave. That's it. I do not ask what they'll use it for, I do not care.
Note, not all of the land is marked as such. Some of the land is private. That land belongs to me and I reserve the right to limit access. I don't really care if people use it but I may be out there doing things like putting rounds down-range. There is a small area that is reserved for myself and my invited guests. That is not public. Well, it's comparatively small...
The public always had rights to that land and I do not live on that land. Assuming that they cause no harm, who the hell am I to take that right from them? They and those rights existed before I got here. Those rights will exist after I leave. The land produces enough sustainable income by managed wood harvesting that it pays for itself. There will be some money left too ensure that it is secure in its preservation and that those rights are preserved. Individuals can lose access.
I don't hate people, I just don't want neighbors. I also really like the land and I really like that the public has access. They had it before I bought it. As near as I can tell, for as long as there have been humans there have been use rights. A part of it is illegal for me to disallow access anyhow. I own all the area around a large enough body of water that I not only have to allow access, I must allow unmotorized boat access (I do not need to provision access) as I do not have complete rights for navigable waters and inland fisheries containing game fish. Thus, I'm obligated to allow access UNLESS granted an exemption. Err... I've never filed for that exemption. I can not imagine why I would.
But, anyhow, it's kind of funny... A corporation will own it (the corporation is already configured but holds no assets at this time) when I die. It's then mandated to ensure access is continually allowed and will have the investments to generate enough profit to maintain itself and pay the board a stipend for the work put into it. Even if improvements are made, they can not charge for admission. The charter is already written so that any improvements made will be rather limited but they can put in a dock at the pond or even build hiking trails if they ever want to. They can even use profits generated by the land to make improvements. They'll manage those assets and make a percentage of those generated profits up to a certain amount.
There is already a similar land trust and I've had discussions with them and I can not agree to their charter. So, the land will remain undeveloped (not entirely unimproved necessarily) in perpetuity. It is nearly the same amount of acreage as the other trust is in its entirety. I'd wanted to join with them, rather than duplicate effort, but th
I'm thinking that it's much more rational to presume that the reason the cops are not pepper spraying these folks is because they've got firearms, a defensible position, body armor, ammunition, and don't want another Waco-type event.
Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...
I know which one I feel is more likely... I'd also agree with your assumption that they'd have some serious problems if they tried this on Wall Street. One notable aspect is that these folks are not, currently, a direct threat to anyone. That's not an assumption they will aways make with regards to armed protesters. They'd be a credible threat to the safety of others if they were on Wall Street - or interpreted as so. (Correct or incorrect, the police are really likely to consider the group a credible threat to the safety of others if they were to do this in a building on Wall Street, simply by virtue of them having firearms.)
Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...
These people are probably not seen as a threat to others while they remain at their current location. Yes, they've deprived others of their use of that space. However, these are AR-15s. Assuming some are very good shots, you're probably pretty safe at further than 500 yards. You're almost certainly safe if you're 600 yards away. If you give them a full mile, you're pretty safe. Bullets are not magical (not even if you're JFK).
Note: Kindly do not assume anything more than I've said. I did not, nor do I, offer an opinion on this group or the merits of their actions. I have never offered an opinion on this group or their actions. Nothing said should be used to draw conclusions as to my opinions about this group or their actions except to conclude that I've opined that they do not have magical bullets. All opinions offered have been about the responses and possible reasons for those responses by law enforcement agents. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the police also do not have firearms that disobey the laws of physics. I do hold and stand by that opinion until new facts are in evidence.;-)
I hold, and offer, no opinions about any of your comments except the two that I will be addressing. Somehow, I doubt that will prevent you from making a whole host of allegations (at least mentally).
One, regardless of positions held, their wanting a government different than your own does not make it anarchy. Anarchy has a rather clear definition. It is not as vague as, say, fascism as a term. These people are not, to the best of my knowledge, anarchic?
Two, you discuss the matter of race and use the OWS movement as an example. I seem to recall the pictures and videos of the police abuses during the OWS movement. I seem to recollect that the vast majority (all?) victims in videos and pictures (that I saw) were actually white. I'm not sure that your points are salient, or that you presented them well if they are. Would not a more simple reason that the cops haven't had an armed intervention is because they have a lot of them, a defensible position, are not actively a threat to others, and they don't want a repeat of Waco? I am not white and I love a good rant but, well, I'm not actually sure that you're correct in your accusations.
Would you prefer, assuming you were the type, to beat on a smelly hippie or a bunch of people who might fight back? Given that many cops are chickenshits, I'm inclined to think that they'd be more likely to abuse unarmed hippies. I'm not much for abusing people but I'd think that it'd be a lot easier to abuse people who can't fight back than it would be to abuse a bunch of people, with a defensible position, body armor, rounds, and firearms. That's just a guess and all but...
So, yeah, while it's a nice rant and all - I'm not entirely sure that it's topical or even remotely related. They might be anarchists but, and I've intentionally not paid attention for reasons given above, I'm pretty sure that they've not indicated a desire to live in a world (you kind of need laws and an actual official government thingamabob if you want borders that define a country) without laws. They might be unlawful actors but I seem to recall that they were just angry about some laws they felt weren't being followed. I can't really be sure and I refuse to look it up. That does not make them anarchists. It may make them criminals but it does not make them anarchists. Not even most criminals seem to actually be anarchists. They're just criminals.
Note: I am not white. I have offered no opinions on anything other than what I have actually written. Chances are very good that if you think you can assume or divine my other opinions based on those remarks - you are probably wrong. In fact, you might want to take a look at my posting history if you think the above indicates any of my opinions on this matter.
TL;DR - That's a nice rant you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone where to apply logic to it.
Observation: Right or wrong, people often seem to consider themselves intelligent when they're not. They are not interested in rational or intelligent discussion or consideration. They are often incapable of doing so because of their own biases, it simply creates an environment where they'll use so many logical fallacies that they will hold their views, regardless of facts in evidence, and will insist that others who do not hold that view (regardless of facts in evidence) are unintelligent.
Opinions you are entitled to but you're not entitled to your own facts. These biases, they don't do us any good and help ensure that we're unlikely to get a good solution. More often than not, the answer is somewhere between the two and moderation is a good a place as any to start - it's probably the best place to start. This trend of Team Sport Politics with Talking Points, a scoring system, professional players, pundits, and announcers - really has to go IF we actually want to have meaningful discussions. They've even got team colors.
Both sides assume caricatures of each other and then assume anything that fits those caricatures is representative of the whole.
For the record, by most measurements, I'm considered a Socialist. I'd suggest that I do have a lot in common with a Socialist but that I prefer that mechanism as a pragmatic approach and reached my conclusions based on reason and logic and not on emotions or some need to ensure conformity. I also am not extreme in my views (I don't think) and prefer a blend of systems, as opposed to a single ideology, and think that we need to discuss where the lines need to be drawn, redraw them, and check for benefits or negatives until we achieve the greatest blend of freedom, liberty, protection of the commons, equal opportunity (not to be mistaken for equal outcome), and greatest reasonable level for upward mobility as a whole - while ensuring optimal environments for the individual.
What is my political party? I'm actually a Libertarian. You might call me a Socialist Libertarian but I prefer just Libertarian or Classic Libertarian. The capitalization is because I'm a nominal party member and have been for many, many years. In Europe, the closest would be that of a Social Democrat (I think). In result, as in by method, I'm further to the left of any national-level elected official that I know of. My reasons for holding those views are because they're the most logical views to hold that I am aware of. (I actually love a good debate about them - being forced to defend my views is a great way for me to learn and refine my views - I'm open to change.) I hold those views, that the method is best in some areas - while less than ideal in others, because I also hold the view that it takes wealth to fully capitalize on your freedoms to make greatest use of your liberties.
