tshile

Just one way of looking at things, but in order No Yes Yes You have a whole range here. You have people who carry (concealed or open, mind you) every day because it's their right and this is a right they feel like exercising for whatever reason, or because they just think it makes them look/feel like a bad ass or that they're making a political statement of some kind. You have people who only carry when they are going into areas they don't trust, for whatever reason. Maybe they only carry when they're with (or not with) their family. Maybe they only carry when they go to collect money from their rentals because they're in a bad neighborhood, etc. You have people that carry as often as they can without making carrying a gun their #1 focus. They might carry when they go to a movie theater, but they're not going to go out of their way to get their gun to run down to the gas station to swap propane tanks. That's the enitre problem with this, and with most political footballs. People try to make extremes. If you were an alien dropped in DC after one of these mass shootings you would have to choose between one of two outlooks: The pro gun control group - where everyone who owns, wants to own, or carriers or wants to carry, is a crazy person that always wanted to be a cop but never had the balls. The pro guns group - where anyone who wants any restriction is paving the way for the government to go door to door collecting all guns because they can only imagine a world where the government is their nanny. The truth is there's a huge range of why people do/don't own guns, or do/don't carry guns.

I'm actually cool with it except: 7 day waiting period is going to ruin the gun show scene. I don't have a problem with that, but you're going to have to fight with a lot of people that will. Make sure training 'online' doesn't count. I admire your effort, and I'd have no problem signing onto that, but I don't think people on either side of the two issues are going to give up some of the items you listed. They'd rather us remain where we are. They'll be angry about how whatever point they don't like shouldn't have to be compromised to get some other point they do like.

I don't know, maybe because he's a good offensive coordinator? But I get it, people are glad he's gone. For the wrong reasons, but hey at least they're glad.

The people who support this will then turn around and chastise anyone against it as being a far right gun nut that doesn't care about the massacre of children. The pro gun control group just can't get out of their own way.

Yeah, there were a few of us that recognized Kyle wasn't the problem. Most everyone else was glad he was gone. They were wrong. They'll never admit it, but they were.

I cannot believe the way we (as an organization) allowed that to end. It was clear to anyone paying attention that the problem was not play calling or scheme. I'm still angry about that. Everyone said it was because of nepotism. That he sucked. They couldn't have been more wrong. And he left Cleveland because he resigned, because they were trying to do the same thing to him there than they did to him here and he said screw it. Now look at him.

It's October and our redskins are tied for first Yay

the far right is already passing around the "they're going to take our guns away!" articles. you know how we fix this? start requiring an intelligence test before you can cast a vote. probably have better luck of getting that through scotus than any real gun control laws that would actually work (like tracking the guns)

Well, the problem is that this side (which it seems like you're on, and I do not mean that in a bad way) keeps making statements like: No one wants to do that, no one thinks that is possible, no one wants to take guns away, etc etc etc. Except we know some people do. Those people do exist. There are jurisdictions that are doing everything they can to ban guns from the people, mostly major cities. They get things struck down by courts and they just come back with another set of laws to do the same thing but to get around whatever was struck down. DC is a prime example. Chicago, New York, SF. There are examples. So we know these people exist, we know where they are somewhat successful. So when you start with "Not many are pushing for that nationally, and everyone knows that" I think you're making an incorrect statement and starting your argument on bad ground. There is a real fear of any permanent registration of weapons because of things like this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/ How do you think they know who owns those weapons? Because they forced everyone to register them in the past. It doesn't matter that I think it might be a good idea to limit gun ownership to shotguns and hunting rifles. It doesn't matter that I think limiting capacity to 5 rounds won't stop people from shooting other people (reloading just isn't that hard...), but that at the same time I don't care if guns are limited to 5 rounds (outside of the fact that I think it's a useless law.) All that matters is that you have a forced gun registration that turns into future law changes and said jurisdiction now knowing exactly who is in violation of this and going after them because of it (or threatening to.) So you guys can mock the people that are against registration all you want, but they have a point whether you care about it or not. I honestly think, at this point, the only way you're going to get meaningful gun control laws passed is if you pass something that makes changing the laws impossible in the future. Because this slippery slope argument is always going to convince enough people to be against any changes (Abortion follows the same argument, people just flip sides.) I don't know if that's possible. But you have people on the extreme doing this and it's ruining the negotiating power for people more in the middle. And this was over shotguns and long rifles. Not even handguns (you know, the weapons used most often in crimes...) This sort of thing is bad for reasonable gun control advocates. It seriously hurts your ability to get what you want. And it's easy to see why. Then you look at the fact that, despite the strictness, these places have the worst gun crime in the country, and you just lose so much credibility.

*shrug* It's from the article you posted. Right below the headline. The article mentions guns once and it it's not in reference to any change in gun laws. It has, at multiple points, brought up why the drop in crime and not once did they mention any changes in gun laws.

