That's not boot of the system, but boot from OS into GUI.
When it can be properly reproduced by other people, and not just one person shitting up their PC with malware and then whining about "slow downs", you can start calling it a bug.
A good example was XP update overflow bug, that caused update process to become cripplingly slow right before the end of support.
Another is a known issue with XP SP2, which is more of a feature than a bug - it added several complex features to the OS, which upped system requirements.
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
I think that's exactly what this article is talking about. That single piece of shit software being some version of Windows that was either pre-installed or that they installed.
Non social or Unsocial. Antisocial is picking people off with a rifle from your front door as they walk/drive by.
The earliest "gun control laws" were applied by Imperial governments to colonists, to control a growing civilian population with a remotely managed and badly outnumbered Imperial military in _every_ nation's colonies. Then there was a long gap, due to the War for Independence and the 2nd Amendment, then it started up as a US federal policy in the 1930's applied to machine guns and sawed off shotguns. It grew in the 1960's _due to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King_, which illustrated the growing risk of assassination for respected leaders.
April 23, 2012 Issue
One nation, under the gun.
By Jill Lepore
As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”
Although these laws were occasionally challenged, they were rarely struck down in state courts; the state’s interest in regulating the manufacture, ownership, and storage of firearms was plain enough. Even the West was hardly wild. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” Winkler writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token.” In Wichita, Kansas, in 1873, a sign read, “Leave Your Revolvers at Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.” The first thing the government of Dodge did when founding the city, in 1873, was pass a resolution that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” On the road through town, a wooden billboard read, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.” The shoot-out at the O.K. Corral, in Tombstone, Arizona, Winkler explains, had to do with a gun-control law. In 1880, Tombstone’s city council passed an ordinance “to Provide against the Carrying of Deadly Weapons.” When Wyatt Earp confronted Tom McLaury on the streets of Tombstone, it was because McLaury had violated that ordinance by failing to leave his gun at the sheriff’s office.
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times. For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.
Why? People have been self-repairing and modifying production cars since there were production cars. It has always been well understood that the owner that does that takes responsibility for their own work.
If all they wanted was a liability waiver, that would be one thing (perhaps a bit paranoid, but not so far out there) but demanding final say over whether or not he is allowed to drive the vehicle is way over the top.
I hope he figures out how to power it up himself and publishes the procedure.
Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.
And any government official who so readily argues that "protection of children" is the reason for any measure they want to put forth, no matter how heavily such a measure can and will be misused and abused, should be summarily removed from office right then and there and be banned for life from any public servant position.
The reality is was all about FBI agents with delusions of grandeur of pursuing 'Anonymous' and breaking open of global network of tens of thousands cyber activists. One giant global 'criminal' fishing expedition, with agents so blinded by the idea of becoming special agent super heroes then ended up breaking laws all over the planet without the permission or legal authority of those countries networks they were hacking.
This brings to mind the recent US proesecution of four individuals and the claims of hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, so how much damage has the FBI caused. Based on calculations they have submitted themselves perhaps 10 of billions of dollars damage to global computer networks and the companies using and creating them. Tens of billions of dollars damage, now that puts them squarely in the hole of being actively involved in global economic warfare, attempting to damage the economies of other countries by hacking computer networks and but the FBIs own evaluation of economic damage causing billions of dollars of damage.
This all to entrap a bunch of minors there own inside person, lured into crime, not only drawing them in but providing the tools and the knowledge and selecting the targets, this in of itself a criminal act especially when minors are to be the victims of conniving adults.
They can spin this any way they want, but the only explanation that makes sense is that they were hoping that this operation would at some point lead them to Assange (who had prior contacts with Sabu). Shame on them.
What's really astonishing is they needed to resort to this despite the billions they've sunk into the NSA and their obvious and complete disregard for even the fundamental principles of law and the constitution.
The problem that he is trying to address, I think, is that buying it from a dealer leaves a record. First there's the NICS check - and yes, by law those are transient and remain in the system for a few days only, but I would be very surprised if NSA doesn't get to stash it somewhere in practice. Then there's the 4473 form that's filled in for that check to be performed, and that the dealer has to keep around basically forever. While the government doesn't get the form - which allows them to say that they do not maintain any kind of gun registry - in practice ATF can come to any licensed dealer and demand them to turn over all their 4473s, with no reason or explanation necessary. So in practice it's a kind of registry, just a distributed one, and it makes some libertarian-minded people uneasy.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that making a barrel is the hardest part.
Making a rifled barrel is. But a shotgun barrel is basically just a pipe of the right diameter, and it doesn't even have to be particularly strong - the pressures are low enough.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AR require only a full auto sear and a corresponding bolt to make a semi-auto one into a full auto? so the receiver itself (which is the serialized part) doesn't really matter, only the bits which are housed inside it (and which are not controlled).
In any case, they track things separately for NFA purposes. For example, a full auto sear is a "machine gun".
I'm not sure why this is a big deal, its still REALLY hard to build a barrel and chamber so you still need to buy them, honestly making the receiver the registered part is silly most people could build a receiver with time and effort few people could make a decent barrel or precise chamber.
Building a rifled barrel is hard. A smoothbore is fairly easy, though, and it's still "accurate enough" out to 100 yards or so (on human sized targets, anyway). In a close range full auto firearm, you care even less about accuracy.
And turns out that you don't even need to build it - you can just take some standard pipes and use them for it. There are some that fit remarkably well for 9x19mm, for example, and a guy in UK built a submachine gun out of them, and wrote a book about it. That being UK, the guy is now in prison, but the book is still on Amazon.