I realize that phrasing may be confusing to some. I like to describe it like this: You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to do so. (I've also a working analogy to rights, society, and a soup pot - I'm still working on it, I have been for many, many years, and I've refined it fairly well. I think it best to be able to ensure we're using the same definitions and that folks have a clear understanding of my verbiage.)
Ah well... I, err... I don't really get to opine much in this thread - but I can agree, fully, with your post. For better or worse, I agree and it is unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people revert to complete and total morons where politics is concerned. This is not, by the way, limited to just the US. I've been fortunate enough to travel the globe. People are people, no matter where you go. Oh, they may have their quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors (and stereotypes exist for a reason) but they're just people at the roots. This appears to be universal... I've also been allowed into almost every country that I've tried to visit (sometimes during some times of extreme troubles) so I've managed to get quite
I have intentionally ignored much of this - since the first day it made the news. I figured, for that very reason, I would be incapable of being objective and to judge them honestly. I used to be a "volunteer" "smokejumper." The word volunteer is in quotes because you actually get paid for it. I trained to jump, even made practice jumps and fast roped. I never actually had to jump, I always went in with a truck or helicopter or on foot.
When I was a much younger lad, fresh out of the military and the university, I was idealism-filled and full of energy. So, I went and did the training and even went out to a few fires. We trained every year so I kept that training up for about five years. I still only went to a few fires and I've done a whole lot of shoveling.
At any rate, that is the kind of shit that gets people killed, as you say. Because of this, and because I can not be objective, I withhold all judgment and offer no opinions about their actions. I'm a bit biased about people making intentionally bad choices that can harm others. What they may be doing could be justifiable, could be legitimate, could be noble. I can't rightly say. Even if it was, even if they were, I'm not sure I'd be able to be objective in my judgment.
So, well... That's pretty much all I had to add. I agree, entirely, that setting fires can get people killed - needlessly. I worked damned hard to put out some fires, two of which were believed to have been the result of arson. Nobody died but we did have a couple of minor injuries and a person did get have some inhalation issues and had to be evacuated. One was seriously injured in training and that is significant. If people weren't setting fires, we'd not need as many people fighting fires.
Maybe they should have tried the Johnny Cash defense? Hell, he not only set fire to public land but he also managed to harm and endangered species while doing so.
So, unfortunately, I've intentionally remained ignorant and thus I'm unqualified to offer an opinion on the validity of their claims. You're spot on. That's also the reason that I've gone so far as to even turn the radio off when they talked about this event. I can not reasonably judge their actions and would be too likely to opine if I knew more about it - and I suspect those opinions would be negative even if they had merit to this particular act.
On the other hand, I can offer an opinion that it's damned stupid (some times) to set shit on fire. Some times it's smart to burn stuff in a controlled burn. Some times it is smart to burn a section ahead of a fire to make a break. Unless one is qualified to make those choices and has license to do so, do not do so. It's probably a bad thing and can get people killed.
Welp... Off to read the thread. It's hard to read and not comment on something... *sighs* However, I reserve judgment until I know more and can make judgment based on full(er) facts. At this time, I do not believe I'll get full and unbiased facts - from any side. So... Pink and purple elephants fester in my scrotum not entirely unlike fuchsia. That's my opinion on the subject.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. So much for OSINT... I don't even do the work myself and I have several (read four or five if you count my son's which is at my house) AR-style firearms. Only one of them is more expensive than $1800. Two are about that price because I've thrown some nice optics on them. One, and only one, is more expensive and two are down below the $1500 number - by quite a bit. One is moron-level expensive but, I've gotta tell you, it's a whole bunch of fun to slaughter innocent paper with it.
They're no the "best" for anything - except maybe customization. They are a whole lot of fun. There's a huge market to make them fairly distinct. They don't really need to be but, as I said, they're a whole bunch of fun when you do. If someone reminds me, I'll post pics (I've never posted pics) of my custom. It was stupidly expensive, as I said, but it's a whole lot of fun and does an excellent job at mass shooting paper.
(It's even a racist. I've noticed a trend, it's constantly hitting the black.)
If Apple had to realize those assets immediately, liquidate them quickly, in order to pay bills then this would have a meaningful impact. As they're able to retain the capital then the absolute value is, indeed, meaningless (like you say). However, if they needed this money immediately then purchasing power would be reduced as they move the assets from one market and into another. Significantly? Probably not but it is also coupled with some real-world lag and strict theory doesn't apply.
That said, you're 100% correct. It's not like Apple must realize these profits immediately. Thus any fluctuations are likely to be as trivial as a rounding error when realized long-term. It's not like Apple's scraping in the couch cushions to get cash to cover payroll. If anything, given the probable recovery of the values, Apple may realize greater increases (in value and not strict revenue numbers) considering they can hold long-term prior to realization, ride-out any fluctuations, and probably have personnel hired to actually help them capitalize on those fluctuations by taking timely action in the movement from currency to currency.
I know, for a fact, that I'd sure as hell have hired people to do just that if I were dealing with numbers these large. I've moved money, currency - to be more accurate, from one country to another and I've exchanged. It can be rather difficult. However, it's possible to speculate in the market and I know people who do well at operating in the foreign exchange markets. Just to transfer, and ensure least expenses and full legal compliance with applicable tax laws, I've hired professionals to move larger values for means of diversification and asset protection.
I have NOTHING near these numbers and I know very little about Foreign Exchange speculation/trading but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Apple has hired people who are *very* familiar and skilled in those areas and are working to ensure the realization of maximum value which, as you indicate, is not always the same in absolute numerical totals.
There's a lot that I do not know. It is so complicated that when we did work overseas, it was often easier to spend the profits from that work in those overseas markets. It also worked to reduce tax burden and was, of course, fully legal. More importantly, it reduced complexity. We often had on-site people as a requirement. So, you're realizing a profit here, paying an employee there, and realizing additional profit in their market. It was all very complicated and I make no pretense at full comprehension - it is also possible to abuse that. You can (intentionally) realize your profits elsewhere and play a whole host of games with it. We were never large enough, nor did enough business, to have anything longer than temporary offices overseas/internationally.
We also weren't in the business of fucking over the tax-payer so we paid our damned taxes. It was easier than trying to cheat 'em out of it. It was also the ethical thing to do. We weren't publicly traded. You're taxed on profits and only on profits. I paid myself a salary (sometimes making less than some of the people who worked for me) and the rest "belonged" to the business. It was used to pay bonuses, increase the business, maintain the business, realize some protection, and things of that nature. You can write off a whole bunch of shit. I'm already getting paid a salary. I made the same amount unless, for some reason, I needed to dip into the cookie jar for personal reasons. It's not like I got paid less because of those taxes. That money was usually plowed back into the business.
Why? It made more sense to pay myself a salary and pay the taxes on that and plow the rest back into the business. It's not like I wasn't paying myself enough money, if I had needed more than I'd have given myself a raise. The business then gets to write off my salary. It's not like (contrary to what some folks seem to think) I'm being taxed twice on it. I'm paying me and that's a write-off. The business doesn't pay taxes on that
I suspect that it's slightly more complicated than that. While it is, I believe, a trade secret, this likely indicates that the production costs are so low that the reduction in costs is less significant than the reduction in absolute value in dollars when the fees are paid in unadjusted foreign currencies.
So, all things being equal, you'd be correct - entirely. As it is, you're likely partially correct. The costs of production, as a percentage, is not significant when considered with the total amount the product is sold for. If, for example, they're paying 15% for the product's manufacturing (while development is done at US dollar rates - in the US) and the remaining 85% is profit (sans some overhead) then a reduction of 10% in USD value is a cost reduction, in manufacturing, of 1.5% while an 8.5% reduction is realized in profit.
So, they'd actually (using those numbers) end up with a 7% reduction in profits because the decreased associated production costs are not equal to the profit side of the equation.
