Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Better News? (Score 1) 97 97

...the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which called the ITA expansion 'great news for the American workers and businesses that design, manufacture, and export state-of-the-art technology and information products, ranging from MRI machines to semiconductors to video game consoles.'"

Uh-huh. Right.

You know what would be even better news for US tech hardware exporters?

If they didn't have a huge boat anchor attached in the form of NSA built-in backdoors and vulnerabilities.

Really, if you're a foreign corporation that competes in any way with US corporations/interests/research, or any government/organization/individual that US TLAs could possibly even tangentially term "of interest", would you buy stuff from US makers/manufacturers despite what's been revealed publicly over the last 20 years to present concerning US TLA activity within the US tech manufacturing/exporting industries?

Particularly in light of the recent revelations of so many unlawful and/or unconstitutional programs and activities engaged in by US intelligence organizations courtesy of the courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden, which keep revealing new programs that violate constitutional principles and prohibitions with every new dump from the trove.

US tech companies have to overcome all that (quite understandable and logical) mistrust (good luck!), and *then* compete against other corporations that don't have that perceived millstone around their necks.

This will not turn out well for the US tech industries that need/rely on exporting their goods, and with cheap imports flowing into the US, even those who were national/regional in nature will find themselves priced out of the market.

1. Mining/Drilling - Offshored

2. Steel mfg - Offshored

3. Heavy Industries/Factories - Offshored

4. Artificial politically-motivated limits on energy production and artificially-created increases in cost.

5. ...?

I'm not liking the direction this is trending.

If it roughly parallels past similar historical scenarios, it doesn't end well for anyone in the US (well, except those 'too big to starve'), neither Left nor Right, nor atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever "ism" or party you favor.

Strat

Comment Re:The article should use "ridiculous" 0 times. (Score 1) 292 292

The only ignorance here is from you quoting that vile nut job Rand, still your usual delusional crap so meh.

Nice ad hominem. Last resort and all that, eh? Too bad you seem incapable of countering the concepts presented in any meaningful way.

The analytical & intellectual content of your post speaks for itself. I need not reply further.

Good day, sir!

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

So tell me, why do you want to KILL CHILDREN?? Do you hate them so much?

Just...wow.

Over the top, much?

You need a lot less caffeine or some psychiatric help. Maybe both.

If there had been responsible people with guns at these mass shootings a lot of lives could have been saved.

There's one common thread in these murders. The overwhelming majority occurred in a "gun free zone" but hoplophobes refuse to acknowledge or address the fact that cowardly murderers prefer defenseless victims.

Which is what anti-gun zealots create through their fear, shortsightedness, and political/ideological agendas: Helpless victims for murdering cowards.

It's people that ignore reality and push to disarm law abiding citizens and prevent them from protecting themselves, their families, and others that create helpless victims. They share a large burden of guilt for these atrocities.

Good day, sir!

Comment Re:The article should use "ridiculous" 0 times. (Score 1) 292 292

How can they enforce the law properly when they do not know it themselves?

Because enforcing the law properly is not a priority. This is proven almost daily as it is extremely rare for law enforcement officers to face any negative repercussions for failing to do so.

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

When the process = the punishment the law is. in effect, whatever a law enforcement officer decides it is on any given occasion and need not be consistent or comport with the letter of the law in any way.

Welcome to the police/surveillance state formerly known as the United States. See my sig.

Strat

Comment Re:The article should use "ridiculous" 0 times. (Score 1) 292 292

Noted! Anyone who quotes this rubbish cannot be taken seriously.

Noted! Anyone who dismisses a concept out of hand because of who said it rather than positing a counter-argument about what was said cannot be taken seriously.

Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance.

Strat

Comment Re:The article should use "ridiculous" 0 times. (Score 5, Informative) 292 292

Please keep in mind that I find it insane that the government can hide the law from its citizens; to have a free society the law has to be equal for everyone, and this more than anything else puts a divide between the haves and the have-nots.

I'll just leave this here.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Strat

Comment Re:why so little pragmatism. (Score 1) 169 169

However, given how cheap armor is compared to other protection options, I don't think we're getting a bad deal here.

Even if armor works perfectly and stops any shrapnel or superheated explosion-related gasses & fire, any really significant detonation will still turn occupants into pink goo from acceleration/deceleration forces.

If a heavily-armored limo gets tossed 500 feet through the air by an explosion, it's game over for the occupants even if the armor's integrity is not breached in any way.

It's sort of like shaking a raw egg inside a metal box. It's gonna be messy.

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

I'm more at risk of dying from my spouse shooting me or from a weapon-related accident than from being shot at by criminals. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]

You quote a NIH study when the NIH is ideologically opposed to firearm ownership to begin with. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I dismiss this for the same reasons you'd dismiss a study funded by the NRA that contradicts it.

