Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Racism of law-enforcement (Score -1, Flamebait) 540

by mi (#48040559) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

No. It is about race, in a significant number of cases. Just look at the statistics of people open carrying (or people getting shot at).

Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed. Please, try again. Be sure, your links point to differences between ratios of law-breakers vs. prosecutions by race. Any pointers comparing ratios populations vs. prosecutions are meaningless and will be discarded.

In the specific case of John Crawford (RIP), the poor guy that got shot down while carrying a toy gun to the cash register

A single case does not make for statistics.

but there is a clear distinction in attitude and partial/subjective enforcement of the law that still crosses racial lines

If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence...

Comment: Re:Let me be the first to say (Score 3, Insightful) 523

by mi (#48040415) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

You know that FBI Director Comer, the guy that started this BS a couple of days ago is a Republican, right?? The only thing I blame Obama for is appointing Republicans, as cover, to defense, security and law enforcement posts.

Except, the person quoted by TFA is Eric Holder, who is as Democrat as it can possibly get...

Off-topic much?

+ - Obama Administration argues for backdoors in personal electronics->

Submitted by mi
mi (197448) writes "

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on Tuesday that new forms of encryption capable of locking law enforcement officials out of popular electronic devices imperil investigations of kidnappers and sexual predators, putting children at increased risk.

Seriously. Would somebody, please, think of the children?!"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: the solution: (Score 0) 540

by mi (#48039183) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?

In a way pornography is consistent with the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Heck, much better than that: any militia — well-regulated or otherwise — can use such a rifle whether or not it has serial number.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 0) 540

by mi (#48038985) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

The Constitution allowed slavery

Nope, there until the Thirteenth Amendment.

and no vote for women

Nope, the Constitution was silent on the matter until the Nineteenth Amendment.

We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time.

Sure. The point was, for any such laws to be valid, the Second Amendment has to be abolished (or altered) first. Hardly unheard of — the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, was repealed by the Twenty-first, for example.

Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document

I am making a legal argument, and I'm referencing (not "hiding behind" — whatever that means) a legal document — the Constitution.

Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles? What are the real distinctions?

As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, there are no distinctions. If you feel there should be, you need to discard (or reword) the Amendment — until then, any and all weapons are, indeed, legal under the Constitution.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 0) 540

by mi (#48038835) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

deeply-confused gun-nuts who thinks that banning guns designed for mass murder means banning defensive guns.

I don't see, where in the Second Amendment there is any distinction made. An 18-century cannon fired at the right target would be no less devastating ("mass-murderous"), than an M-16 today. Yet, the Constitution makes no exceptions — any arms can kept and any can be born.

If you wish to see any such limitations added, you should be arguing for abolishing the Amendment — not violating it, as is common practice now.

But, if limiting the weapons "designed for mass murder" were indeed the goal, why are the brass knuckles and "bladed weapons" illegal anywhere? I mentioned this mystery in the post you replied to, but you chose to bring up "mass murder" anyway — which means, you are not merely mistaken here, but are a liar (or, indeed, simply a troll).

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 0) 540

by mi (#48038679) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to carry a sword with you?

The point was to demonstrate, that people harping on "assault weapons" and seek to limit the size of a magazine, are fools or liars. As are those, who try to limit the Second Amendment protection to the sort of weaponry available when the Amendment was written.

I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.

I should think, it is none of your business. Whether there is such "call" or not, as long as the Second Amendment is in effect, no local ordinances can (legally) ban any arms — certainly not those, which were in wide use, when the Amendment was written

That said, the brass knuckles, which I listed in the same sentence, remain quite convenient to carry — and will not harm your toddler, should he find them (another oft-repeated argument against firearms) — yet, you chose to ignore them completely...

I thus doubt your honesty and sincerity here and am unlikely to respond again.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 4, Interesting) 540

by mi (#48037941) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

+ - America's F-22 Raptor (at $422 million per plane) is Wasting its Time Over Syria->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "With much fanfare, the F-22 Raptor, developed in the early 1990's at a cost of $422 million per plane, has taken to the skies over Syria. It has dropped precision munitions on various targets to much fanfare. However, when you consider the enemy, ISIS in Syria who has no air force and no anti-air weapons that could offer any resistance to the advance 5th generation fighter, the shine fades pretty quickly. However, there could be a much deeper motive: to prove once and for all that the F-35, the world's most expensive weapons program in history is actually a good idea:

"Maybe the F-22's debut is related to another aircraft. The F-22 production line has been shut down, so the 187 Raptors still flying (that number is bound to decrease due to accidents and age) are the first and the last. But what is coming is 2,443 of the Pentagon's other ultra-controversial fifth-generation stealth fighter — the F-35. The Raptor sat out the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Now that an F-22 stealth fighter has flown one combat mission, it might be easier to defend the F-35 against its numerous critics who complain about the aircraft's cost and performance.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Soon to be patched (Score 1) 326

by mi (#48023359) Attached to: Bash To Require Further Patching, As More Shellshock Holes Found

It's Ubuntu, so whatever their market share is.