All things are not equal. Make sense? It's not very easy to word and I'm not as articulate as I would like to be. Hopefully, I have described it well enough to understand. So, while you'd otherwise be true - it's not exactly correct given the disparity. This is also impacted by not all currencies being devalued equally. Those numbers may be even more disparate based on localized deflation of native currencies.
Note: I've no actual data concerning those numbers, I did not even look to see the increase or decrease in the currency value changes made in China. The numbers are for example purposes only and to demonstrate the potential (not assured but probable) error in your assumptions. That's not something you'd normally overlook. It makes me double check my logic and I'm pretty sure that I'm correct. I'll guess that you're distracted, ill, or otherwise given cause to just not think of the differences.
I am no expert but don't commas go in the quotes? "Like this," perhaps? Punctuation goes outside of the parenthesis and punctuation goes inside the quotes, as a general rule, yes?
(For example, punctuation would go in here.) But, (at the same time), punctuation would go out here. Then, shall we say, "to make matters worse," it's exactly backwards with quotation marks?
Err... Those are horrific sentences so please don't judge them as anything more than (bad) examples. That's how I learned it? I also learned the Oxford comma but that's not always true. I figure if you're an expert at some grammatical society then, perhaps, you might be right and I might have been wrong this entire time. It is both possible that I was given incorrect instruction or that I misunderstood the instruction given. It's possible that it is optional and a stylistic thing that may depend on all sorts of things, including one's physical location.
Given that I've written a whole lot, using the above method while nobody dinged me for it - I'm inclined to think that I'm at least correct in that it's a stylistic choice if not outright correct and that your post was in error. I am not, nor do I purport to be, an expert on the subject. There are a few subjects where one might conclude that it is reasonable to consider me an expert, this is not one of those subjects. Yet, in case you are unable to notice or are unfamiliar with my posting history, I write a great deal. I also make it a point to do my reasonable best where grammar is concerned.
So, kind sir, if you could give instruction (with citation or not) that'd be most helpful and would be greatly appreciated. In return, I promise to not only not ever confuse those two words (I don't believe I have ever done so) but I also promise to use the word decimate with its original meaning. Hmm... I'll even through in the use of the word "literally." I will, literally, only use the word "literally," literally.
As an aside, and a gift, I will share my favorite sentence with you. Piers Anthony is not a native English speaker. His early works were science fiction and weren't that bad. His Xanth series is great, if you're a teen girl. At one point, he wrote a novel that was his attempt at authoring in the horror genre. He actually touches on this, in his autobiography, and it's a rather interesting sentence. The above, and combined with the fact that he authored this sentence intentionally - in an effort to demonstrate some of the failings of the language, combine to make it more interesting. Allow me to quote:
"The experiences he had had had been bad."
I love that sentence. Yes, I like it more than the buffalo sentence.
More alarming (and no, you are not one - this is not an accusation) is the number of people who confuse Java and JavaScript. That happens on a regular basis - on THIS site. Me, a guy who programmed only because he had to (damned things didn't do anything useful unless you did) and absolutely hated computers - and *I* know the difference between the two. I also know what NPAPI is, sort of how it works - at least in theory how it actually works, that it's being killed off (or has been), and that the summary is poor and not entirely accurate - I also know that's not surprising or abnormal but I did not click the link (I am no heretic) - I just read the comments.
So, it is surprising. It's doubly surprising given the type of people who "should" be here and commenting. I've seen logged in, low digit, users do the Java/JavaScript thing. I know what a.jar is (I've even edited one, more than once, and then distributed the repaired version) and I sort of know how those work. Except, I don't actually program in Java, at all. I just know how to find and then can read code, find the syntax, and make edits - simple edits.
Of all the people here, I should (by all rights) be the least capable. Yet, I was giving someone instructions on how to get Chrome and then not update it (on Linux) earlier. I made it generic enough (and specific enough to aptitude if needed) that it should work for any package manager and most any distro. 'Snot like it's difficult - I know, 'cause I can figure it out. Well, I just figured out the process but I didn't actually try it. It should work as the update mechanism is the package manger for Linux installs of Chrome or Chromium.
Seriously, it's bad if I know more than you about tech. I'm a mathematician who programmed because I had to - I wasn't even good at it. In fact, I hired professionals, lots of professionals, to do it for me after a while. I hired them because I needed things done that I was incapable of doing. If I could have done it myself, I'd have not needed to hire them. It's not like I just hired random people for the goodness of the economy. No, I needed good people to do difficult things. I wanted the best and I wanted stuff (and people) that didn't really exist. So, I even paid them well. If it was easy, I'd have done it myself. They were paid well because they were essential to the business. If they were not essential then I'd have not hired them. I didn't hire inessential people. It was a business, not a charity. I'm a charitable person, I was not running a charitable business. This means I only hired the best I could find and paid them enough to ensure that they were happy, productive, and not going to leave. I'd hired them because they were the best that I could make or find. If I could have hired monkeys, I probably wouldn't have because it's unlikely that monkeys would have been essential to the growth and operation of my business. It's really not that complicated and people make things much more complicated than they need to.
It's BAD if I know more about a programming language than someone here. It's even worse if I know more about Linux. I specifically use Linux because I don't know a damned thing about it and want to understand it. Understanding how your tools work is essential if you want to be a skilled craftsman. Again, this is not complicated and doesn't need to be complicated. If you do not know how your tool works, at least at a decent - if not very deep, level then you should not be using it. If you can not keep your tools in good repair then you should not be using them. You should have others craft on your behalf - it's okay to not know how all tools operate. I, for instance, have no idea how to embroider. I'm okay with that. This does not need to be complicated.
So, I'm uncomplicated, unskilled (and knowingly so), unlearned, unassociated, unprofessional, and unaware. I admit these things freely. There's no way that I can know everything. It's really, really bad if I know more about it than you. Again, not an accusation but
It's possible, it's just not that easy. You can find an old article, search for old articles, and things like that. Then you can browse from there...
It's not pretty. I used to have a 4 or 5 digit UUI. I've no longer got access to that email and I'll be damned if I can remember either the user or the password - I've no hope at recovery. I do (I think) remember the email - I just don't have access to it any more.
At any rate, no... The last thing you probably want to do is go back and read old Slashdot threads. Oh, I've spent hours doing so but that's because I'm mentally retarded and hate myself. A funny one is the first mention of VMWare (and VMs) on Slashdot. Oh, they'll never catch on. They're a stupid idea. For that amount of money, I'll just reboot. The idea is impossible - it is technologically impossible to do such a thing. Oh, I think maybe three folks actually understood it, one read the article, and one guy had actually seen a demo.
But no, most were convinced that it was impossible, wouldn't ever work, was too expensive, couldn't work, would never catch on, was more effort than just rebooting, would not run Linux, could not run Linux, or similar...
You probably think that I'm kidding. You might even think that I'm exaggerating. I figured you might, so I armed myself with this link: http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
I warn you, before you click that link, sit down and pour a stiff drink. Fortunately, that predates The Happening so the posts are all AC. Beware, it can also be very time consuming and you'll probably want to reply to some of the comments. You can't. Thankfully... I already never get anything done. I'd somehow get less than that done. I don't think we had moderation then? There was The Happening which meant a lot of lost data, at one point, so everyone's an AC and some of the old threads don't have proper threading or anything - even though they supported it. I didn't allow myself to open the link again. I've done that before. I've tried to forget it...
Go on... You know you're gonna click the link... Nobody ever listens to KGIII... But, seriously, do not click that link. I only include it because I'm obligated to. I'm half-tempted to go edit it out. *sighs* Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
If you are unwilling to stand behind your beliefs and accept persecution for them, you didn't really believe in them.
Do not take that the wrong way. I'm glad that you can post as an AC. I'd not have it any other way. It just means that you don't believe in your views enough to put your UUID them and be held accountable for them at even that level. That would be why they're called "cowards." I quite agree with the idea.
