But it's just a fuse.
Pi is cheap. It's not documented well at all (because Broadcom), and it's far less widely available than commodity PCs, tablets, and phones (which I can buy cash-and-carry at Walmart and, sometimes, even Aldi).
Hobbyists like it because it is cheap, and it has the GPIO lines from the SoC built-out on a header.
End-users like it because it is cheap, speaks HDMI, and runs Kodi and Retropie.
But it's not fast. It's definitely built down to a price. And open? No. Not even a little bit, unless you count the fact that "it runs software, as long as you have the right binary blobs" as being "open."
But it's just an automotive fuse.
In 10 minutes, I can walk to any of three different places and buy an automotive fuse.
Why in the fuck would anyone bother with going online and manually enter everything including blood type, just to buy an automotive fuse? Especially if they're going to pick it up in person anyway?
We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.
What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.
And note well that this "well organized militia" would need to be totally independent of government control or approval. But it's also worth noting that such things have a very bad track record historically, i.e. even worse than governments.
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.
This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.
The comment was about the flow of drugs.
It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.
Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).
But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)
OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.
You don't seem to understand. This was an advertisement intended to reach those who weren't thinking about the problem. Anything that requires an explicit search would not meet the goal.
To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.
The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.
As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie