champu

Hey, if you can get people to pay 77% over the going rate, that's business.

This.

While you're probably being sarcastic, you're also almost correct. Gen Cartwright was Vice Chairman of JCS and thus would have had original classification authority over a number of activities. That also translates to original declassification authority over those activities.[1] In other words, he would have had legal grounds to declassify and disclose information under his authority. Now, would stuxnet have been classified under his authority? Probably not.[2] Does it appear that fact of or details of the program were formally declassified before information was shared? No. Given that, if Gen Cartwright spilled the beans, it's still a leak regardless of his rank/title. [1] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/oca-desktop-reference.pdf [2] http://www.hawkclub.com/civics/targets/2-3a.h3.jpg

I might have missed it, but where did you read that they actually breached gun safes? Or is that just understood because everyone in Canada keeps unattended firearms in safes? (as is good practice) Breaking into homes to collect firearms is bad but breaking into safes and taking just firearms while leaving any other valuables now unsecured is idiotic too.

No. Which, in and of itself, is a right fine viewpoint. But here's the larger problem with it.

All existing marriages between a man and a woman will be grandfathered in as non-gay. I'm getting married to a woman next year but who knows... maybe they'll get the form wrong... hopefully we'd be able to get it straightened out.

Eat one what? Whatever you want, as long as it belongs to a consenting adult. And then later you can marry its owner, regardless of what it was, without being discriminated against by the federal government.

Indeed, such as not actually having a Masters degree from the Univeristy of Liverpool. My opinion is that he's a tinkering type who's gathered a decent bit of computer know how and has taken courses here and there but has never been interested enough in anything to follow a program of study. (I knew plenty of people like that in high school, several work IT jobs at big name companies and do just fine for themselves) Over time he's developed an inferiority complex and convinced himself that being overlooked is everyone else's fault. So, he's happy to become a useful idiot and a pawn in international politics so he can get his 15 minutes of fame even if it means handing over information about things that have nothing to do with him or whistleblowing like currency only at an abysmal exchange rate. I doubt his success or failure at evading US authorities will have had anything to do with his expertise, education, or knowledge of game theory. But people can go ahead and shake your their Pom-poms. (edited to clarify this last bit)

I really don't forsee myself being in the market for another skydiving rig, but If I ever *cough* misplace a reserve handle, I will consider having a replacement read: EMERGENCY STOP NEVER USE

Do you have any idea how retarded you sound when you write? That's a serious question. Do you have any idea what a gamer is? I'm not just talking about some pimply faced kid playing Mario Cart in his mom's basement. I'm talking about people who do advanced calculus to figure out the right moves to make as best responses in all sections of life. They teach courses in it in the economics department at Harvard. They also have courses that teach how to win wars with it. So . . . bite me. I'm familiar with game theory and I know what you meant by "gamer", however my choice of adjectives in describing your writing was poor, sorry about that. My comment was regarding your claim that no one knows what's going on given the information available contrasted with your confidence in your assessment of Snowden given the information available.

Do you have any idea how retarded you sound when you write? That's a serious question.

I wish cars all had two horns: the current one which is the negative horn, and then a more light-hearted tone which would be the "thank you" horn... ...so I could use it sarcastically.

The problem with your analogy and hypothetical is it doesn't work at all. Being drunk is an extremely temporary condition. You could blow a 0.1 today and be completely sober in 24 hours. It's also not indicative of whether or not you have a drinking problem, only the amount of alcohol in your blood at the time of the test. The problems with the analogy extend beyond the fact that being drunk is "extremely temporary" while mental conditions may merely be "temporary" but It's not my analogy so I don't really feel like defending it or propping it up further. I've already pointed out the issue with comparing a psychological evaluation with a BAC measurement in a previous thread and you clearly don't care for my opinion on that matter. The issue in this thread that I'm more concerned about is the portion of my post you didn't quote.

You're missing the point. Quade actually gave a really good summary of the bill upthread... The problem is that you can't treat this as a loophole that is being closed. That's absurd. You can't pass a law like this and expect everyone's behavior to remain the same except now you'll get to take away the guns of those you "catch." Attempting to salvage the drunk driving analogy again... Imagine mandating that all commercially available breathalyzers that you could voluntarily buy had a sim card in them, and if you blow over the limit into them it alerts authorities, they take your license and your car and destroy them, but you can petition to get your license back if you can show you're not drunk anymore. That's not going to improve the rate of drunk driving accidents, it's going to tank the sale of breathalyzers.