Not everyone has beliefs strong enough to get the past the stage of cowardice. That's fine. The world is full of cowards. Most people are cowards, so it seems by observation. Push come to shove, will you accept the death penalty for saying your boss is a wanker? No? Then you don't really hold that belief, at least not to the level where it is significant.
That's okay. You don't have to. You're allowed to be a coward and I'm glad you're given a voice.
At a personal level, I not only like being held accountable, I want to be held accountable. It encourages me to use logic, reason, and hold viable beliefs. I like accountability and I think we'd be better off if more people did. However, I'd never want to force you to post with attribution. Instead, I'd encourage you to do so while being sure to let you know that being cowardly is a normal human trait and something to overcome.
I truly like being accountable for my views and expressions. That accountability is what makes the freedom and liberty so valuable in the end.
I am not a religious person, certainly not a Christian, but I think the appropriate quote is: "More weight."
Well, I opened this thread with the intent of finding an appropriate place and asking if they'd be willing to share an address. I've got a few bucks and I like doing stuff to help people out. If they get in touch with you and you decide you need financial assistance to accomplish this goal, let me know. From the looks of things, you've got it covered. I'll probably just make it a point to buy some hardware in the future - as I just so happen to be playing with a robot that I've named Rex.
I should add, Rex is stupid and lazy. He still does not come when called BUT he reliable moves when called. Now, if I could just get him to follow the sound of my voice or even use the damned camera (someone has to have a library in C) then I'd be happier. But, alas, Rex is stupid and lazy - he's also probably high. Maybe I'll just make him flash a light so I can go find him. He's supposed to bring the remote to me. The remote is to control T. T is Rex's sister. She's not a robot. She just sits there and is supposed to play media on command - via a remote. She doesn't do anything yet but she should be easy. Her brother, on the other hand... Like I said, he's lazy and stupid.
For JFK it was a TV (if you had one or had access to one) or it was the radio. I was 6. That day stands out in my memory pretty well. The whole world stopped then, or as soon as they found out, and listened or watched - waiting for any tidbit of news. When I first heard the news, he'd only been shot and they hadn't announced he was dead yet. That wasn't for quite a while, as I recall. There was a lot of speculating that he'd died. When it was confirmed, people shit bricks.
That seems to be a recurring theme. Bricks were shat across the globe and collectively. Angst was displayed, anger was displayed, frustration was displayed, but it was mostly gossip, clucking of tongues, and a sentiment that something had to be done being expressed. I imagine, albeit slower, equal sentiments were expressed at other tragedies. Can you imagine how the Persians must have clung on to every word, sought every bit of news, and stood around the water cooler for weeks afterwards when they found out what Rome had done to Carthage? Bricks were shat!
I was home and had just finished a tuna fish sandwich and was watching the television to see the launch. My kids were not yet born. I'd just returned to school that fall - I'd returned to the Marines to get access to more funding via the GI Bill and was back out, back in school, and wasn't doing much of anything at the time. I didn't do much that day and classes were optional or canceled, depending on the professor, for the rest of the week as I recall.
For 9/11? I was actually working for the government on a project that was stupidly classified. If you know my posting history, you can guess what I did. That such was classified is absolutely absurd. Anyhow, I was prevented from going in to work (even though I had clearance) for three weeks. After three weeks I was able to go in and retrieve some personal property. After about six weeks, I was allowed back on site along with the employee that I had brought with me.
Borderline retarded, all around, in the 9/11 matter. I can say that I modeled traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. I was working at a military base and had to work on site as the data was, for some retarded reason, considered classified material. Some educated guesses can probably figure out what I was doing. If you can figure out why it was classified as secret (and not something like FOUO) then you're doing better than I am.
Ah well... It was pretty lucrative and we got extra time to finish the contract and were paid the appropriate penalty fees for having had to remain on-site longer. It was a pretty long project but we weren't on-site for all of it. There were a few phases. Anyhow, it was already locked down pretty tight to begin with but we then had greater difficulty in getting on-base. That really kind of messed with us as we had limited access times for certain parts of the project.
Oh, and yes I was a victim of the OPM attack. I didn't find out until the holidays but that's partially my fault. I should have found out in early October.
Back home, I have DSL. Cable is not an option. Because DSL uses the phone lines, the company is obligated to reasonably lease (and they do - we've an aggressive PUC) lines to others. I can get DSL service from any company, anywhere on the globe, that is willing to provide service. I kind of like that.
That said, does it count as a wi-fi hotspot if I have guest access enabled? I do. They are not allowed access to anything other than the internet. They do not get LAN access. However, I don't actually have any neighbors or anything - the nearest village is 24 miles away from my house. I do have a neighboring farm, they're the closest too me, and it's about a mile away by road or about a half mile by woods.
I guess I'm a public hotspot provider. Yay! Does this get me carrier protections or am I still liable for activity on my network? How about for civil offenses?
Then again, my ISP doesn't really seem to give two shits how much I download, upload, or how many torrents I keep active. Down here, in Florida, I've got cable. I get a full 50 Mb/sec and I don't actually need or use all that bandwidth. I'm quite content with my paltry 14-15 Mb/sec at home. I'm not only content with it - it's more than I need. It's fast enough that I'd actually like to reduce the download speed and increase the upload speed. Alas, nobody seems to offer it.
Meh, if you want to go all in, and don't live in California, you can actually buy a Barrett, chambered in .50, and then ensure you get great optics and learn to actually use it. (The key point is the end of that sentence but I suspect you know that.)
Now, it is absolutely insane to buy one UNLESS you've got a few dollars. I have a few dollars. ;-)
I've seen them at kinda reasonable prices on the used market. They're not at shows. You need to find someone who has a lot of money and bought one thinking that they were going to be a sniper. Three things seem to happen... They realize the price to shoot one makes them even more insane to own. They realize that they have no idea how to operate one and improper operation actually hurts. They realize that they're huge and you need to maintain them properly which is a hole lot like work when you've just gone out and put a box of rounds through it.
Oh, and plan on lots and lots of ammunition so that you can actually get to the point where you're accurate with one. And ensure you get the bipod... They are heavy and you don't just stand up and fire them. At least I haven't nor have I actually let anyone do so. They will hurt you. They will break your collarbone. They are every bit as awesome as you might imagine. We have a "machine gun shoot" where the profits go to vets with PTSD and vets shoot free. That's one of the ones that I bring with me and no - not everyone gets to fire it, even seated, prone, bipod, or whatnot. No, it's not funny to have your 110 lb girlfriend fire it and hurt herself. No, your 9 year old son is not going to "be a man" and fire it. It will hurt you - at either end.
Also, there's a time and a place for a .50. A pistol is probably not one of those times. I do not own, nor will I ever probably buy, a Desert Eagle. I suppose they look good in movies. I can not imagine a time and place where that actually makes a good choice for your weapon. I guess, if you have absolutely nothing else... Even then, you might just want to point it at them or hit them with it. I've a friend who bought one but he bought it knowing that it was stupid to do so. They are not even all that much fun to fire. They're too big for my hands to hold comfortably.
I should add, it does not help matters one bit that I have a friend of mine who retired to Maine before I did. He was a gunsmith and owned his own store. He still does some business but is not an open store and is nominally retired. He's been getting rid of his collection, for years now, to help fund his retirement. *sighs* I have picked up a LOT of stray firearms that needed a good home and someone to care for them. It really is ridiculous. I can honestly say that I own more firearms than I should. :/
I'll probably buy more.
The good thing is that, should things go the way of Syria, you'll have a reliable firearm. I own an absolutely retarded number of firearms - as in a whole slew of 'em, I could outfit this entire thread - probably multiple times. I'm an avid collector but, not by any means, an expert in all things firearm related.
