Recently, an Anonymous Coward (but I have a couple of guesses as to who really wrote it) accused me of being racist because I am pro-life.

The AC's argument was: You say you want to ban abortion, but what you really want is to ban abortion except for the type that rich white people can afford, therefore, you're a racist.

The logical leaps in this argument are almost breathtaking in their stupidity. I'd be surprised, but I've had this account for probably a decade now and as such liberal stupidity is, quite frankly, nothing new.

Here's some pseudocode that explains my position on abortion:

bool MayHaveAnAbortion (Mother m)
{
if (m.LifeAtRisk() == true)
{
return true;
}
else
return false;
}

Please note, dear liberals, that in this example there is no consideration for race, socio-economic status, or any other victim groups that you like to place people in.

(Yes, I am aware that the method could simply be "return m.IsLifeAtRisk()" but let's face it, the liberals around here aren't smart enough to handle that and would only get confused.)

So to sum up: Yes, I am absolutely opposed to all forms of abortion for all women except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

Furthermore, the logical errors required to somehow twist that into calling me a racist are exceptional in their stupidity, and proves (yet again) the intellectual dishonesty of the "progressive" movement -- showing the "progressive" movement to be nothing more than a secular humanistic death cult.

And everything else. Who knew there were so many avionics experts here with their "It's simple!" solutions? Hint: If you've never heard of ARINC 429 (or MIL-STD-1553) before now, you're not one. ;-)

So, there's this article here, and some of the comments by, shall we say, users of higher than normal userid value are really grating today. Between the one dipshit who won't use Google to figure out what a CRT is and has to ask (I know they're quickly headed towards obsolescence, and good riddance, but you've got no excuse for not knowing the term if you're 15 or older) and the other dipshit who is ignorant of historical truth and assumes Google's dictionary is the all-knowing, all-seeing Oracle I just kind of lost it and went on a mod-bombing campaign with them. I'm not proud of it, but it sure felt good.

There's a new breed of "techie" who comes here now, and they've got their profiles linked up with their Facebook, G+, and Twitter. I'm not anti these services, I have accounts with all three, but they ain't linked here because my "online presence" isn't about "marketing my unified digital voice" or whatever sewage the tech-hipsters are shoveling out today. They slam together two websites with a javascript library and confer themselves the titles of "wizard", "savant", or "genius". Maybe I come from a different time, but calling yourself that was the mark of a complete prat where I come from. Even self-referring as a "hacker" was a mark of hubris. These titles could only be conferred by others, and when they were, they were terms of respect and perhaps some awe, heartfelt and honest when given and touching and glorious when received.

Rant off, now get off my lawn you damn know-nothing kids, or hang out and have a picnic... say something. It's all good. :-)

You know... since I've written enterprise applications (singlehandedly, and no, I won't tell you which ones) that dwarf slashdot... I might be tempted to write a replacement, given how bad Beta is and how much people are complaining about it...

How would I do it? In the spirit of Open Source, I'd use PostgreSQL as a database backend, as MySQL or MariaDB is, in my humble opinion, inferior to PostgreSQL.

One reason is the syntax of PL-PGSQL vs. T-SQL. I hate T-SQL compared to PL-PGSQL (or just PL-SQL if I'm writing a Stored Proc for Oracle).

After that, I'd model the database to do what I want, and store what I want, and I'd ensure that the data was fully in 3rd Normal Form.

And if you bitch about joins, I'll hit you with a fucking sledgehammer.

After that, throwing up some PHP to format the page is an afterthought. The critical piece is getting the database right.

The database itself would need to be clustered to be able to scale with the load, and PostgreSQL does a pretty nice job of it.

Horrid.

Think I'm done with slashdot (again) for a while (again).

5+ Years ago I warned people -- and got mocked by the assorted collection of fools we have for leftist trolls around here -- that if elected, Barack Obama was going to be an unmitigated disaster if elected President.

I WAS RIGHT.

