Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@Levente Really?

"Absolutely wrong, clueless crap. Seriously, since you are obviously an uber-ignorant loudmouth, how about hitting at least Wikipedia to check your stupid mantra first?"

So that's were you get your facts?

How about actually living in Chicago and having gone through the process of getting a gun ownership permit? Then there's the bit about registering your fire arms...

But lets correct your wikipedia knowledge.

Lets start off with the fact that the STATE OF ILLINOIS does not allow conceal carry period.

The only other state the doesn't allow conceal carry is WISCONSIN. So if the STATE OF NEW YORK allows conceal carry. That simple fact alone makes IL, not just Chicago stricter than NY City.

For your reference... http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Note that the two states in BLACK do not allow CONCEAL CARRY. Since you may or may not be familiar with CHICAGO, it is in the state of IL. (NO CONCEAL CARRY)

Now lets go to the cities that banned handguns outright.

Washington DC and Chicago.

The Washington DC ban was overturned and this gave way to the lawsuit filed by McDonald against the city of Chicago. (McDonald v. Chicago) Since you like wikipedia... you can see it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Now NY City never banned handguns. Did they? Didn't think so.

Are there gun dealers/stores within NY?

Wait, why bother to leave your chair? Let Google do the walking for you...

http://www.google.com/search?q=NY+City+Gun+Stores

Oh look! There are gun stores in NY.

How about Chicago?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Chicago+City+Gun+Stores

Ooops!

THERE ARE NO GUN STORES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF CHICAGO.

Gee, now why is that?

Oh sure you can say that its because the city's ban was overturned 7 months ago and give it time...

Unfortunately you'd be wrong. There's already a lawsuit against the city because they refused a suburban gun store from opening up a shop within city limits. (You do realize that you need to get city approval for your business storefront, right?) No fire arms instructors in the City, and the only CMP groups are JROTC. (You do know what JROTC is right? or CMP?)

And since you mentioned it... here's the process you have to go through to get a gun permit. Now required for *all* firearms and not just handguns....

1) You are required to go to a certified firearms instructor and take a 4-5 hour course on gun safety. (This does include range time.) This course costs $100.00 or more.

2) You have to then fill out your application on a special yellow card. (You can't use the form on the internet and print it off.) You need the form, and two passport sized photos. The non-refundable fee for an application is $100.00

3) You have to take it to a specific location so you can get processed. (Digital finger and palm prints.) This location is out of the way, and its different from the listed site on the police web site. Luckily its a 2 block walk off a stop on the Orange Line. And the office is only open during the day M-F so you have to take off from work to go.

In about a week or so, you get the bottom third of the card in the mail. Its approximately 3.75" by 7.5". (Mine is the one numbered XXXXX)

Do you happen to have one?

Didn't think so.

Do you even know what the form looks like to register your fire arm(s)?

Didn't think so.

Now lets look at NY's permits:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/handgun_licensing_information.shtml

Please focus your attention on 'Types of licenses'.

Wow. So many to chose from.

Chicago?

They offer only a 'premise' license. Oh and BTW, your garage isn't part of your premise. (Attached or detached garages.) Outside of that... you can't get any other type of license.

Ooops!

So much for your malarky that NY City has more strict gun laws on the books.

So,,, you were saying?

(Uber loudmouth who doesn't know what he's talking about?...)

@Jacob

"- handguns are still more or less illegal in Cook County, which encompasses Chicago and its suburbs. In this situation, those who arm themselves do so illegally, but readily. The government will criminally prosecute an otherwise law-abiding citizen for the possession of a device that is readily obtained by the criminal element and used for harm. This has the effect of tipping the balance in favor of the criminal - he can go armed confident that the majority of the populace he will victimize is kept unarmed by the law of the land. That combination can be deadly for innocents, presented with a criminal element that is readily armed, and prevented on pain of a felony conviction, fines and prison time from being equally armed. Victim disarmament does not work."

Uhm just a correction.

The state of IL and WI are the only two states in the US that do not have conceal carry laws.

You're wrong about Cook County. Cook County does actually have a ban on specific weapons, along with Chicago. While the ban was overturned, if you check to see the gun registration form, you'll see that certain weapons are still banned. So you can get a gun permit (now required for *all* gun ownership, not just handguns)

To take your permit class you have to go to a certified instructor outside of the city. There are a couple of classes if you can find room. You must already have a FOID card. In the burbs you can buy ammo, you can rent a gun at a range. Even outside of the city you can transport a gun in your vehicle provided you are doing it within the law. (Locked gun case, not within reach of driver, unloaded...)

You can not legally carry in IL period. But that is an issue outside of gun ownership...

@AC

Cite one city?

I really don't have to. The NRA as well as other researchers in to gun violence have already done that. You can look at large cities in states like FL, AZ, TX among others...