However, the AK-style weapons are good options at fine prices. I have an actual classed (and lawfully owned) AK-47. Well, technically it is the Chinese M-22. It's a fine firearm. It's reliable, accurate enough for its purposes, and was (at one time) inexpensive. I have made zero modifications to it nor will I. Can I hit a target, from a prone position, out at 500 yards? Err... Probably not. I'd think an effective firing range would be 200 yards, standing. I might push it out to 300 in prone or kneeling positions. I could probably hit the target at 500 yards, just not reliably. It just doesn't have the tolerances for that.
So, I think you've won a fine rifle. I'm not that prejudiced. I'll buy two of each and let a friend use one. I even own not one, but two, Jennings. Oh, I don't fire them. They might only be a .22 LR but I'm more afraid of them falling apart in my hands and hurting me than I am of hurting anyone that they are vaguely pointed at. I have fired them. I put some sub-sonics through one of them once - still cycled fine most of the time. I've only fired the other one once - for a magazine's worth of "snake" shot. They're .22 LR that's got shot shells and really tiny shot in them. I was able to hit a soda can at about 20' so it was marginally better than I expected. The first one, I've fired that a few times, and you're lucky to hit a soda can at 20' with regular ammo. No amount of adjusting seemed to help matters any.
Sadly, I know a lady who swears by hers. I've never seen her fire it and I hope I never do. I've offered to GIVE her something better - I even offered a nice Ruger. Nope... She swears by her Jennings. It is a .25 or .32 (I don't remember which) and I hope her life never depends on it if the attacker is more than a few feet away.
At any rate, for what they are, the AK is a fine weapon and anyone who suggests otherwise is probably not qualified to opine on the subject. Note: I did not say the best or even the best for certain circumstances. They're reliable, fire an adequate round, accurate enough, and reasonably priced. They're not just a "fine for what they are." They're fine. I'd never scoff at one or mock someone for owning one. I'd use one to defend myself if I needed to. I'd even elect to use one over many other firearms.
Yet USMC recruits qualify with the M16 at 500 yds with iron sights.
Well, that would have saved me some time and effort. I gotta learn to scroll down before typing out my novellas.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the select-fire M16. In a prone position, and properly using your firearm, you should be able to qualify as at least a marksman at 500 yards. Competition uses these rifles - standard issue but I think they use hand-loaded rounds, to hit out to 600 yards. This is done without the use of optics. Optics can, in certain environments, slow the user down and that must also be taken into consideration.
That is not to say that you're wrong. It is just to state that I qualified above that level, at 500 yards, with the select fire version of this same firearm. It is also timed, you don't just get to sit there and wait for the wind to adjust.
Every single Marine, from accountant to cook, is first and foremost a rifleman. Even the lady Marines are rifleman. Each and every one of them qualifies, at 500 yards, at at least the marksman level. If they do not qualify, they are not Marines. This is not a basic entry point to joining the ranks as a Marine. It is THE entry point. Basic is tough, sure, but anyone can do that with a little bit of mental and physical discipline. However, every single Marine qualifies at 500 yards. Else they do not get to use the tile Marine.
The Army has a 300 yard qualification. The Navy has similar (though the Marines are a Department of the Navy). The Air Force gets to look at a rifle and be able to point out the business end. They practice with lawn darts. The 500 yard qualification, that's a long ways in case you're curious, is mandatory and there is no Marine who has not demonstrated their ability to do so. Regardless of your school (MOS), you will be a rifleman. Your gender is not important nor is your job. You will be a rifleman and demonstrate proficiency with your rifle. You do not get optics to make your qualifying shots.
How do you shoot a target that is 1500 feet away and looks smaller than the site itself? Lots of practice and knowing your rifle and maintaining your rifle.
If you're curious about what it is that all Marines have in common - that's it. Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman. That means, as I said, that you can hit an object 500 yards away. In other words, this is standard practice. However, it is the tradition of the Corps that each and every Marine is trained as a rifleman. You might be vaguely familiar with it as the Rifleman's Creed. Every Marine is intimately familiar with this. You know it as something that begins with this:
"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine."
It goes on. I could type it for you but you can just as easily Google it now that you're aware of the name. The difference between the rifle that I was issued and an AR-15 is that the selector switch (and internals) has four positions on an M16. Those positions are Safe, Single, Burst, and Automatic. Safe means that when you put your booger hook on the bang-bang switch nothing should happen. Do not rely on this. The safety is in between your ears. Keep your booger hook off bang-bang switch until you're ready to fire. Single means just that. When you squeeze (you do not pull) the trigger AND hold it, a single round is fired. Each successive round will require an additional pull of the trigger to make it go boom. Burst means that a single pull and holding of the trigger will discharge three rounds and only three rounds. If you want to make it boom three more times, pull it again. Automatic (also known as awesome) means you unleash holy hell when you pull and hold the trigger. Pressing and holding the bang-bang switch means that it keeps going bang until the magazine is empty.
(It is a magazine, not a clip. There are clips. The M16 does not use a clip, the cartridges are contained in a magazine. Those aren't bullets, in case you're curious. Bullets are the things that go in the direction the barrel is pointed when you pull the bang-bang switch. When they go bang, they spit out a casing. By work of pure magic, this cycles and the little genie inside slides a new cartridge into place - that enables
Hmm... That makes me think...
Maybe they DO have operational security and their code is hidden in the verbiage? They're saying, "No, make sure you don't brandish your firearm Ted. We don't want to be seen like a threat - remember, we're not going to hurt anybody, no matter what!" What that really means is, "Go down to the watering hole, relieve Joe from his post, and shoot anyone who doesn't use the password - today's password is 'brandish.'"
Said in the clear, you've delivered a recorded sound bite for the media - implied that you're not going to harm anyone, given directions, and let the folks know what the password is and where the password will be in the next communication. There might also be a way to indicate that they're compromised and transmitting under duress. It's plain and in the clear code.
If it were me, and I were high as fuck (I'd have to be to do this sort of thing so that should be assumed), then I'd be having fun with the radio transmissions. I'd be saying stuff like, "Elephants don't wear pajamas and Suzy Tuesday's yellow ribbon can be seen on her left shoulder. Repeat, left shoulder." Oh, it'd be complete and total gibberish and intentionally so. Some of it might actually mean something, to certain people - either internally or externally, and it could be pretty effective during a run-up. It's not likely that they truly need mass, rapid, broadcast communications. Certainly not constantly. I'd probably get sick of it after a few hours and wander off for some munchies.
I've been a little active in getting weed legalized for medical use (with recreational use being the end goal). One of the things that has always made me worry, and we're seeing come into play, is that it may (legitimately or not) be cracked down on due to interstate commerce laws. How? Well... I figured it would happen, and it has. The weed facilitated trend know colloquially as "Green Tourism."
That is (even if they're not bringing it back with them) arguably interstate commerce. It'd suck for them to prosecute based on it but I'd not put it past them to argue it in court and I'd not put it past the courts to find them guilty and then uphold the convictions. It'd be really damned unfortunate. If something can be both legitimate and illegitimate at the same time, that might qualify. Well, let's just say that it might be lawful but it wouldn't be acceptable for them to prosecute based on it.
I own a shit-ton of land. An obscene number of acreage is owned by me. After I'm dead and gone, it will go into a trust. Why? To ensure that the public access is maintained as a right. Almost all of the land was owned by a paper company prior to my purchasing of the various bits in auctions. If there's an auction and it is for a connected piece - I will buy it. Hell, even if it is disconnected but there's a probability of the pieces becoming connected, I will buy it. I will exceed any other bid offered but all purchases have been pretty reasonable so far.
In other words, a corporation will hold the land and manage the land and do so to maintain public access.
I even had special signs printed up (as well as some extras) that have the opposite of the normal "NO TRESPASSING" on them. They say, "PUBLIC WELCOME" and, in smaller letters, ask people to care for the land and to take out anything they bring in. I ask motorized vehicles to remain on marked trails. There is a phone number and I ask people to call that number. I don't want them to call it so that I can give them permission, I want them to call and leave a message. No human answers the phone and the answering machine will be checked only in case of emergency. I want them to leave a message saying when and where they went in and what time they expect to leave. That's it. I do not ask what they'll use it for, I do not care.
