Fun fact: those who own knives are more likely to be stabbed than those who don’t.
Fun facts taken totally out of context don't really mean anything. Sure a gun owner is more likely to be shot. I bet that fact includes all the self inflicted gunshots. Suicide attempt account for a very large portion of all gunshots, and lets be realistic, most people attempting suicide are going to regardless of access to a gun. So if suddenly there were no guns, they would just do something else.
Re: People Who Insist On Carrying Guns Don’t Care About Others, Do They?
There are a lot of people who carry guns who do care about others. Unless your willing to say all cops, guards, and members of the military are evil.
Also, a lot of concealed carry is people doing so for their own protection. That doesn't mean they don't care for others, it means they realize we live in a screwed up world.
I really hate how many people can't seem to remove their rose colored glasses. This world has evil people in it. These people don't care about the laws, so banning guns doesn't effect them. Pretending you can wave a wand by passing laws and make bad things vanish is just stupid.
"Not because it is real socialism but because you suggest helping people who didn't work for it and therefore don't deserve help, in the current system."
I think that is really a huge issue we have here as well. Most seem to think that helping the poor must equal handing out free stuff and giving away money. I actually am strongly against that in most cases. If you have the ability to work, then you should work for what you get. The only people who should get free handouts are those unable to get things for themselves.
We are not helping people by giving them things. We are hurting them, taking away their independence. Government assistance should help people get on their feet and shove them in the right direction. It shouldn't be a system for making people useless and dependent on their monthly checks.
I have long ago come to the conclusion that we are going about this all the wrong way. For one thing it makes me sick that the USA has forgotten some of the things that are supposed to be core values for the country. "Land of the free, home of the brave", Well WTF happened there? We have turned into a bunch of cowering sissies giving up our freedom because we are afraid.
One very interesting idea to me has always been for us to drop all this stupid fighting the terrorists junk. I say that for a bunch of reasons, one of the big ones being that we are the freaking terrorists. We have innocent people terrified of blue skies because that is when our drones are in the air. Now you just try and tell me that doesn't bread more terrorists.
The other point is this, what happens if we pull back and toss all that money into good projects? Fix our infrastructure, develop new technologies, and fighting sickness and poverty. We could do a hell of a lot with the amount of money and manpower we are wasting "fighting".
Well, here is what I would expect to happen. There will be a few attacks against us. It will not be pretty at first. The thing is though, very quickly they will start to loose power and here is why. Very few people are so sick in the head that they will attack innocent people. Right now terrorist are able to frame us as bad guys, it is easy to do with all our guns, tanks and bombs. If on the other hand we are out helping people...... Suddenly it is hard to frame us as "evil" and they will quickly loose manpower.
They also tend to prey on the poor. Offering to take care of their families if they join to do terror attacks against us. If we are in these places helping the poor... well then terrorists loose a powerful recruiting tool and once again, we come out looking like the good guys instead of evil assholes raining death from our drones.
Over all, I think we would come out much better by manning up and really being the home of the brave. Stand up to the terrorist by proudly saying "Fuck you, I'm not afraid of you" and letting them destroy themselves.
"It's tough enough to find and close vulnerabilities. Deliberately opening one can be catastrophic."
That is so very true, especially considering that once you deliberately open one it eliminates a lot of the difficulty in the finding it part. Normally hackers are searching for holes that may or may not exist. You put a backdoor in and suddenly they know there is a gaping hole, they just have to kick the door in.
"He's likely going to end up without a license to practice law -- which appears to be his only marketable skill."
Considering all that we have seen from him do you really think it is fitting to call this a marketable skill? If I needed a lawyer I am more likely to go hire a random homeless guy off the street than I am to hire this guy.
As much as I would love to say "Drop the links, no need to send them traffic." I have to agree that linking to the source is important. That really is very important for this site. It gives your stories credibility that you loose otherwise.
Without letting people view the original material you risk being labeled as a group just spouting your opinions while hiding the facts. With links to the source content you give others a chance to verify what you say.
Of course this does not help my opinion of Microsoft. Whats worse is that it makes me even more suspicious of Windows "backing up" your full disk encryption key to Microsoft servers. Where I'm betting NSA is demanding a copy for their records...... After all, you shared it with a "third party" and it is "just a business record"
I really think this kind of thing needs to be put in place for several topics. Someone running around saying "It is only meta-data" should be required to make all of their "meta-data" public, and anyone claiming they want a backdoor should be required to only use systems with a backdoor.
It is ironic because you yourself are making a big deal out of these things.
The other point I was making is that yes, it is only a big deal because culture makes it so. Knowing that still does not help the fact that this kid gets to live with the effects. The issue here is not really so much the what happened as it is about how society reacts.
"Jesus H. Christ, people. Can't you find something more important to get upset over?"
The irony of you asking that is just amazing to me.
Beyond that though, the question of why our current culture thinks this is a big deal is not important in this case. What is important is that it is a big deal to this kid. What is also important is that this news agency ignored the kids and his family's wishes and plastered his name and dick all over the news.
Another really important point is. Yes, it is a dick, they look a lot alike and it could belong to anyone, BUT this one how has his name linked to it by a news agency. You have to be really ignorant to think this will not haunt the kid at school.
This strikes me as one of those stupid laws that if they pass it they will quickly find out it makes everyone running a website a criminal. They then will quietly slip it into some dark corner while leaving it on the books, because they could never admit they were wrong, and they then can selectively enforce it to attack anyone they feel like.
While I certainly agree that this is a really stupid bill. I actually can understand where he is coming from and can see his logic. Instead of just making an analogy about restricting the press like they are trying to restrict gun he just made a bill to do it. It is obvious that it is unconstitutional and I think that is a big part of his point. Gun laws often seem to try and find a way around the constitution often with the "but it is for the children" excuse.
The point I was making is that while you personally might not notice or care there are indeed people out there who do care. Some people do enjoy watching their videos at a high resolution and the modern smart phone is more than able to handle it.
"At least this is made for mobile phones where the screen is too small to take advantage of the highest quality settings."
Hate to burst your bubble but 640×480 is a lot different than 1920x1080. Yes, my screen is only 5.5 inches but it is 2560x1440. So yeah, it can play a video at full 1080p and even if your eyesight sucks, I can still tell the difference in 480p and 1080p.
There is a difference between things like stability control, anti-lock brakes, and systems such as those and a full drive by wire car. Those systems fail and you still have control of the car.
I'm not saying that I don't see the benefit of a lot of these advancements. In fact I find ABS systems to be pretty awesome especially in the rain. I just don't like the direction things are going where their is no redundancy and the computer has far too much control.
Also, My dislike of these computer systems is far from the only reason I like older cars. One of the biggest reasons is because most modern cars look like shit.