The one reality that sticks out which is fact. Chicago had the strictest gun laws on the books while at the same time had the most number of gun related violence and deaths. That fact alone is a clear indication that gun laws banning weapons means that only criminals will have guns and will in fact use them.

The other issue is that the gun ban went in to effect back in 1982-83 time frame. That was almost 30 years of hand gun ownership being a crime in the city. So for you to even suggest that the gun crimes committed by gang bangers in the past 5 years would be committed by guns in the city from 30 years? Naw. That's laughable.

Also... The police run annual 'cash for guns' programs where anyone can drop off a gun, no questions asked. This gets the guns off the street.

In the past year there were two cases of people who were in illegal possession of a hand gun that shot perps. One male who shot and killed a home invader after he shot first. A second woman who shot a kid who was tossing bricks at her house and then later at her. Neither of them were charged. (Note: The woman shot the kid after the gun ban was struck down, but still didn't have a permit. She broke the law. It was even questionable that she may have used excessive force, yet no charges.)

Just FYI... I live in Chicago.

As to calling the OP a fscking twit, he started it. (re-read his post )

As to knowing about guns, gun ownership, and gun violence... I've seen it first hand. I've had friends mugged because the muggers knew that they couldn't defend themselves. Guns that are in Chicago today that are used in crimes weren't here 10 years ago. They are new and there have been news reports where they traced some of the guns back to straw purchases that occurred in Georgia. (Do you really think that gang bangers only import the drugs they sell here?)

Again... Washington DC... strict laws. High gun violence rate. Their ban was overturned which lead to the Chicago ban challenge. You can see how its impacted them since its been a couple of years.

Oh and one more thing. In Chicago, overall crime was trending down, with the exception of gun violence.

@ Keith21

Naw we just shot all of the buffalo to reduce their food supply. Slowly starving them to death.

(Yes its the Americans who created the 'borg concept.)

It was really all of those immigrants escaping oppressive regimes in Europe at the time that kept coming to the US and homesteading further West.

Then you had the clash between the Indian nations and the American population who were now homesteading on what was once Indian land. So again, blame Europeans.

And don't feel too bad for those Indians. They got the last laugh... just look at Foxwood

@ Strike Vomit

So how many WW2 soldiers did you talk with to get their opinions?

The browning was the SAW used to provide cover fire. A man portable .30-06. Same ammo as the GI toting an M1.

What was their other options? Ma Duce wasn't really man portable. And the .30 cal 'light' machine gun required a crew of at least 2 people to carry plus a third carrying the extra ammo.

As I said the BAR was effective in providing suppressive fire so squads could leap frog and take enemy positions.

Now granted my dad was in the 14th Armored and had a Sherman surrounding him (The brits called it a Tommy Cooker) so he got to see Europe in style...

Oh and yeah I said 'supposed to be a trench broom.' The point was that the war ended before the BAR could get to combat. You'd use the BAR to take out enemy machine gun positions in opposing trenches because it was man portable unlike the heavy machine guns (water cooled) which were fixed positions.

On a side note... The Germans made some pretty nice weapons too. Their machine gun, and the '88s were deadly.

@thecakeis(not)alie

I tend to like my 'beanfield' rifle which goes a very loud boom and knocks down a varmit at long distances. Just need to put only 1 shot down field to take care of business.

When I shoot paper, I prefer my .22 pistol or my friend's 9mm.

But I agree that shooting paper targets is a very good stress reducer.

Note: There are only two states that does not have any conceal carry laws. (IL and WI) The rest have some sort of laws on the books.

Also note: most of the gun violence is done with illegal guns, not those owned by licensed gun owners.

How British

To forget that they spent 300+ years raping and pillaging the bulk of the world, shipping their criminals half way around the world, sacking Washington DC in 1812... then in the 20th century calling on the US to help them defeat Germany twice.

Let us forget that Cunliffe wrote "The Nation Takes Shape". Granted its been 30 years since I read this, but one of the basic premises that America became its own nation rather than transplanted Europeans because of the frontier. Its because of the frontier that the gun had become an intrinsic part of the American culture. (Hunting and survival on the frontier.) At this time, what was the gun to Europeans? Nothing more than a way to subjugate and dominate others. How many Brits died in the 1800's in pointless wars w France? (See Napoleonic Wars 200 years ago)

Yeah, lets forget one's history.

Weird.

I was just thinking about the movie this morning. (Don't as me why, cause i don't know...)

Couldn't think of the name.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099731/

Weird, maybe time travel is real?

@Zebulebu

I call you out for BS.

Under Mayor Daley in 1982 it was illegal to own a handgun within the city limits unless you were either a) police, b) active duty military , c) employed by the city or county (Politicians) you could not purchase own or possess a handgun. If you had a registered gun prior to the ban you were grandfathered in. All firearms had to be registered with the city and certain long guns, like air guns aka pellet guns, were deemed illegal as well.

