Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Same problem as the anti-glasshole movement (Score 1) 127

by CanHasDIY (#46772071) Attached to: Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...

Which, in turn, reminds me to ask - do we know if Glass has an IR filter built into it? IF so, then my high-powered IR LED system won't be very effective against them (although, it will still be highly effective against traditional security cameras).

Hmmm.... maybe some sort of pocket-sized EMF pump?

I can't imagine any issues with carrying something like that in close proximity to your genitals...

Side note, RE: EMF pumps - I love how a Google search of that term brings up nothing but "ghost" sucker, er, I mean hunter, equipment sales sites. Nothing funnier to me than droves of people doing their damnedest to prove P.T. Barnum right.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 683

Does your mommy know you're using her computer to talk to strangers?

oh, and btw, continuing the practice of attacking me, personally? Only serves to prove my contention that you have the mental maturity of a pre-adolescent child who didn't get his way.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 683

Sigh, you're an idiot.

Says the guy who's only 'argument' boils down to a personal attack with zero substance. Congratulations on destroying any credibility you might have had before you decided to attack me personally, rather than argue a salient point.

What broken piece of machinery in your head is forcing you to wrongly ASSume that the foreshadowing has to apply to him?

I wouldn't consider the knowledge that a single ad on a single website does not foretell of events that are going to happen anyway as a "broken piece of machinery," as you imply. But feel free to keep it up with the ad hominems in place of valid arguments. Because, you know, calling someone an idiot as opposed to actually pointing out what part of their statements are idiotic is totally working for you!

Now, if you'll excuse me, there are grown-ups here that want to have a real discussion and not trade playground barbs, and I'd much rather give my time to them, than someone with the mental acuity of a petulant 14-year-old.

Comment: Re:"Ignoring the traditional definition of the ter (Score 1) 1114

by CanHasDIY (#46770079) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.

So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.

Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.

Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.

Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both.

I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.

It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes

The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.

If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to

I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.

"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.

Comment: Re:Same problem as the anti-glasshole movement (Score 1) 127

by CanHasDIY (#46769657) Attached to: Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

Comment: Re:WTF?? (Score 1) 683

But they were not committing that crime during the recording.

Sure they were - they were witnessing a crime in progress, and did nothing to stop or report it. Granted, this is in a fairly abstract sense, but we're discussing a case where the victim was forced to destroy evidence, then was prosecuted and convicted based on this now non-existent evidence. "Fairly abstract" seems to be the name of the game in PA's legal system.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.

They're both accurate methods of verifying the legality of the recording, although I think your case would be the more reasonable of the two.

Comment: Re:"Ignoring the traditional definition of the ter (Score 1) 1114

by CanHasDIY (#46768917) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.

First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.

As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.

Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?

Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.

Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)

In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.

Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.

just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning

If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 683

He is correct in the use of the term foreshadowing and feels.

Not sure what you mean by that, unless you, too, wonder if he's planning on using an AR-15 for nefarious purposes.

Perhaps you should look up the definition?

Sure, here you go:

Foreshadowing - a literary device by which an author explains certain plot developments that may come later in the story.

Weird that you would agree with me in such a seemingly disagreeable manner...

Comment: Re:"What I find interesting is how..." (Score 1) 1114

by CanHasDIY (#46768575) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

What you *should* find interesting is that this guy knows a metric crap-ton more than you do about the history of the Constitution, and maybe your opinion is like a second grader giving advice to NASA about how to construct their next heavy lift vehicle.

I do not oppose personal ownership of firearms, but I find it really arrogant for armchair legal history scholars (read: ignoramuses) to try to foist their particular skew on history.

Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.

Me so sorry, Masa! Oh lordy lord, how dare ah step out of mah place 'n quweshtun authoritah! Puh-leeze don't whup me, Masa! I'll never roam ag'in!

You know what I find arrogant? Armchair character assassins, who don't know me from Adam, assuming that I have less understanding of American history than the next guy.

Comment: Re:"Ignoring the traditional definition of the ter (Score 1) 1114

by CanHasDIY (#46768461) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia".

Traditionally, the term has been defined as "an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia

So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Working...