From Fast and Furious to the sky high unemployment to the "recovery summer" that never happened to Benghazi to ObamaCare to the continual end runs around the constitution to illegally appointing people to the labor board to allowing a Nuclear Iran... and now in the SOTU he threatens to bypass Congress even more...

Like I said -- he's been a disaster.

The line for the libtrolls to kiss my ass starts to the left.

In the comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4728375&cid=46105237 I was commenting that the Nobel Peace Prize committee should take back the prize that they have wrongly awarded to Obama.

In the comment I used the full name of Obama, which is Barack Hussein Obama, which in fact, is the LEGAL NAME of the current POTUS.

For whatever reason, a fella "Stargoat" flamed me for using the full name of Obama and specifically accuse me of using the name of "Hussein" !

I was totally floored by the way that knee jerk threw his temper tantrum. I mean, The word "Hussein" isn't my invention, I wasn't the one who "gave" Obama that name.

It was Obama's dad who gave him that "Hussein". Not me.

Is it a taboo to use the full name of Obama ?

If it has become illegal to use Obama's full name, why don't they make an official law from now on, making it a federal offense for any "peon" to call the Emperor/ President / Dictator of the United States of America by his/her full name ?

Abortion in America leaves the United States with a body count comparable to the most bloodthirsty regimes in history. Hitler was a piker compared to the acolytes of Margaret Sanger.

The Prophetic Sanger

The REAL Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger and the KKK

In a previous journal entry, I used the term "in-vitro" where I meant "in utero". I went back and fixed it.

Apparently, the bus ride to Austin and subsequent March For Life made me more tired then I realized. Still -- if it changes just one mind and saves just one life, it's all worth it.

Had he survived his birth, he'd have been 3 months old today. As a result, I'm completely numb and probably won't be posting much over the next week or two. Just in case anyone thought it was going to be another 3 year sabbatical for me.

When does life begin? Scientifically, we can answer this question with a set of straightforward scientific facts:

Every living organism on earth has a DNA sequence, which varies by species. Tiger DNA is not the same as Giraffe DNA. There are some species that can make sterile hybrid offspring (Ligers, Tigons, Mules) due to similarity in the DNA, but the DNA of each parent species is not an exact match.

Therefore, there exists a DNA sequence that is uniquely human.

When determining whether a particular cell, or cells, are alive, we can observe one or more of the following phenomenon -- mitosis (cellular division where the DNA is duplicated), cellular respiration, as a result of osmosis or photosynthesis, etc. We can clearly observe and define life in these parameters.

At the time of conception, shortly after the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell, we can observe mitosis and cellular respiration. It is clear that at a biological level, this new organism is unquestionably alive.

This new organism also has a complete human DNA sequence, which means it is unquestionably, biologically, a human life.

Because of these Scientific Facts (in fact, you could even say "The Science is Settled") Human Life begins at conception, with each new person having the potential to develop into an adult organism.

The abortophile will often question this with, "Well, what about miscarriages? See, even God performs abortions so it should be legal!"

This argument does not hold up to a logical analysis. Sometimes, the process of human reproduction fails and the result is a miscarriage, or premature still birth. Some times, there is no explanation for a in-utero death. The reality is, people of all ages die every day of natural causes. Applied to it's logical conclusion, this argument can also be used to say murder should be legal, because all people are going to die anyway. Clearly, this is incorrect, and as a result, using miscarriages to defend abortion falls flat.

Referring to the unborn child as "pregnancy tissue" or "fetus" or "not really a baby" is also deliberately misleading by abortophiles. My second son was born too early, and died as a result. There was no question at all, just by looking at him, anyone could tell that this was unquestionably a tiny little boy.

The next argument made by pro-abortionists is often the fact that the unborn child is dependent on the mother for survival; that it is just a parasite. This is another weak argument, as no one disputes that a tapeworm is alive. While an unborn child does meet the biological definition of a parasite, this does not mean the unborn child is not alive, nor does it mean the child is not human. Furthermore, the average 6 month old is also dependent on the mother for care, and this is not unique amongst humans. Young being dependent on parents is a common trait amongst mammals and some other groups as well - birds, for example, care for their young. Furthermore, some Democrats consider people to be dependent children up to age 26.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that abortion is the ending of a human life through non-natural means. It is killing a person (and in the case of the mother, wounding her as well). This ending of an innocent life can not be justified in cases of rape or incest, as the child had no control over it's creation, and does not deserve a death sentence for being conceived under horrible circumstances.