I agree. The extreme gun control people have done themselves a great disservice in many ways. In some ways it's like how the extreme right has done themselves a disservice in the abortion discussions (that is: everything they do is easily colored as working towards their preferred extreme; outlawing or making it virtually impossible to get guns/abortions.) They've tried so hard, for so long, that at a certain point it doesn't even matter whether their requests are reasonable, it's just too easy to see an ulterior motive whether there is one or not. It also doesn't help that most of them don't seem to understand the basics about how a gun works. Things like the assault weapons ban were dubbed the 'scary looking weapons ban' for a reason, and when you start approaching things that way you just end up getting mocked. When you don't appear to actually know the subject you're discussing, the ulterior motives come back into play (again, whether they're there or not.) It sucks because I bet a solid portion of the population, whether they own guns or not, would agree to some pretty basic gun control laws to make the situation better. But, as others have said in other threads on other subjects, there doesn't seem to be room for compromise anymore in today's political discourse. Unfortunately, for me, when forced to choose an extreme I have a hard time choosing the pro gun control crowd because at the end of the day all I see are policies that are going to make it harder for someone who obeys the law to obtain guns and does little (if anything) about the criminals we're supposed to be stopping. A middle ground option would be nice once in a while, though.

New York did the same thing, if I recall correctly.

I like those ideas. A lot. I see zero chance of them happening. I imagine the argument would be that the second amendment isn't about hunting. The real problem with this discussion, is that people are (somewhat) guessing as to what the problem is. Because the NRA has been very successful in stopping the documentation required to know, at any given time, where X gun is and how it got there. Sure, we have investigations, researchers, and so forth that do the best they can to figure out where certain types of guns are/come from, or how guns for certain types of people get from where to where, etc. But we don't have a reliable way of documenting this stuff. So when it comes to asking how to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals, or into the hands of those with questionable mental stability, we're left trying to remember how many stories had what kind of details. Or what one research group was able to put together based on limited informaiton. You want to make informed decisions about how to stop guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people? Let's start tracking them first, so we have real information. And here you hit yet another road block. That will likely never be allowed. The NRA has been very successful in blocking this, and to be honest I have no idea what SCOTUS rulings they've managed to get along the way; it's possible SCOTUS has already made this impossible. I seem to recall studies that the vast majority of guns are coming from very few sources; ie: the vast majority of gun sellers are on the up and up, but enough aren't that guns just flow to the streets with ease. But we can't track those to know who is who. Futhermore there are rules about how often the ATF can inspect gun dealers, and what they can hold them accountable to; rules about how often they have to inventory their stock. The fundamental parts required to do anything about this have been broken by the NRA. Until those are fixed we're all just throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks, and the NRA is finding the piece that sticks here and there and just knocking it off with ease.

Felons already aren't allowed to own guns. So, a portion of the population you're talking about isn't supposed to wind up with a gun to begin with. Adding them to a list of people not allowed to own a gun because a failed mental check isn't going to help.

No he didn't. He said he thinks the only way to truly stop all of this it is by removing guns. He said he won't agree to do that. He never assigned that to anyone else. I agree with him, except I'm not willing to fight to the death to prevent it. I just know so many others would that it'll never happen. Which is why I kind of laugh at all the other suggestions. There's only so many ways out of this and limiting the number of bullets, or banning guns that look a certain way (but completely ignoring the actual function of the weapon, this is by far the best part of pro gun control's ignorance), or stopping the people that actually care to follow the laws from owning guns aren't going to do it. If you can't ban guns, you ought to start looking at other ways of attacking the problem. It feels like 90% of our country still hasn't figured any of this out yet.

Every single model I've read, from the justinweather site, to the capital weather gang, etc, is saying all of these models are working with a VERY low confidence in the variables. Here's a good write up about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/01/why-the-forecast-cone-of-uncertainty-is-inadequate-for-hurricane-joaquin/ (there's a lot more at the link, it's a good read on this particular storm) In some cases people are criticizing the national hurricane center for releasing this cone because they're afraid that since it pretty much has it going to out to sea, people will stop paying attention and will not be prepared if it does infact hit us. So at this point it seems like what they're saying is - Yes, the models have it going out to sea, but we have no real confidence in those models at this point so hang tight.

It happened a few months ago. I can't remember where. It obviously wasn't a big media story. It does happen. But it doesn't drive ratings. So we don't hear about it as often. There are websites dedicated to keeping track of these things.

I once tried to point that out to someone and they just kind of laughed at me. *shrug* we know the US is cataloging the internet, in more ways than we're aware of lol. And no, I don't understand the nature of showing off a gun collection. But I was raised not to do that, sort of like some people are raised to not gloat about (or be proud of) how they drank so much the night before I was raised that people who show off their gun collections are the people who wind up having guns stolen from them.

