Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:now aren't you glad, Obama voters?? (Score 1) 254

by Tablizer (#48041529) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

I agree that Mr. O flunks civil liberties as much as Bush (and probably Mitt), but there are other categories to consider besides civil liberties. I wish there were federal issue votes on the ballot for this kind of thing, similar to some States' "propositions". That way we don't have to lump bunches of different issues into:

Please select one:
[_] Jerk A
[_] Jerk B

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 2) 395

by nbauman (#48041505) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

In times past, yes. Nowadays however gun-rights activists indeed are heavily recruiting minorities to try and appeal to them. The NRA brought on Colion Noir (a black gun owner/vlogger) as a spokesperson, and they were very quick to jump to Shaneen Allen's defense when she (a black woman) was arrested in New Jersey for accidentally violating one of their draconian gun laws.

Simply put - trying to paint the NRA or gun rights activists as racist is a trick that simply doesn't work anymore. 40-50 years ago it was true, but back then half the country was racist. The whole country - including the gun rights movement - has come a long way.

No. Even today, gun laws are enforced disproportionately against blacks.

Best evidence of that is New York's stop and frisk laws. That was basically an experimental suppression of the 4th Amendment. They arrested people mostly for drugs and secondarily for guns. There was lots of court testimony to show that the stops were disproportionately used against blacks.

The overall result was to take guns away from blacks. A lot of black people said they didn't carry guns because they were afraid of stop and frisk. White people didn't have to worry.

Comment: Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score 1) 199

actually weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy, >90%, out to abot four days.

For who? For how much of the land? In any case, that's not even possible, because if I check three sources for my area, they will say three different things at least two days out of three.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 395

by nbauman (#48040487) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Whatever. Here's an idea, either respect the Constitution and its underlying values, or focus on repealing the Second Amendment using the process provided for doing so.

Legislative end runs around the founders' clearly expressed intents are not acceptable. Why not? Because they'll come for your favorite amendment next.

You don't know what the founder's expressed intention was. What's clear to you isn't clear to a lot of other people. In practice, the Supreme Court decides. Whoever gets a majority in the Supreme Court wins.

I can guarantee you that the Supreme Court will never decide that the Second Amendment allows you to carry a gun into their courtroom.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 2) 395

by nbauman (#48040151) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women.

It did no such thing, it simply reserved such matters to the States, per the 10th Amendment. The 14th and 19th Amendments changed that of course.

The way I read English, when the Constitution doesn't prohibit slavery, and leaves it to the states, it allows slavery.

Incidentally, the established process of amending the Constitution (Article V) is available for gun control proponents to take advantage of if they think they can actually win a debate on the merits of the issue. All you need to do is convince 2/3rd's of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to sign off on a repeal or amendment of the 2nd Amendment. Best of luck with that. :)

Unfortunately, a small, aggressive, well-funded minority can always subvert the democratic process.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 395

by nbauman (#48040081) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line. The freedom loving patriots in the south never rose up to free the black slaves - that took a fucking government army.

The fastest way to get gun control is to have black people carry guns.

In California, as soon as the Black Panther Party started to carry guns, the California legislature passed gun control laws, which Ronald Reagan signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment: Re: the solution: (Score 3, Interesting) 395

by nbauman (#48039585) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

It is about race.

Do you know where the old gun control laws in this country came from? In 1966, the Black Panthers started carrying guns in public. In 1967, the California legislature passed a law against carrying guns in public, which was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The fastest way to get gun control today would be for the black demonstrators to carry guns every time a black man gets shot by a cop.

Comment: Re:Drug charges (Score 1) 223

by drinkypoo (#48038967) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

We restrict access to certain drugs for (mostly) very good reasons.

All the evidence shows that this is nonsense, that you always cause more problems than you solve because you drive addiction underground and people wind up taking drugs of varying quality because of their illegal nature.

If you can explain to me the upside to society of someone having a cocaine or heroin addiction then I'll concede the point.

If prohibition prevented use, you would have a point.

Comment: Re:Moire expensive car, richer driver, that's FINE (Score 1) 223

by drinkypoo (#48037433) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

I *know* they wouldn't have done that had I been driving a BMW 745i - drastically different experiences, all based on the make/model of the car.

And this is why I shifted to driving top-of-the-line Kraut Kans. Even an old one still commands respect. I can fly by at 80 in my 300SD, nothing. But go by at 70 in the Astro and they squint hard to see how Mexican you are. I'm working on prepping an A8 now, which should make me even more invisible. Paint's much better than my 300SD.

+ - Back to faxes: Doctors can't exchange digital medical records-> 1

Submitted by nbauman
nbauman (624611) writes "Doctors with one medical records system can't exchange information with systems made by other vendors, including those at their own hospitals, according to the New York Times. An ophthalmologist spent half a million dollars on a system and still keeps sending faxes. If doctors can't exchange records, they'll face a 1% Medicare penalty. The largest vendor is Epic Systems, Madison, WI, which holds almost half the medical records in the U.S. A RAND report described Epic as a “closed” platform that made it “challenging and costly” for hospitals to interconnect. UC Davis has a staff of 22 to keep everything communicating. Epic charges a fee to send data to some non-Epic systems. Congress held hearings. Epic hired a lobbyist. Epic's founder, billionaire computer science major Judith Faulkner, said that Epic was one of the first to establish code and standards for secure interchange, which included user authentication provisions and a legally binding contract. She said the federal government, which gave $24 billion incentive payments to doctors for computerization, should have done that. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said that it was a "top priority" and they just wrote a 10-year vision statement and agenda for it."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Who drives $2,500 used sports cars? Teen boys (Score 2) 223

by drinkypoo (#48037409) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

> TFA was bullshit when I saw the Supra on the list ranked at #4 (and the 3000 GT at #17).
> They stopped making both of those cars well over 10 years ago

So they are sporty cars that are ten years old and now worth about $2,500.

HAHAHAHA. If you buy a Supra or a 3000GT for $2,500, you'll be lucky if you can get it up to law-violating speed.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...