|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
This guy could of easily done way more damage if he wanted to...
|
One of my problems with Bernie has been his willingness to tow the Democratic line on stuff like this. I know he's got his reasons and thinks it will work out better in the long run, but I disagree. Won't know which one of us is right until ~2020 though.
On the other hand, no one on the right gets to pretend they don't agree with that statement.
I really wish this was a gentrification joke, but I know it's not.
|
|
|
Haven't looked into the bill, but wonder how it accounts for mother's health past 20 weeks.
|
I really think that people should abort whenever they feel like it.
|
On October 03 2017 12:12 RealityIsKing wrote:
I really think that people should abort whenever they feel like it.
Wait... is this a trap?
|
On October 03 2017 12:12 RealityIsKing wrote:
I really think that people should abort whenever they feel like it.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
|
On October 03 2017 11:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 11:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 11:16 Tachion wrote:
Businesses are going to do what's best for the business. If the source code was that big of a deal to the government and military then they should have made it illegal to share with foreign adversaries. I don't see a mention of any laws being broken in that article. I'm glad to see the need to regulate the industry is finally catching on. Also I wouldn't count on this being completely above board. They don't say any laws were broken, but news articles generally don't unless they know a law was broken. It is pretty clear the DoD didn't know the company was doing and I wouldn't be shocked if they broke a few rules about being a military contractor. I was a government contractor for certain applications that were built for the Library of Congress during the Obama administration. Currently work with a company that handles government contracts as well. The amount of NDA's, and security clearance needed to even look at source code is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprise if the DoD is already in works to take HP to court.
WRT to the HP thing, according to Reddit (and one of my company's tech VP's) it's not actually a problem. First, big enterprises, government or corporations, typically require vendors to submit to audit or provide proof of a third party audit/ risk assessment, whatever, and might also ask for audit rights and all sorts of other shit to make sure what they're buying is secure and stable. My company has to do the song and dance on the reg. Second, It's a platform used for security, but each company has it's own secret sauce/ configuration which is what is really important. The analogy I hear is its like giving someone a copy of Microsoft Word, but not the document.
Depending on exactly how the platform is built or perhaps hooked up to the outside internet it might have some vulnerability there which could be exploited, but that would require a flaw in security on the US government's end as well.
|
On October 03 2017 12:59 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 11:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:On October 03 2017 11:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 11:16 Tachion wrote:
Businesses are going to do what's best for the business. If the source code was that big of a deal to the government and military then they should have made it illegal to share with foreign adversaries. I don't see a mention of any laws being broken in that article. I'm glad to see the need to regulate the industry is finally catching on. Also I wouldn't count on this being completely above board. They don't say any laws were broken, but news articles generally don't unless they know a law was broken. It is pretty clear the DoD didn't know the company was doing and I wouldn't be shocked if they broke a few rules about being a military contractor. I was a government contractor for certain applications that were built for the Library of Congress during the Obama administration. Currently work with a company that handles government contracts as well. The amount of NDA's, and security clearance needed to even look at source code is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprise if the DoD is already in works to take HP to court. WRT to the HP thing, according to Reddit (and one of my company's tech VP's) it's not actually a problem. First, big enterprises, government or corporations, typically require vendors to submit to audit or provide proof of a third party audit/ risk assessment, whatever, and might also ask for audit rights and all sorts of other shit to make sure what they're buying is secure and stable. My company has to do the song and dance on the reg. Second, It's a platform used for security, but each company has it's own secret sauce/ configuration which is what is really important. The analogy I hear is its like giving someone a copy of Microsoft Word, but not the document. Depending on exactly how the platform is built or perhaps hooked up to the outside internet it might have some vulnerability there which could be exploited, but that would require a flaw in security on the US government's end as well.
Yea understandable, that's the point of having working demo's. The article doesn't really state if the Pentagon knew of it, or is taking any action.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-hpe-specialreport/special-report-hp-enterprise-let-russia-scrutinize-cyberdefense-system-used-by-pentagon-idUSKCN1C716M
|
The conspiracy theories around this Vegas shooting is bonkers. People saying that the dude was shot dead, while setup by "deep state" cause there "definitely" was multiple shooters. It's sickening that people care more about a theory than the lives lost.
|
On October 03 2017 13:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The conspiracy theories around this Vegas shooting is bonkers. People saying that the dude was shot dead, while setup by "deep state" cause there "definitely" was multiple shooters. It's sickening that people care more about a theory than the lives lost.