This law wasn't overturned until 2010. Where Mayor Daley (Son of the Mayor who created the ban) created ways to continue to tax and obfuscate the process. (After the USSC overturned the ban, Daley changed the laws such that you had to get a gun permit to own a gun and even then the process is onerous. There are currently 2 lawsuits against the city over Daley's latest actions.)

So that gives you the history.

Now lets talk about the fact that during the close to 30 years that handguns were illegal in Chicago, Chicago had one of the highest rates of gun related death and crimes. So at the same time Chicago had the strictest laws on the books concerning gun ownership, it was also the murder capital of the US.

So I guess you're the fscking idiot who thinks that they know more about guns than someone who's had to live in a city where one can watch a crime take place, call the cops knowing that by the time they get there, the criminals would be long gone and risk getting injured themselves.

At the same time, cities in states where there was carry conceal laws, violent crime rates were down dramatically.

Its time for you to put your pipe down junior and wake up and face reality.

Huh?

John Browing not only created the 1911 pistol which is a true classic, he later went on to modify it as the Browing 'high power' fixing one of the few flaws in the 1911.

Then there is the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) which was supposed to be a 'trench broom' firing .30-06 rounds.

Clyde Barrow sawed down the BAR barrel to make it easier to tote and he used it against the Feds effectively. The BAR was introduced too late to have any impact in WWI. In WWII it was very effective as a squad automatic and was used in generating suppressive fire so that other platoon riflemen could advance and take the enemy out.

So yeah he was a true genius when it came to creating the right gun for the job.

As to the gun laws... remember kiddies, Chicago had/has the strictest gun laws and the highest gun violence because only criminals have guns.

Huh?

I talked to a friend who was a former LEO in AZ. I asked him if AZ no longer required a permit for AZ residents to conceal carry, why no one in the crowd fired back to stop the gunman.

He replied: "... because it was a Democratic party event. Had it been a Republican event, then someone would have been carrying..." (And yes, he's still a resident of AZ and when in AZ he says he carries.... )

@JaitcH

In a single word, no.

The reason they wont prosecute the NYT is because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the interest of the people trumps the right for the state to keep things secret. Were Wikileaks only a conduit, they would stand the same protection. (Right or wrong, the US DoJ is not going to risk prosecution.)

Assange may actually be charged. It depends on what the US DoJ uncovers in their investigation. The more information reported in the press lends to suggesting that Assange could be guilty of more than just receiving the leaks.

If Assange aided in the theft of the documents, then he's going to find himself in front of the US court system. Regardless of arguing Assange's membership in the 'fourth estate', if he committed the crime, he will be charged.

Its interesting that the NYT has distanced themselves from Assange. I suspect that they suspect something or know something... Why? Because the NYT would be the first paper to support a leak site that didn't break the law.

@adobob

Proving information without the proper context can be a very dangerous thing.

Its a very simple concept to understand.

A slight correction..

If you actually read the NYT article linked in the story, you'll find out that Assange released an edited version that removed footage of an enemy combatant with an RPG (Grenade Launcher). For those who don't know... fire enough RPG's at a chopper and you can take it down.

Now what's the standing RoE for this type of engagement?

We are talking about editing the material, not just redacting information to protect someone.

Oh and on *that* topic... Assange slowly started to edit material after the fact... remember that kiddies when he and his supporters say 'show me where his leaks have done harm...'

So really outside of their latest sensationalist crap on the US, what good has wikileaks done?

Huh?

I agreed with most of your post. You lost it when you said the following:

"Perhaps Assange can cope with reality sufficiently to keep up the good work. If not then at least he's shown the way for others to follow."

Please pay attention.

Wikileaks hasn't done 'good works'. Any potential, Assange has destroyed Wikileaks credibility. Hence those with any integrity and brains left and started their own site.

@AC Spot On!

But don't let the mindless commentards get you down when they down thumb you.

Its kind of ironic that these are the same people who want transparency from the government yet don't expect it from a company that makes money off their willingness to give their privacy up for just a few quid a month in 'free' products.

TANSTAAFL!

Huh?

Shits and giggles?

Why don't you turn your ATX tower in to a mini rack w a bunch of them?

You could have a neat low powered linux hadoop cluster.

A commercial grade wimpy project?

But if you do want to embed this device in something... I'm sure you can get creative.

Can't you just Google it?

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202475920449

(A lawyer's view on Groupon and their patent portfolio and why Google was willing to pay 6bn.)

From this site:

"PA: Groupon has a patent and believes that MobGob is infringing on that patent. It wants MobGob to shut its Web site down.

NLJ: What does Groupon have to prove in court?

PA: There are computer patents that are generally claimed as what's called a business method. And although business-method patents in the past have been looked at by the patent office with a little bit of skepticism, there is definitely patentable subject matter that is available for these type of inventions. If people come up with a new method of doing something that involves something that's never been done before with a computer, it can definitely be patentable. Where they are asserting their own patent, they will have to show that the claims of the patent or a claim of the patent is infringed. And usually the battle over invalidity will involve the defendant trying to show that the patent never should have issued because the invention that's claimed was in fact old — you could say was old and/or was obvious. "

@AC Not!

When the CEO is more than just a CEO but part of the brand, his health is a material event. So the securities law does require a company to disclose *all* material events in a timely fashion.

Jobs could have been planning to leave for months, but once he disclosed his plans to the company officers/BoD, they have to disclose this information.

With respect to Apple, Cook has been running day to day operations in the past and Jobs not present isn't going to do any harm in the short term. Loss of his vision? Maybe. But then again, someone else may step up.

Some cases?

HBase is useful in a lot of cases.

Lets talk scalability.

HBase can scale in linear or near linear terms. You can hash your key and get a fairly random and equal distribution across your region servers. This is critical when you consider that if you have a 10 node cluster or a 100 node cluster, pulling data (a simple get() ) will occur in a consistent time. That is to say fetching a customer record where cust_id = XXX will take the same amount of time regardless of the amount of data in the cluster.

Looking at relational databases, Oracle RAC? Anyone trying to scale that past 8-10 machines?

DB2? IBM is still improving it with stuff they inherited from Informix.

IBM was foolish to kill or rather starve Informix's XPS which also boasted near linear scalability back in the 90's.

But here's the kicker. HBase is 'free'. Although you would want to get a support contract if you were using it in a commercial production environment. So the cost of building out 100s of TB or a PB cluster is primarily the cost of the hardware.

You can't get that scalability and performance from mySQL or anything else.

Considering that HBase is < 5 years old, the technology is improving and in the last year, stability has increased.

So yeah, I'd say HBase has its place.

You just have to understand what it is and how to use it.

Zanto

You might as well blame the British Government on how they handled the Palestinian question to begin with.

But lets not gloss over the fact that Hamas doesn't want peace, they want the death of anyone who doesn't agree with them. Including their own Palestinians who aren't members of Hamas. Can you say war(s) between Fatah and Hamas?

What's sad is that you probably don't know anyone from the Middle East who can tell you what Beirut looked like in the early 70's. It was a very beautiful city and a tourist destination.

The more you know...

@amehaye

Don't let reality hit you between the eyes...

How many Hamas rockets have indiscriminately fallen on Israel before Israel acted? How many civilian casualties?

Remember when Israel went in and started to attack Hamas positions? There was one film shot showing Hamas shooting at Israeli positions and then running in to a school that was filled with civilians. They were using their own people as human shields.

I'm not saying that collateral damage doesn't happen but that Israel did their best to limit civilian casualties and even dropped leaflets and made automated phone calls to warn civilians about their impending arrival.

With respect to the use of a computer virus to disable a foreign country's nuclear ambition? Works for me. Much less fallout than the alternative of dropping multiple bunker penetrating bombs to ensure that these things go offline.

And of course the NYT doesn't offer any real proof. For all you know, the Chinese could have done it too.

Huh?

Hmmm.

Iran supports internationally recognized terrorist organizations and its a known fact that terrorists would love to get their hands on nukes or nuclear material for a dirty bomb. Since some dolt mentioned Israeli policy of dealing with Palestinians... one should mention that Hamas has known and proven links to Iran's security forces and is funded by them. (Where do you think that they get their rockets and military supplies?)

Stopping Iran from producing nuclear material that goes beyond 'peaceful means' is in fact a very good thing.

Stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons should be something we all must agree upon.

Evidence can be accepted ...

... as long as those who committed the crime are not state or government actors. That is to say that the criminals who stole the evidence did so on their own without any direction from the government.

So if a bunch of criminals broke in to a bank vault, stole some sekret documents then mailed a copy of them to the local police station... that would be admissible. Were those crooks urged to break in to a specific vault by the police to obtain evidence, then the documents would not be admissible. (Good luck in proving that though.)

So the government (US) couldn't commit a crime to gather evidence to support its case. However it could take and use any evidence that was obtained legally.

Now here's the fun part. 'Fruit of a poisonous tree'. That is if the evidence was obtained indirectly as a result of an illegal act by the state, then the evidence is out.

(And the burden of the defense is to show that the evidence was found from an illegal act.)

What are you talking about...

First if any of Assange's supporters names are present, those posts won't see the light of day.

Second. Assange is 'assisting' the Fraud department for two reasons...

1) He's trying to score brownie points with the Brit Govt.

2) He's trying to angle for a reward.

In the US if you are the whistle blower, you might be in line for a reward. An example. A guy blew the whistle on Oracle's overcharging the US Govt $$$$ on contracts. Consider the reward to be a nice retirement package. ;-)