my 2 cents: If I got to be King tshile, I'd revert us back to pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles. I could be swayed to consider revolvers, but I really don't see the point. IE: Guns that serve a hunting purpose (and yes, you can protect your family with these weapons.) I'd figure out how to improve the mental health issue in this country - both by increasing funding and importance to the mental health researchers and caregivers, and in fighting the stigma of mental health in our society. I'd end the war on drugs as the money available to the black market drug manufacturers, traffickers, and drug dealers on the streets seems to fuel a lot of senseless dying and violence. Make drugs legal, regulate them, adjust the healthcare system to accommodate, adjust the education system to accommodate, and stop fueling this system that drags our country down in every way imaginable (and has a very bad impact on our neighbors to the south.) I'd figure out how to get nonviolent criminals out of the prison system. I'd figure out how to fix these broken communities that high on poverty, high on crime, high on victimization rates, high on broken families; these are the breeding grounds for majority of our violence issues and it's impossible to ignore that it's a problem spanning generations at this point. And god dammit I'd fix this education system. People are resorting to shootings, both mass shootings and the street crime, because they don't feel like they have a better way. They're withdrawn from society; in two totally different ways, but they feel as though their actions are the only reasonable way forward. We have to find a way to stop people from getting to the point where shooting other people is their best path forward. For some of the mentally ill, that's not an option. We have to do more to understand them, to find out who they are, and to provide support to them AND their families. This is the richest country in the world. We have among the brightest people, working at some of the best institutions. There's no reason we can't figure out a way to fix these issues. But I don't get to be King tshile. I only get to be stupid forum whoring tshile. I've realized that the fundamental problem is the lack of ability to have an honest, intelligent debate about the issues. Everyone seems to have an agenda, everyone seems to have a bias, everyone seems to have a reason why they believe this one part of the equation is all that matters and all the others are irrelevant. And that problem exists for both sides.

Also look at Amazon's AWS system. It's taking off https://aws.amazon.com/ There's actually a lot of companies looking for people that specialize in AWS. That's about all the help I can be on AWS, I haven't spent any time with it. I know a few people that have, they get job offers constantly. edit: I asked a group of people about this and here's the conversation that ensued... person1: it's a competition to see how fast you can throw money into AWS using their tools to draw wildly incorrect conclusions about data you don't understand person2: haha person1: what amazes me is the amount of people jumping into mongoDB and trying their hardest to use it like a regular db. or, in my world, the amount of inefficient waste putting data suited for mongoDB into regular DBs because Oracle person3: they should just use excell and a team of interns heh, it's the way things are right now. quite a divide over what it means to know/use some of this stuff

My suggestion, and this may sound lame.... is to spend your time making sure you understand relational algebra since it's, for the most part, the foundation of databases. Once you have a firm grip, start learning about nosql and that little movement. The people that are bad at databases are bad at understanding relational algebra and the performance hits of doing things certain ways. Then spend time learning best practices about databases. For example, if you're going to develop software, how to use checkpoints so a failure of the system doesn't result in a completely corrupted database or one you can't roll back to except for the last full backup (i'm dealing with that right now...) I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at scripts/calls/code written for expensive software and shaking my head. It's clear these people barely understand what is going on. From there it's just a matter of understanding the differences in syntax and performance. Right now there's a big framework... movement (i guess i'd call it?) where everyone's constantly talking about, and trying to sound like experts, in the next big framework. From databases to coding to SaaS stuff. You can get lost and spend hours chasing that stuff. It's to the point where I genuinely wonder how some of these people ever actually get things doe, they spend so much time chasing the next big framework/database/method. If you're only concerned about administering the databases then just spend time reading the best practices written by the developers/maintainers of the systems. Because that's crucial. Understanding different backup methods, maintenance for performance, how to apply upgrades (and reading through enough reviews/notes/etc to understand how critical upgrades are.) But I suppose I'm old school... I think understanding the underlying methods, reasoning, etc is way more important that being specialized in any particular system/language/etc. I see too many people who act ****y because they think they've mastered a specific system/language, then you look at their work and it's clear they don't actually know what they're doing... and some of them are borderline dangerous in the way they do things, the only saving grace is they don't have an important job. edit: I realize I didn't really answer your question. hah! sorry about that. the stuff I constantly see popping up: Postgres, NoSQL, and MongoDB

i know someone with a house on an island on the river. i imagine this will destroy the entire property if it happens. sucks, is an awesome spot. especially for crabbing and fishing.

yeah and the area has flooding issues when it rains too much. a serious hurricane? I'm not that far from it, but i'm far enough that I think we'll be fine. down trees and siding/shingles being ripped off will be our main concern. guess i'll sleep in the basement

NOVA offers some cert programs too... https://www.nvcc.edu/workforce/programs/index.html I went to NOVA and got my AS in IT and AS in CS there. I also went to GMU and got my BS CS there. I was not, in any way, impressed with either program at NOVA... I consider both degrees absolutely worthless. Edit: And yes, I'm factoring in that an AS in either field is worthless to start with. My BS from GMU is worth every penny. That department/program, and those teachers, were really, really good. They rank well too (~50 in the country in CS) so it's not just my bias, that's a really good ranking for what many consider a glorified community college and most of us consider (at best) 4th 'best' school in the state (in some order UVA, VT, JMU... then fight it out with CNU, radford, GMU, VCU, etc) The CS department is completely different than the IT department.... I have no experience with GMU's IT department... but I would be inclined to recommend GMU's program over NOVAs... Not to mention in the STEM fields at GMU, many of that faculty have ties to federal government/military work (many of the staff comes from that line of work too), which means if you are a quality student that gets recognized by staff you might wind up with some rather important connections and opportunities...