The problem is mass surveillance and data mining.

There hasn't been an administration in this country for the past 63 years that I would have any level of trust with that kind of information.

LK

The ACLU doesn't work to ban guns but they don't oppose the idea, either.

If you read the above link, they even take the unprecedented step of saying that in essence, the ACLU thinks that the SCOTUS is wrong and that the Constitution doesn't say what the SCOTUS says that it says.

LK

I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious.

Would you mind clarifying?

LK

The ACLU's motivation was stopping mass surveillance and not the preservation of Americans' second amendment rights.

Sure, the ACLU may have been the source of this information but it will be the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO and similar groups that actually use it.

LK

First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".

Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?

You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.

Wow talk about false equivalence, I guess you don't know that watching eSports is a huge thing and PewDiePie is now YouTube's biggest hit? They just don't want to see a doofus like you play. People are interested in other people who can do exceptional things, whether it's an athlete or playing chess. It's not like that does anything important either.

What I can't understand are the people who get so caught up in "their" team even though they just happen to be born in the same region and these days with buying and selling it's not really a local team anyway it's the mercenaries who're current representing the brand. Next year they can be in a different club representing a different brand, same with the coaches and most everybody else. The only loyalists are the fans.

What's craziest is that if you think of it as an entertainment product they've instilled the attitude that the worse a product they deliver the more important is it that you stand by your team and show you support them. Imagine anyone else saying we're delivering crap and losing to the competition all the time, now's the time to buy our product to help make it better? They'd be committed to a mental asylum. I can understand the appeal of sharing highs and lows with other people and how that can bond fans together with team as a rally flag, but it's still collective insanity.

It's not a problem to use big data to try to figure out where to focus. But you have to subject the results to some sanity checking, and before you actually impact someone's life, perhaps even some common sense. Shocking idea, I know, and the reason why it's still a problem.

A tax code which permits corporations to hide profits while taxing citizens normally is dishonest.

You're assuming it didn't.

Well, yes and no. The script embedded in the html or whatever is already in your system, but any linked script files hosted on a dodgy domain don't actually get downloaded at all, at least on Firefox. In the past this was impossible on chrome by design, but I'm told it works properly now. The flash and most of the script is never in fact downloaded to your PC at all.

What you do get with Nexus devices is unlockability. But you also get that with Motorola and even Sony devices. You void your warranty in the process, which probably isn't strictly legal for them to do to you. You can relock your phone so that it can get OTAs again, though... at least in the case of Motorola. Dunno about others. What you just can't assume you get is quality.

So if you care, then you use a tool. But being forced to use a tool is still bullshit, and you are still a useful idiot apologist.

Actually, all that stuff can still happen to iPods.

The fact that the reactor at Chernobyl had a runaway reaction which resulted in a number of deaths is not in question. The relevance of an experimental military reactor using an inherently unstable design in a discussion on the safety of civilian power plants is.

No it isn't. Chernobyl happened for a number of reasons, but ultimately, regardless of failures of equipment or operational mistakes on the ground, the fundamental issue was with the original design of the RBMK-1000 reactors and its high positive void coefficient. This was the only reactor design in the history of nuclear reactors to use a void coefficient nearly so high. Of the few designs that have ever existed that use one that's positive at all, it's so small that the passive safety systems (the ones which work without power or human intervention) protect the functioning of the plant and the simultaneous failure of all active and passive safety mechanisms can never (per physics) result in a Chernobyl level of criticality.

Understand what a void coefficient is in a nuclear reactor and how it applies to former and current reactor designs, then you'll understand why an incident like what we saw in Chernobyl simply isn't possible.

I never once mentioned "politics". I have no idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps you're confusing this with another post by someone else.

That's some lovely poetic language, but it completely distorts what I've said. I'm not trying to write off what happened at Chernobyl. I don't think the military should be building experimental and inherently unstable nuclear reactors near civilian populations and then pushing them to their limits with extremely risk experiments. If you put that on a petition, I'll sign it. If the government wants to do it, I'll protest it. But I don't think that incidents that happen with experimental military reactors have any relevance to a discussion on the safety of civilian power plants. That's like questioning the safety of high school chemistry labs because some meth heads blew themselves up with their home meth lab.

And I noticed you completely ignored the simple fact that watt for watt, nuclear power has been shown to be orders of magnitude safer (even when you include experimental military reactors that went awry) than all other forms of power production. I can only imagine that's because it was evidence that didn't fit with your world view. I would encourage you to expand your horizons and do some research into nuclear power plants instead of taking the Greenpeace talking points at face value. In fact, why not listen to some of the founders of Greenpeace who've come to realize the simple truth that nuclear power is the safest and best solution to our energy needs? If you can't be swayed by new information and evidence, then what you're advocating is more of a religious philosophy.