Not much. RedHat/CentOS dominate — and they are vulnerable...

It is also an OSX bug, an HPUX bug, a vxWorks bug, and, well, really, a bug in any OS that has bash installed

Not quite. Merely having it installed is not enough. Placing it into the all-important role of /bin/shthat is what makes it particularly dangerous — and a bug of whatever OS does such a thing.

You may have all your CGI-scripts written in Perl or Lisp, but if you use system() anywhere to spawn off a different program, then you are exposed to this problem on those systems.

Whether or not Ubuntu and CentOS are different OSes or just different distributions, is a matter of semantics...

Comment: Re:Soon to be patched (Score 1) 326

by mi (#48023163) Attached to: Bash To Require Further Patching, As More Shellshock Holes Found

I'm going to guess RedHat or CentOS?

Yep.

Observe (from one of my production systems)

What is the market share of your Linux-distribution?

My point is that this is not a Linux bug, it is a bash bug.

It absolutely is a bash bug, yes. It is also a bug in any Linux, that makes it /bin/sh.

Comment: Re:Soon to be patched (Score 1) 326

by mi (#48021643) Attached to: Bash To Require Further Patching, As More Shellshock Holes Found

having absolutely nothing to do with Linux.

Oh, it has plenty to do with Linux, because if you happen to use that OS, even putting the #!/bin/sh at the top still makes you vulnerable. Observe:

% ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Sep 26 15:55 /bin/sh -> bash

I said that already, you chose to ignore it for some reason...

And then, of course, comes the system(3) call, which invokes /bin/sh too...

Comment: Re:Soon to be patched (Score 2) 326

by mi (#48020877) Attached to: Bash To Require Further Patching, As More Shellshock Holes Found

Neither bug was a Linux bug, though both affected Linux systems

Arguably, the bug in Linux was in that it chose to use a program as large and complicated as bash as its idea of /bin/sh.

Though bash is, of course, available on all other OSes, no one else makes it the interpreter behind most of the system's own scripts as well as the system(3) function.

Comment: Re:Referendum at sea (Score 1) 199

by mi (#48020629) Attached to: Exxon and Russian Operation Discovers Oil Field Larger Than the Gulf of Mexico

Firstly, the surrounding islands and mainland are already occupied - in many cases by Russian nuclear missile bases

You only need one island — no matter, how small — to make a claim.

Secondly - you did notice that the country you're planning to invade has nuclear weapons, didn't you?

So do we. As long as we aren't attacking anyone, but simply building a peaceful house, there is no fighting...

People like you

Yeah, sure. It is all about me... Ad hominem much? BTW, you misspelled the "neo-KKKonz"...

Comment: Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired (Score 1) 221

by mi (#48020197) Attached to: Nearly 2,000 Chicago Flights Canceled After Worker Sets Fire At Radar Center

FAA has a monopoly on hiring air traffic controllers

Yes, and Pentagon has a monopoly power to hire soldiers. It is a governmental organization and any government is a monopoly by definition (which is a good reason to keep its responsibilities to a minimum, but that's another story).

Unions exist because a single employee does not have bargaining power against a corporation.

Which corporation were the air-traffic controllers bargaining with, when Reagan crushed them? Hint: public employees (be they air controllers or policemen) aren't struggling against any corporations — their employers are the taxpayers. They should not be allowed to unionize — and certainly, not strike:

strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Without them, we'd be working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week with no benefits.

Really? So, if we get the current abysmal union-membership to, say, above 80%, we'll only have to work one day a week? For 2 hours? Wouldn't that be great!!

People aren't the same as products.

People — workers — choose to sell their labor on the free market to the willing buyers. Any attempts to make that market not free should be met with the same energetic response Standard Oil and AT&T have encountered, when they tried to become a monopoly.

They have basic needs and human rights that we prefer them to have.

Any smart employer addresses basic needs of the workers — in order to keep them happy and thus more productive. No employer is allowed to violate human rights — unions or not...

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...