Note, not all of the land is marked as such. Some of the land is private. That land belongs to me and I reserve the right to limit access. I don't really care if people use it but I may be out there doing things like putting rounds down-range. There is a small area that is reserved for myself and my invited guests. That is not public. Well, it's comparatively small...
The public always had rights to that land and I do not live on that land. Assuming that they cause no harm, who the hell am I to take that right from them? They and those rights existed before I got here. Those rights will exist after I leave. The land produces enough sustainable income by managed wood harvesting that it pays for itself. There will be some money left too ensure that it is secure in its preservation and that those rights are preserved. Individuals can lose access.
I don't hate people, I just don't want neighbors. I also really like the land and I really like that the public has access. They had it before I bought it. As near as I can tell, for as long as there have been humans there have been use rights. A part of it is illegal for me to disallow access anyhow. I own all the area around a large enough body of water that I not only have to allow access, I must allow unmotorized boat access (I do not need to provision access) as I do not have complete rights for navigable waters and inland fisheries containing game fish. Thus, I'm obligated to allow access UNLESS granted an exemption. Err... I've never filed for that exemption. I can not imagine why I would.
But, anyhow, it's kind of funny... A corporation will own it (the corporation is already configured but holds no assets at this time) when I die. It's then mandated to ensure access is continually allowed and will have the investments to generate enough profit to maintain itself and pay the board a stipend for the work put into it. Even if improvements are made, they can not charge for admission. The charter is already written so that any improvements made will be rather limited but they can put in a dock at the pond or even build hiking trails if they ever want to. They can even use profits generated by the land to make improvements. They'll manage those assets and make a percentage of those generated profits up to a certain amount.
There is already a similar land trust and I've had discussions with them and I can not agree to their charter. So, the land will remain undeveloped (not entirely unimproved necessarily) in perpetuity. It is nearly the same amount of acreage as the other trust is in its entirety. I'd wanted to join with them, rather than duplicate effort, but th
I'm thinking that it's much more rational to presume that the reason the cops are not pepper spraying these folks is because they've got firearms, a defensible position, body armor, ammunition, and don't want another Waco-type event.
Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...
I know which one I feel is more likely... I'd also agree with your assumption that they'd have some serious problems if they tried this on Wall Street. One notable aspect is that these folks are not, currently, a direct threat to anyone. That's not an assumption they will aways make with regards to armed protesters. They'd be a credible threat to the safety of others if they were on Wall Street - or interpreted as so. (Correct or incorrect, the police are really likely to consider the group a credible threat to the safety of others if they were to do this in a building on Wall Street, simply by virtue of them having firearms.)
Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...
These people are probably not seen as a threat to others while they remain at their current location. Yes, they've deprived others of their use of that space. However, these are AR-15s. Assuming some are very good shots, you're probably pretty safe at further than 500 yards. You're almost certainly safe if you're 600 yards away. If you give them a full mile, you're pretty safe. Bullets are not magical (not even if you're JFK).
Note: Kindly do not assume anything more than I've said. I did not, nor do I, offer an opinion on this group or the merits of their actions. I have never offered an opinion on this group or their actions. Nothing said should be used to draw conclusions as to my opinions about this group or their actions except to conclude that I've opined that they do not have magical bullets. All opinions offered have been about the responses and possible reasons for those responses by law enforcement agents. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the police also do not have firearms that disobey the laws of physics. I do hold and stand by that opinion until new facts are in evidence. ;-)
I hold, and offer, no opinions about any of your comments except the two that I will be addressing. Somehow, I doubt that will prevent you from making a whole host of allegations (at least mentally).
One, regardless of positions held, their wanting a government different than your own does not make it anarchy. Anarchy has a rather clear definition. It is not as vague as, say, fascism as a term. These people are not, to the best of my knowledge, anarchic?
Two, you discuss the matter of race and use the OWS movement as an example. I seem to recall the pictures and videos of the police abuses during the OWS movement. I seem to recollect that the vast majority (all?) victims in videos and pictures (that I saw) were actually white. I'm not sure that your points are salient, or that you presented them well if they are. Would not a more simple reason that the cops haven't had an armed intervention is because they have a lot of them, a defensible position, are not actively a threat to others, and they don't want a repeat of Waco? I am not white and I love a good rant but, well, I'm not actually sure that you're correct in your accusations.
Would you prefer, assuming you were the type, to beat on a smelly hippie or a bunch of people who might fight back? Given that many cops are chickenshits, I'm inclined to think that they'd be more likely to abuse unarmed hippies. I'm not much for abusing people but I'd think that it'd be a lot easier to abuse people who can't fight back than it would be to abuse a bunch of people, with a defensible position, body armor, rounds, and firearms. That's just a guess and all but...
So, yeah, while it's a nice rant and all - I'm not entirely sure that it's topical or even remotely related. They might be anarchists but, and I've intentionally not paid attention for reasons given above, I'm pretty sure that they've not indicated a desire to live in a world (you kind of need laws and an actual official government thingamabob if you want borders that define a country) without laws. They might be unlawful actors but I seem to recall that they were just angry about some laws they felt weren't being followed. I can't really be sure and I refuse to look it up. That does not make them anarchists. It may make them criminals but it does not make them anarchists. Not even most criminals seem to actually be anarchists. They're just criminals.
Note: I am not white. I have offered no opinions on anything other than what I have actually written. Chances are very good that if you think you can assume or divine my other opinions based on those remarks - you are probably wrong. In fact, you might want to take a look at my posting history if you think the above indicates any of my opinions on this matter.
TL;DR - That's a nice rant you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone where to apply logic to it.
Observation: Right or wrong, people often seem to consider themselves intelligent when they're not. They are not interested in rational or intelligent discussion or consideration. They are often incapable of doing so because of their own biases, it simply creates an environment where they'll use so many logical fallacies that they will hold their views, regardless of facts in evidence, and will insist that others who do not hold that view (regardless of facts in evidence) are unintelligent.
Opinions you are entitled to but you're not entitled to your own facts. These biases, they don't do us any good and help ensure that we're unlikely to get a good solution. More often than not, the answer is somewhere between the two and moderation is a good a place as any to start - it's probably the best place to start. This trend of Team Sport Politics with Talking Points, a scoring system, professional players, pundits, and announcers - really has to go IF we actually want to have meaningful discussions. They've even got team colors.
Both sides assume caricatures of each other and then assume anything that fits those caricatures is representative of the whole.
For the record, by most measurements, I'm considered a Socialist. I'd suggest that I do have a lot in common with a Socialist but that I prefer that mechanism as a pragmatic approach and reached my conclusions based on reason and logic and not on emotions or some need to ensure conformity. I also am not extreme in my views (I don't think) and prefer a blend of systems, as opposed to a single ideology, and think that we need to discuss where the lines need to be drawn, redraw them, and check for benefits or negatives until we achieve the greatest blend of freedom, liberty, protection of the commons, equal opportunity (not to be mistaken for equal outcome), and greatest reasonable level for upward mobility as a whole - while ensuring optimal environments for the individual.
What is my political party? I'm actually a Libertarian. You might call me a Socialist Libertarian but I prefer just Libertarian or Classic Libertarian. The capitalization is because I'm a nominal party member and have been for many, many years. In Europe, the closest would be that of a Social Democrat (I think). In result, as in by method, I'm further to the left of any national-level elected official that I know of. My reasons for holding those views are because they're the most logical views to hold that I am aware of. (I actually love a good debate about them - being forced to defend my views is a great way for me to learn and refine my views - I'm open to change.) I hold those views, that the method is best in some areas - while less than ideal in others, because I also hold the view that it takes wealth to fully capitalize on your freedoms to make greatest use of your liberties.