From a medical ethics perspective, the only time an abortion can be justified is when the life of the mother is at risk. The reality of this situation is that BOTH lives are at risk, and the goal is to save the lives you can â" in this case, the mother's life -- because if the mother's life ends, the child's life does as well. Any other case -- there is no moral, medical, ethical, or any other reason to justify abortion. It is not a "medical procedure", it is a crime that when carried out successfully leaves 1 human life dead and the mother wounded.

So a question that often comes up in numerous gun forums is: What caliber bullet is the best?

Short Answer: The one you can handle the best -- where you have an accurate grouping -- plus, any gun is better than no gun if you find yourself in a situation where you need it.

Long Answer: The one rule of Hand Guns is that "stopping power" is largely a myth. Bad guys are stopped one of two ways - hitting a critical organ (heart, brain, spinal cord), which in the case of the heart could still give the attacker as much as 30 seconds of fight left in them -- or, puncturing enough holes so the attacker bleeds out and passes out from loss of blood pressure.

Compared to rifles and shotguns, all hand guns suck.

But since you can't conceal an AR-15, here's my opinion on some of the various handgun calibers and why I would or wouldn't recommend them for self defense / concealed carry.

First -- just forget about .50 Cal or .44 Magnum. You're not going to find a small frame gun to conceal chambered for these rounds. (No matter how awesome they may be.)

Second -- no matter what caliber, do not carry FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) rounds. In a number of states, Texas included, you are responsible for the round. If it goes all the way through a bad guy and hits an innocent person, you're on the hook. For self-defense, you want a round that's going to hit the bad guy, expand, and stay in them causing as much damage as possible. So buy and carry some form of expanding round. Remington Golden Sabre Hollowpoints are good, so are Federal Hydra-Shoks and Hornady Critical Defense rounds.

Now one to some of the more popular rounds.

.45 ACP -- This is what I carry in my everyday carry gun (a Springfield XDS). I am physically strong enough to more than handle the gun, and the .45 ACP is a heavy, slow round (compared to the 9mm and .40 S & W) but leads the pack in FBI statistics in "one shot stops". For a handgun round, the .45 ACP is a pretty devastating round. However... the recoil can be a bit much, and if you aren't strong enough to reliably control the gun, it's not for you. If you can, .45 is the way to go.

.40 S & W: Sometimes called the .40 slow and weak when compared to it's 10mm sibling, the .40 caliber round is also an effective round. The recoil tends to be a little sharper in pulling up as opposed to the .45 (where the recoil is more of a back push) but some people can handle the .40 better than the .45. It's a good choice.

9mm: The 9mm round is often denigrated, but the fact is I used to carry a 9mm as my everyday carry until I bought my concealable .45. The 9mm is smaller, but faster, than the .45 and the .40, and carrying a hollowpoint round here is even more critical. However, 9mm often takes 2 shots to stop, so if you're going to carry a 9mm (or any other gun, really) practice is very, very important. Double-Tap!

That's it. That's the, uh, unholy trinity of hand gun rounds that I'd recommend.

The rest are too small in my opinion. And no, I especially recommend against a .357 magnum -- it's a small bullet (even smaller than the roughly .38 9mm round) and much, much faster. Even with an expanding round I think the risk of the bullet passing through the target and wreaking havoc on innocents is too great. .380 ACP, .38 Special, .22 -- better than nothing, but unless you hit a vital organ you might just piss the person off.

Home defense? IF you can handle the recoil, get a shotgun. Otherwise, or if you're married, the AR-15 is an excellent choice. Or even better -- get both! I have one of each, as my wife is not physically strong enough to reliably handle the 12 gauge boomstick. The AR-15 on the other hand, has very little recoil (part of why they're so popular) and most women can easily handle it. Plus, most magazines are 30 round capacity (and MagPuls are awesome). The AR-15, despite the claims of our mentally retarded Vice President, is EASIER, not harder, to handle than a shotgun.

For the AR-15, you can buy expanding rounds, typically both Hollowpoint and Softpoint (especially in .223 Remington - but be careful here. If your rifle is not rated for the 5.56x45 NATO rounds, DON'T USE THEM IN YOUR RIFLE. However, if your rifle is rated for 5.56 NATO (like mine is) you can use either 5.56x45 or .223 Remington. The 5.56 round is same bullet, but the 5.56 NATO variety has a lot more powder behind it, meaning a much faster muzzle velocity. For the shotgun -- double-aught buckshot, and maybe for the last one load it with a 1 oz slug. Though be sure of what you're shooting at, that slug may pass through your brick and your neighbor's brick.

Finally -- always aim for center mass. Unless the bad guy has body armor, headshots are stupid. And if you think you can "shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hands"... well, the gene pool is better off without you in it.

Found a special, for $59 you can get 120 rounds of 5.56x45 NATO, 55 grain FMJ-BT, with a plastic ammo can.

Finally. 1000 rounds cost me $600 earlier, but then again, I also picked up 68 grain green tipped NATO FMJ rounds, so I bought something slightly different. (My AR-15 will obviously handle both with no problem. I prefer a heavier bullet, more momentum usually means more penetration depth.)

For you non-ballistics guys and gals: Grain represents the bullet weight - a lighter bullet will have more range, but will pack less punch when it reaches the target. BT = Boat Tail, which also adds some additional range and in-flight stability. The 5.56 bullet is so lethal because it tends to yaw and fragment once it hits tissue (or ballistics gel) and the path of the bullet because very unpredictable (more predictable in a consistent gel, but far less predictable in a Boar).

Cheaper bullet prices = more range time for me. A day at the range is always a good day.

Logic, reason, clarity of rational thought -- all these are things that utterly escape damn_registrars.

Pudge, you'd have a better chance if you went to Niagara Falls and started yelling at the water to stop falling then you will ever have in getting through to this putz. It's utterly hopeless, and damn_registrars is too close-minded and quite frankly incapable of understanding any thought outside of his limited, spoon-fed liberal world view. He's like an even more dishonest, annoying version of Rachel Maddow with even fewer "facts". Probably less manly, than Ms. Maddow, too.

I won't claim to know how old he/she/whatever is, but there is ample evidence in the account's posting history to suggest that damn_registrars is essentially an emotionally and mentally stunted individual trapped in a never ending adolescence.

As such, any attempts at an intelligent, rational discussion with this fool are in vain.

As to the ludicrous charges of "fake conservatism"... he called me that because he can't believe that anyone would think the way I do. Apparently he has yet to discover Senator Ted Cruz. Should be entertaining when he does...

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. He currently lives in the White House, and enjoys all the privileges of the presidency, including 24/7 security protection (including that of the protection from food poisoning).

Mr. Edward Snowden currently lives in an undisclosed location somewhere in Russia. He currently is under 24/7 threat from the United States of America for allegation of "treason".

One is currently the "President" and the other is currently labeled as a "fugitive".

For the past several months, revelations from the so-called "fugitive" has deeply troubled that "President", so much so that, few hours ago, that "President" had to come out to admit that the United States of America has spied on millions of people for no reason whatsoever.

It took MONTHS for that so-called "President" to admit his own wrongdoing, but even when that "President" has confessed to his own sin, Mr. Snowden, the "fugitive", is still under constant threat.

This is year 2014. The 14th years into the 21st century, and yet, our society still treats people with integrity, such as Mr. Edward Snowden, as a "fugitive". Meanwhile a man with no integrity whatsoever still gets to live inside the White House.

Is this the United States of America the founding fathers had envisioned ?

Or has the United States of America turned into the very DICTATORIAL MONSTER the founding fathers was fighting against ?

Wendy,
Here's a dollar. Take a bus downtown and have a rat chew that thing off your face.
-- RG