Where do you even find this shit? Lol
|
I think alex jones was blaming it on ISIS working with the deep state
|
What i find sickening is that people still argue that things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines need to be legal "for reasons".
Where do you even find this shit? Lol
Twitter. There was also some bullshitting about having Antifa propaganda in the room, etc.
edit: as for multiple shooters, that doesn't even need to be malicious. At 500 rounds per minute and echoes (which i assume there are due to high buildings), it certainly can sound like more than one shooter - experienced that in the army too, in the training for scouting and reporting an enemy shooter/position. It obviously goes into moronic territory once "deep state" etc comes into play.
|
On October 03 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 13:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The conspiracy theories around this Vegas shooting is bonkers. People saying that the dude was shot dead, while setup by "deep state" cause there "definitely" was multiple shooters. It's sickening that people care more about a theory than the lives lost. Where do you even find this shit? Lol
I'm still connected to some wild people from high school, and I see their posts every once in a while. Lately it's been a ton because I've really been trying to help them see outside their echo chambers, rather than have them staying there causing more issues than needed.
Also, I started following some twitter posts around, and ran into this terrible youtube video apparently done by "INL" or some shit like that - and the comments there are just even fucking worse. I would provide the link, but then some one here will easily eat that garbage up.
This picture sums it up:
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/8gnbzx1rnipz.jpg)
|
There's a lot of social media activity that is disingenuous and I have no doubt that a good number of the_donald aren't actually Americans or actual people. Some are even "ironically" posting in cyrillic. I know a lot of people want to ignore this problem but there's more and more evidence that Russia isn't playing around with these social media interactions.
Its only just recently that an Antifa twitter account got busted after the user forgot to disable location data and was constantly using the incorrect symbol an apostrophe after closer examination. There was also a mass purge of Russia based Twitter accounts calling for NFL boycotts and for athletes to take the knee. It doesn't matter if its left or right, the purpose is to get the whole of America at each other's throats.
And its going to keep getting worse since Twitter nor Facebook want to tackle this problem seriously. Its going be sort of hilarious if Zuckerberg runs for president since not a single voter has any reason to like the guy.
|
On October 03 2017 08:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 07:50 Artisreal wrote:
@danglars
You're too deep into thinking about what happens if a malevolent person obtains a gun in an unarmed society.
What you actually have to think about is what the armed society does to itself. Which is, in the case of the US, much worse. If? We have enough malevolent persons obtaining guns in an unarmed society to not have to wonder what happens ‘if.’ I’m missing some information on why this is your diagnosis, why it’s preferable to devote more attention to your preference, and why everything works out to be worse if I don’t accede.
Just read the link in my other post you so carefully ignored.
|
It's funny to read The_Donald adopting the "fishy" language. This is a terminology that was created on rightwing "news" sites; when you want to say that Bissonnette isn't the bad guy because the bad guys are muslims, but you can't say that because that would be libel and you could be attacked in justice, instead you say that something is "fishy" because that's vague enough that it can be interpreted as not a straight lie. Now people from The_Donald aren't going to be attacked in justice, so they could use clearer terminology, but they still parrot that language anyway.
I guess they have been groomed well.
|
In some good news for the country.
|
On October 03 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote:On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today.
How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate. You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler +And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval. It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons. What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence: Yes, this is actually Danglars posting!
Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things. Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs. He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article. Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. Show nested quote +Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises.
You never had to dfefend yourself from a tyrannical government. Learn to read your history. You seceded from a legitimate government because you didn't like it's economic politics. The only reason we don't call the founding fathers terrorists is because the governmental system they preferred is accepted today. Or you could say it was within your right to call yourself independent due to whatever, then you didn't rebel against your government, you got a declaration of war from another government and created an army out of your free citizens as every other nation would have back then as well. There was no fighting off the tyranny of your government.
Next, what the fuck does protecting borders from economic migrants has to do with that? Do you propose Europeans should arm their population so that they can shoot African Migrants when they bank their boats on Italian shores? Fuck you for bringing children rape gangs into this. Seriously.
Also, the law-abiding citizen argument is so much bullshit. The government, and by voting for them the people, defines what is legal and what is not. The American people don't have a sacred god-given right to own an AR-15. The government has given them that right in the 18th century. If it decides, that this right is not needed anymore, then the law-abiding citizen is not punished. The gun is not an award for being law-abiding. The same way having a slave was not an award for the godfearing european immigrant when he stepped on American ground. Welcome to Ellis Island, here is your free african slave, act according to law or we will have to confiscate him, have a great stay! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