Nobody is arguing that adjudicated mentally ill should have guns. All people are saying regarding this law is, "Expect not to achieve the result you desire." It's similar to the parental notification laws for female minors getting an abortion. I'm against the laws, but that doesn't mean I encourage teens to get knocked up more frequently or that they should hide it from their parents if they do. He better run a background check on the friend first.

"Could it be that X is occuring because Y?" "Uh, X is not occuring." "A minor point! I'd expect a Y to argue that way."

What's the question? Give me a more powerful computer and about 10 million years and I'll get back to you.

Two things that stood out, to me, in the article... I'm sure all of the above have examples of failed procurements, but it would be a good idea for someone in the Army to look for success stories of how any of these entities have procured software tools, and take notes. I wouldn't suggest going to a small startup looking to buy a nuclear submarine, but you can't treat every procurement like it's a nuclear submarine, especially not when it affects currently deployed troops. This I actually had to laugh at. I'd estimate I've effected the demise of more requirements than I've written in my career by a factor of 10. As primarily a hardware guy, I think I have the least patience for this kind of thing when I stumble unwittingly into the software realm.

Come now, I've built a website that used flash prominently and for navigation as recently as 199- oh... yeah... I see what you mean...

1) I don't like those straight cotter-pin style helmet release systems. While probably better than nothing, they tend to be very dependent on pull direction, they include a bunch of parts that all love to oxidize and jam up making operation questionable, and even if you do get the cotter pin out they can require a bunch of tugging, shoving, and luck to get the strap off under load. 2) If you're helmet is so prone to snags that you compromise your body position during deployment in an attempt to prevent them then you shouldn't be jumping the helmet. Tucking your head down is a really good way to lower your shoulders unevenly which will give you asymmetrical and potentially harder openings, plus it puts your neck in an awkward orientation that may not cause problems right away but can lead to repetitive stress injuries. 3) I'm skeptical of jumping anything that was kludged together on the ride up to altitude. Even assuming it does hold up it's going to have my attention on the way down which is going to a) detract from safety and b) probably detract from my filming of the skydive, more than likely to the point of defeating the purpose of the kludge in the first place. Going back and forth on jumping or not jumping on the way up will only amplify this. 4) Stowing it and jumping without a helmet? Eh... maybe... it would depend on the jump. I've jumped without a helmet a few times and prefer the noise attenuation I get with a helmet on. I have enough jumps where not making one more isn't a big deal, but then I also happen to think that should apply regardless of jump numbers.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56470467-78/evans-jennings-church-croyle.html.csp mass shooting [mas shoot-ing] n. 1) Any event where a firearm is discharged or firearms are discharged and more than one person is injured or killed (as a result of the firearm discharge(s) or otherwise.) 2) Any event where more than one firearm is discharged, or a firearm is discharged more than once. (note: no one need be injured or killed.) 3) Any event where a firearm is discharged during mass.

If only 5% of skydives ended with a fatality that would also be a very low percentage? If only 5% of airline flights ended in a crash that would be a very low percentage? If a nuclear bomb was detonated above a city and only 5% died, you would consider that a very small percentage. If the only analogous aspect of your analogy and kallend's analogies is that they are all bad analogies, that doesn't make for a very clear analogue. /edited to add: ...or you could continue burrowing into the pile of manure.

I tried the whole painting approach with regards to the language in post #10 but then the thread died. I tried the whole painting approach with regards to legislation in post #22 but no one appears interested in that. But whatever... people are free to go on being much more concerned that this be called a mass shooting than I am that it not be if it makes them feel more comfortable with their opinions.

"mass shooting" review scorecard... Assault weapon ban: The article gives me no reason to believe the handgun recovered had any evil features, besides being semi-automatic. Magazine capacity limits: The article gives me no reason to believe these limits would have helped. Criminal background check: TBD. We'll probably find out one way or another shortly after the shooter is identified. Adjudicated mental illness: See criminal check. As in other cases we will probably get some 20/20 hindsight kind of clues in future reporting, but I doubt anything that would have shown up on a feasible background check without running into privacy issues that lawrocket has raised in other threads. Mandated securing of firearms (ignoring enforcement issues for a moment): TBD. Still no info on how he obtained the firearm. More good guys with guns: TBD. Depends on how much time elapsed between the first and last shots, but doubtful this would have made any difference. Access to Mental Health Treatment: TBD. I don't think we know what the "trigger" was yet. Police/Authority Response Time: Unlike some other cases it doesn't sound like he waited for the cops to show up to shoot himself afterwords, so this might not have been much of a factor. Violence in culture: TBD. Again, don't really know anything about the shooter at this point.

I think I saw more close calls in those OT periods than I did in the rest of the playoff games I've watched so far.