Incorrect. There are no such laws in pretty much EVERY state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Wiki page you cite does not address mandatory licensed firearm instructor run safety courses in any way. Just a few miles from where I live there is a gun range that does a brisk business in providing said mandatory courses. In the 9 States in which I've personally resided there were similar mandates. And then you cite a Salon article, a well known left-leaning website ideologically opposed to the 2nd Amendment? Really? Bias, much?

FYI, most legal gun owners are more competent and safe with a gun than many, if not most, law enforcement officers, and LEOs carry 24/7, even off-duty.

Complete BS. Most gun owners have trouble distinguishing which end of a gun actually shoots bullets.

You outdo yourself here with both a baseless ad hominem *and* a sweeping generalization with no evidence whatsoever. How "open minded" and Progressive of you.

I also have a right not to be shot by you, because you mess up the safety switch.

Since you've been in the military, you are a high risk for PTSD. So then, you're fine with being forbidden to obtain a driver's license and placed under constant surveillance, since you might snap at any time and decide to plow through a crowd with your 2-1/2 ton missile or go nuts with an axe, right?

A free and open society comes with risks. Being in such a constant state of fear, perhaps you should ask to be sent to a prison where you can be watched & protected from the "scary" world 24/7/365.

Your fear does not trump my natural and Constitutionally protected rights as a human being. Grow a set, or just grow up.

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

And yes, the actual law-abiding citizens are much safer when only criminals have weapons.

Lolwut!?

Care to explain the (any) logic in that? You know hoplophobia can be treated with therapy and possibly anti-depressant/anxiety medications, right?

Police draw chalk outlines and write reports long after the shooting is over. When seconds count, police are only minutes away. And again, police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect individuals.

For the record, I went through military training and I can use automatic weapons, RPGs and grenades.

So what? There are laws requiring mandatory safety & competency training for legal handgun owners in nearly every jurisdiction. FYI, most legal gun owners are more competent and safe with a gun than many, if not most, law enforcement officers, and LEOs carry 24/7, even off-duty.

On the whole, I'd be far more worried about those LEOs than legal firearms owners, especially since LEOs have limited immunity, the 'thin blue line', and unions at their back to absolve them of liability, which regular citizens do not.

And I still don't even _want_ to have guns at home (And carrying them everyday? That's insane).

It's your right to be a defenseless victim for any armed criminal that comes along. You have no right to make that choice for others. Neither you nor anyone else, including government, will infringe on my natural right to defend my life, my family's lives, and my property, period, full stop.

Strat

Comment Re:Makes sense to me (Score 1) 157 157

They just use the clues/data to backtrack alternative paths to the clues/data and claim the clues/data was obtained through those means. The original search warrant need never be mentioned in court, even though the clues/data are used.

[Samuel Jackson voice]

"It's a (government) thug life bitch, we're takin' that shit and you keep your motherfucking mouth shut or I swear to God I'll pop a cap in your motherfucking ass, motherfucker!

Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say 'what' one more Goddamn time!"

[/Samuel Jackson voice]

Word!

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

I could refer you to this study as an example of the myth of the gun defense argument.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

One can use carefully-chosen and cherry-picked statistics to prove whatever one wishes.

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

No amount of statistics will disprove that maxim.

Police are also under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect individuals.

You can choose to take responsibility for your own personal safety or you can choose to become a statistic yourself.

Your choice.

Just do not remove that choice (and Constitutionally-protected & SCOTUS-affirmed civil right) for others.

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.

As a Californian: not enough.

Yes, because disarming law-abiding citizens is a well known and effective tactic to prevent street gangs and Mexican drug cartels who transport whatever they wish across the border from obtaining, possessing, and using guns against those same law-abiding citizens.

Bravo, Sir!

You have single-handedly solved all gun crime!

You win an internets!

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 1) 312 312

They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.

Hey, at least he didn't bite a Pop-Tart into a rough 'L'-shape that could...with a large amount of make-believe...resemble the shape of a pistol! Oh, the horror! Poor kid's name is now likely a permanent entry on the infamous "No-Fly List".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Strat

Comment Re:if they don't know, why should anyone else? (Score 1) 312 312

If *everyone* is ignorant of the law, then why in the hell should ordinary citizens be held to a higher standard?

Simple. Because those in power want the ability to fine & imprison those who threaten the status quo and/or their power & wealth and their continued acquisition & accumulation of same in some way.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Atlas Shrugged

Strat

Comment Re: They're not going to arrest him! (Score 3, Informative) 312 312

Because he is not in full control of the firearm.

Neither is a person who places a firearm in a gun rest and fires it with a string on the trigger for testing purposes.

Arrest warrants all around for the cast and crew of MythBusters, then?

Strat

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark

Working...