I realize that phrasing may be confusing to some. I like to describe it like this: You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to do so. (I've also a working analogy to rights, society, and a soup pot - I'm still working on it, I have been for many, many years, and I've refined it fairly well. I think it best to be able to ensure we're using the same definitions and that folks have a clear understanding of my verbiage.)
Ah well... I, err... I don't really get to opine much in this thread - but I can agree, fully, with your post. For better or worse, I agree and it is unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people revert to complete and total morons where politics is concerned. This is not, by the way, limited to just the US. I've been fortunate enough to travel the globe. People are people, no matter where you go. Oh, they may have their quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors (and stereotypes exist for a reason) but they're just people at the roots. This appears to be universal... I've also been allowed into almost every country that I've tried to visit (sometimes during some times of extreme troubles) so I've managed to get quite
I have intentionally ignored much of this - since the first day it made the news. I figured, for that very reason, I would be incapable of being objective and to judge them honestly. I used to be a "volunteer" "smokejumper." The word volunteer is in quotes because you actually get paid for it. I trained to jump, even made practice jumps and fast roped. I never actually had to jump, I always went in with a truck or helicopter or on foot.
When I was a much younger lad, fresh out of the military and the university, I was idealism-filled and full of energy. So, I went and did the training and even went out to a few fires. We trained every year so I kept that training up for about five years. I still only went to a few fires and I've done a whole lot of shoveling.
At any rate, that is the kind of shit that gets people killed, as you say. Because of this, and because I can not be objective, I withhold all judgment and offer no opinions about their actions. I'm a bit biased about people making intentionally bad choices that can harm others. What they may be doing could be justifiable, could be legitimate, could be noble. I can't rightly say. Even if it was, even if they were, I'm not sure I'd be able to be objective in my judgment.
So, well... That's pretty much all I had to add. I agree, entirely, that setting fires can get people killed - needlessly. I worked damned hard to put out some fires, two of which were believed to have been the result of arson. Nobody died but we did have a couple of minor injuries and a person did get have some inhalation issues and had to be evacuated. One was seriously injured in training and that is significant. If people weren't setting fires, we'd not need as many people fighting fires.
Maybe they should have tried the Johnny Cash defense? Hell, he not only set fire to public land but he also managed to harm and endangered species while doing so.
So, unfortunately, I've intentionally remained ignorant and thus I'm unqualified to offer an opinion on the validity of their claims. You're spot on. That's also the reason that I've gone so far as to even turn the radio off when they talked about this event. I can not reasonably judge their actions and would be too likely to opine if I knew more about it - and I suspect those opinions would be negative even if they had merit to this particular act.
On the other hand, I can offer an opinion that it's damned stupid (some times) to set shit on fire. Some times it's smart to burn stuff in a controlled burn. Some times it is smart to burn a section ahead of a fire to make a break. Unless one is qualified to make those choices and has license to do so, do not do so. It's probably a bad thing and can get people killed.
Welp... Off to read the thread. It's hard to read and not comment on something... *sighs* However, I reserve judgment until I know more and can make judgment based on full(er) facts. At this time, I do not believe I'll get full and unbiased facts - from any side. So... Pink and purple elephants fester in my scrotum not entirely unlike fuchsia. That's my opinion on the subject.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. So much for OSINT... I don't even do the work myself and I have several (read four or five if you count my son's which is at my house) AR-style firearms. Only one of them is more expensive than $1800. Two are about that price because I've thrown some nice optics on them. One, and only one, is more expensive and two are down below the $1500 number - by quite a bit. One is moron-level expensive but, I've gotta tell you, it's a whole bunch of fun to slaughter innocent paper with it.
They're no the "best" for anything - except maybe customization. They are a whole lot of fun. There's a huge market to make them fairly distinct. They don't really need to be but, as I said, they're a whole bunch of fun when you do. If someone reminds me, I'll post pics (I've never posted pics) of my custom. It was stupidly expensive, as I said, but it's a whole lot of fun and does an excellent job at mass shooting paper.
(It's even a racist. I've noticed a trend, it's constantly hitting the black.)
If Apple had to realize those assets immediately, liquidate them quickly, in order to pay bills then this would have a meaningful impact. As they're able to retain the capital then the absolute value is, indeed, meaningless (like you say). However, if they needed this money immediately then purchasing power would be reduced as they move the assets from one market and into another. Significantly? Probably not but it is also coupled with some real-world lag and strict theory doesn't apply.
That said, you're 100% correct. It's not like Apple must realize these profits immediately. Thus any fluctuations are likely to be as trivial as a rounding error when realized long-term. It's not like Apple's scraping in the couch cushions to get cash to cover payroll. If anything, given the probable recovery of the values, Apple may realize greater increases (in value and not strict revenue numbers) considering they can hold long-term prior to realization, ride-out any fluctuations, and probably have personnel hired to actually help them capitalize on those fluctuations by taking timely action in the movement from currency to currency.
I know, for a fact, that I'd sure as hell have hired people to do just that if I were dealing with numbers these large. I've moved money, currency - to be more accurate, from one country to another and I've exchanged. It can be rather difficult. However, it's possible to speculate in the market and I know people who do well at operating in the foreign exchange markets. Just to transfer, and ensure least expenses and full legal compliance with applicable tax laws, I've hired professionals to move larger values for means of diversification and asset protection.
I have NOTHING near these numbers and I know very little about Foreign Exchange speculation/trading but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Apple has hired people who are *very* familiar and skilled in those areas and are working to ensure the realization of maximum value which, as you indicate, is not always the same in absolute numerical totals.
There's a lot that I do not know. It is so complicated that when we did work overseas, it was often easier to spend the profits from that work in those overseas markets. It also worked to reduce tax burden and was, of course, fully legal. More importantly, it reduced complexity. We often had on-site people as a requirement. So, you're realizing a profit here, paying an employee there, and realizing additional profit in their market. It was all very complicated and I make no pretense at full comprehension - it is also possible to abuse that. You can (intentionally) realize your profits elsewhere and play a whole host of games with it. We were never large enough, nor did enough business, to have anything longer than temporary offices overseas/internationally.
We also weren't in the business of fucking over the tax-payer so we paid our damned taxes. It was easier than trying to cheat 'em out of it. It was also the ethical thing to do. We weren't publicly traded. You're taxed on profits and only on profits. I paid myself a salary (sometimes making less than some of the people who worked for me) and the rest "belonged" to the business. It was used to pay bonuses, increase the business, maintain the business, realize some protection, and things of that nature. You can write off a whole bunch of shit. I'm already getting paid a salary. I made the same amount unless, for some reason, I needed to dip into the cookie jar for personal reasons. It's not like I got paid less because of those taxes. That money was usually plowed back into the business.
Why? It made more sense to pay myself a salary and pay the taxes on that and plow the rest back into the business. It's not like I wasn't paying myself enough money, if I had needed more than I'd have given myself a raise. The business then gets to write off my salary. It's not like (contrary to what some folks seem to think) I'm being taxed twice on it. I'm paying me and that's a write-off. The business doesn't pay taxes on that
I suspect that it's slightly more complicated than that. While it is, I believe, a trade secret, this likely indicates that the production costs are so low that the reduction in costs is less significant than the reduction in absolute value in dollars when the fees are paid in unadjusted foreign currencies.
So, all things being equal, you'd be correct - entirely. As it is, you're likely partially correct. The costs of production, as a percentage, is not significant when considered with the total amount the product is sold for. If, for example, they're paying 15% for the product's manufacturing (while development is done at US dollar rates - in the US) and the remaining 85% is profit (sans some overhead) then a reduction of 10% in USD value is a cost reduction, in manufacturing, of 1.5% while an 8.5% reduction is realized in profit.
So, they'd actually (using those numbers) end up with a 7% reduction in profits because the decreased associated production costs are not equal to the profit side of the equation.
