And I already know that Assange is full of crap. So why would I read this?
Most people in the US are against the government being able to confiscate people's guns like this. You aren't, clearly, but this seems like a good middle ground between your "guns are something the feds allow you to have" and what the constitution says.
You are totally right. Because most of the guns used in America are used to prevent people from being "stabbed by a crazy" or shot by a terrorist.
Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION. Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?
(Bears aside - and you're usually not in a quick-draw situation against a bear. Well, maybe YOU are, Rambo, but most of us aren't.)
Because that incredibly small number of theoretical deaths is miniscule compared to the large number of REAL deaths caused by accidental/unauthorized use of guns.
Linking to an article that uses a sentence like this:
"This is just stupidity but it is common of the combination of ideology driven faux-science (see manmade global warming) and gaslighting that the left relies upon to influence public policy."
is probably not going to convince me that POSTOL is the ideological nutcase here.
What the hell was that inserted for? It was an idiotic point made on a site which clearly has a political axe to grind. It wasn't made well. Anyone claiming to engage in a scientific debate with the phrase "by my own observation" deserves to be laughed out of the room.
This is supposed to be Slashdot, not Fox. Why the hell was this included?
I'm not sure where you see me saying "And this is all okay." Or suggesting that they didn't happen. It's obviously NOT okay, and I don't think I was unclear on that. It's a gross violation of equal protection, and it was stupid to boot. But there's a difference between stupidity and a scandal.
You... you know the actual story, right? Not just the fox news version?
This isn't an issue of "politicization". The IRS was finally DOING ITS JOB and reviewing the applications of groups applying for tax-exempt status. They thought it would save time to, rather than investigate, just assume that groups with certain key words in their name - among them "tea party" and "occupy" - were engaged in political activity which should deny them that status. Amazing how Fox never reports on any groups OTHER than their chosen ones having had problems due to this, isn't it? Well, it's much easier to change the facts to match your preconceived notions than to change your notions to match the facts. And yelling about impeaching Obama is just so durned much fun!
In any case, the whole issue is about two things - 1. It's bad to profile people, anyone, anywhere, and 2. There is a strong group in Washington that doesn't want the IRS to be doing ANY kind of job, let alone stopping people from improperly receiving tax breaks for influencing elections. The ability to pretend it's some type of political cover-up is just gravy.
I was about to post this exact same comment when I read yours. I agree 100%, mbone.
Lavabit shut down because it was founded by a moron who was more interested in living up to his glorious libertarian ideals than actually living in the real world. I understand that in your Galtean paradise the fact that you had some neat tech was enough, but outside of Ayn Rand's masturbatory fantasies, you need to be aware of the rules of the world you live in. Rules like, "Do not give the finger to a judge." Rules like "If you want something to be secure, you need to have a legal team ready to go BEFORE, not AFTER, you are called into court."
Face it - your glorious security was defeated by social engineering, YOU were the weakest link. Goodbye!
If so, you're living 30 years in the past. All RMS has done in that time is valiantly fight the good fight against other people on his side who don't agree with 100% of what he says. (Citation: Slashdot's entire history)
I appreciate what he did, 30 years ago. But for my entire lifetime as a tech geek, that is literally all he has ever done. And in that time, other people have done much, much more - and done it without feeling the need to attack people who generally support their cause.
Right. That's what Mozilla's well thought out, well argued statement was. Them "Sacrificing their morals."
And after all, it's always more important to attack the people on your side who are not living up to YOUR blessed level of total moral purity than... you know... actually accomplishing anything.
Oh wait, did I say "more important"? I meant "easier".
Yawn. RMS? Attacking a much more successful group for not living up to his perceived orthodoxy? Gasp.
Thank god this is no longer a common type of article on
That the title of this story could have been written a bit more neutrally? Or more in line with the story? Or even the summary right below it?