All things are not equal. Make sense? It's not very easy to word and I'm not as articulate as I would like to be. Hopefully, I have described it well enough to understand. So, while you'd otherwise be true - it's not exactly correct given the disparity. This is also impacted by not all currencies being devalued equally. Those numbers may be even more disparate based on localized deflation of native currencies.
Note: I've no actual data concerning those numbers, I did not even look to see the increase or decrease in the currency value changes made in China. The numbers are for example purposes only and to demonstrate the potential (not assured but probable) error in your assumptions. That's not something you'd normally overlook. It makes me double check my logic and I'm pretty sure that I'm correct. I'll guess that you're distracted, ill, or otherwise given cause to just not think of the differences.
I am no expert but don't commas go in the quotes? "Like this," perhaps? Punctuation goes outside of the parenthesis and punctuation goes inside the quotes, as a general rule, yes?
(For example, punctuation would go in here.) But, (at the same time), punctuation would go out here. Then, shall we say, "to make matters worse," it's exactly backwards with quotation marks?
Err... Those are horrific sentences so please don't judge them as anything more than (bad) examples. That's how I learned it? I also learned the Oxford comma but that's not always true. I figure if you're an expert at some grammatical society then, perhaps, you might be right and I might have been wrong this entire time. It is both possible that I was given incorrect instruction or that I misunderstood the instruction given. It's possible that it is optional and a stylistic thing that may depend on all sorts of things, including one's physical location.
Given that I've written a whole lot, using the above method while nobody dinged me for it - I'm inclined to think that I'm at least correct in that it's a stylistic choice if not outright correct and that your post was in error. I am not, nor do I purport to be, an expert on the subject. There are a few subjects where one might conclude that it is reasonable to consider me an expert, this is not one of those subjects. Yet, in case you are unable to notice or are unfamiliar with my posting history, I write a great deal. I also make it a point to do my reasonable best where grammar is concerned.
So, kind sir, if you could give instruction (with citation or not) that'd be most helpful and would be greatly appreciated. In return, I promise to not only not ever confuse those two words (I don't believe I have ever done so) but I also promise to use the word decimate with its original meaning. Hmm... I'll even through in the use of the word "literally." I will, literally, only use the word "literally," literally.
As an aside, and a gift, I will share my favorite sentence with you. Piers Anthony is not a native English speaker. His early works were science fiction and weren't that bad. His Xanth series is great, if you're a teen girl. At one point, he wrote a novel that was his attempt at authoring in the horror genre. He actually touches on this, in his autobiography, and it's a rather interesting sentence. The above, and combined with the fact that he authored this sentence intentionally - in an effort to demonstrate some of the failings of the language, combine to make it more interesting. Allow me to quote:
"The experiences he had had had been bad."
I love that sentence. Yes, I like it more than the buffalo sentence.
True, but it was certainly time for a paradigm shift! (That one always kind of irks me, perhaps inexplicably or unjustifiably, and just grates on me.)
You know what you get in a sandbox? Cat shit and dirty kids.
More alarming (and no, you are not one - this is not an accusation) is the number of people who confuse Java and JavaScript. That happens on a regular basis - on THIS site. Me, a guy who programmed only because he had to (damned things didn't do anything useful unless you did) and absolutely hated computers - and *I* know the difference between the two. I also know what NPAPI is, sort of how it works - at least in theory how it actually works, that it's being killed off (or has been), and that the summary is poor and not entirely accurate - I also know that's not surprising or abnormal but I did not click the link (I am no heretic) - I just read the comments.
So, it is surprising. It's doubly surprising given the type of people who "should" be here and commenting. I've seen logged in, low digit, users do the Java/JavaScript thing. I know what a .jar is (I've even edited one, more than once, and then distributed the repaired version) and I sort of know how those work. Except, I don't actually program in Java, at all. I just know how to find and then can read code, find the syntax, and make edits - simple edits.
Of all the people here, I should (by all rights) be the least capable. Yet, I was giving someone instructions on how to get Chrome and then not update it (on Linux) earlier. I made it generic enough (and specific enough to aptitude if needed) that it should work for any package manager and most any distro. 'Snot like it's difficult - I know, 'cause I can figure it out. Well, I just figured out the process but I didn't actually try it. It should work as the update mechanism is the package manger for Linux installs of Chrome or Chromium.
Seriously, it's bad if I know more than you about tech. I'm a mathematician who programmed because I had to - I wasn't even good at it. In fact, I hired professionals, lots of professionals, to do it for me after a while. I hired them because I needed things done that I was incapable of doing. If I could have done it myself, I'd have not needed to hire them. It's not like I just hired random people for the goodness of the economy. No, I needed good people to do difficult things. I wanted the best and I wanted stuff (and people) that didn't really exist. So, I even paid them well. If it was easy, I'd have done it myself. They were paid well because they were essential to the business. If they were not essential then I'd have not hired them. I didn't hire inessential people. It was a business, not a charity. I'm a charitable person, I was not running a charitable business. This means I only hired the best I could find and paid them enough to ensure that they were happy, productive, and not going to leave. I'd hired them because they were the best that I could make or find. If I could have hired monkeys, I probably wouldn't have because it's unlikely that monkeys would have been essential to the growth and operation of my business. It's really not that complicated and people make things much more complicated than they need to.
It's BAD if I know more about a programming language than someone here. It's even worse if I know more about Linux. I specifically use Linux because I don't know a damned thing about it and want to understand it. Understanding how your tools work is essential if you want to be a skilled craftsman. Again, this is not complicated and doesn't need to be complicated. If you do not know how your tool works, at least at a decent - if not very deep, level then you should not be using it. If you can not keep your tools in good repair then you should not be using them. You should have others craft on your behalf - it's okay to not know how all tools operate. I, for instance, have no idea how to embroider. I'm okay with that. This does not need to be complicated.
So, I'm uncomplicated, unskilled (and knowingly so), unlearned, unassociated, unprofessional, and unaware. I admit these things freely. There's no way that I can know everything. It's really, really bad if I know more about it than you. Again, not an accusation but
It's possible, it's just not that easy. You can find an old article, search for old articles, and things like that. Then you can browse from there...
It's not pretty. I used to have a 4 or 5 digit UUI. I've no longer got access to that email and I'll be damned if I can remember either the user or the password - I've no hope at recovery. I do (I think) remember the email - I just don't have access to it any more.
At any rate, no... The last thing you probably want to do is go back and read old Slashdot threads. Oh, I've spent hours doing so but that's because I'm mentally retarded and hate myself. A funny one is the first mention of VMWare (and VMs) on Slashdot. Oh, they'll never catch on. They're a stupid idea. For that amount of money, I'll just reboot. The idea is impossible - it is technologically impossible to do such a thing. Oh, I think maybe three folks actually understood it, one read the article, and one guy had actually seen a demo.
But no, most were convinced that it was impossible, wouldn't ever work, was too expensive, couldn't work, would never catch on, was more effort than just rebooting, would not run Linux, could not run Linux, or similar...
You probably think that I'm kidding. You might even think that I'm exaggerating. I figured you might, so I armed myself with this link:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
I warn you, before you click that link, sit down and pour a stiff drink. Fortunately, that predates The Happening so the posts are all AC. Beware, it can also be very time consuming and you'll probably want to reply to some of the comments. You can't. Thankfully... I already never get anything done. I'd somehow get less than that done. I don't think we had moderation then? There was The Happening which meant a lot of lost data, at one point, so everyone's an AC and some of the old threads don't have proper threading or anything - even though they supported it. I didn't allow myself to open the link again. I've done that before. I've tried to forget it...
Go on... You know you're gonna click the link... Nobody ever listens to KGIII... But, seriously, do not click that link. I only include it because I'm obligated to. I'm half-tempted to go edit it out. *sighs* Good luck!
So your mom really is a bitch? I thought you were kidding when you said that!
I kid... I just could not resist. Alas, I don't do the post as AC thing without identifying myself so I might as well post this as me and logged in.