Search for posts by corey

Re: Please suggest a name for our new site

"LoudMouth's Lounge"

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Please suggest a name for our new site

I don't know if it is available, but  It just popped in my head thinking how "very opinionated people" are getting coined as "loudmouths" or "know it alls" by peole in general.

 "Delight" is the enjoyment it brings yourself.
"lounge" place to gather.
SO here is my crack at names:

 "LoudMouth's Delight"
 "Know-it-all 's  brigade"
 "know-it-all 's lounge"

If it is going to be a new site lets be origional.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Join Opinions.techdracula.com for better features!

Ok for a site that is suppose to be polls and discussions you should not be over powered by "user photos" as the first thing you see.

The first thing I see,, when going there, was a woman backside with wings and several of Amber's face.

This would be a put-off  based on which ever photos happen to be plasterd accross the screen at the moment someone visits.

First impression someone might have seeing what I just saw,  is "OMG another womanizing/worshiping site!(Sic) never want to come back here!. 

At minimum you going to want to put the new photos at the very bottom. or better yet have the photos behind a "tab" you click on, that takes you to it.

@ amber  the photos of "the face" is nice.  I was simply pointing out that at the moment I saw the site  I did not get the impression it was a opinion/polling/discussion site.   and being the internet, I don't put a lot of stock in that photo actually being "your photo".  And if it was, that is problably not a good idea to be putting your face in public like that, for any random stranger to see.  That could lead to "real world problems" for whoever that really is in those photos.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Join Opinions.techdracula.com for better features!

I see where skunky is coming from considering there is religious and superstitious context to "dracula" and it sounds like its a polling place that is focused on  "dracula as a subject"

@skunky   maybe you can help by pointing out what you thought about, "how" signing up was hard?  they may be able to adjust the "signing up" to make it more intuitive.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Americans who share “technical data” about a firearm without first obtaining permission would face time in jail.

@cat both parties, OP and saul, have misentrpreted the meaning of the rule.  Read the link provided from MrsJJS or read my long post and take note of my quote.

unclasified data can still be talked about.

They just don't want cutting edge tech to fall into enemy hands, like DARPA "smart rifle rounds" that changes direction in flight to track and hit hidden moving targets.  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a15282/watch-darpas-smart-bullet-home-in-on-a-moving-target/

the death toll would go way up if the wrong people got their hands on that tech.

NRA was simply concerned that current wording could be abused or intentionally misinterpreted, that would lead to infringing on the peoples constitutional rights about talking about common firearm tech.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Americans who share “technical data” about a firearm without first obtaining permission would face time in jail.

The quote is from MrsJJS link

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Americans who share “technical data” about a firearm without first obtaining permission would face time in jail.

also note this looks to be a "new rule" which means the wording can yet change, so as not to actually infringe on the "second" and such.   I think the NRA was simply trying to point out that the current wording allows for "misinterpretation" which could lead to violating the "first".

I have seen this happen with the executive order regarding the seizing of american assests like farmland and equipment in a time of emergency.   The origional wording put the military or government agencies in control of those assests.  But after public scrutinay the wording was changed to the government would work with the owners who controled those assests to better manage those assests in time of emergency, like famine.

quote"This
rulemaking proposes that the electronic
transmission of unclassified ''technical
data'' abroad is not an ''export,''

This indicates that the data that you and I use in regards to firearms IS NOT covered by this new rule because it is unclasified data on the firearms.

They are talking about say ""remington"" from Not sharing info with foreghn nationals without permision. especially research and development.

The purpose is to prevent things like DARPA "homing rifle round" "Techknology and research" from being handed over to nations or enemies of the USA , for a profit.

OP misinterpreted the meaning of the rule.   

I can share info on say how to keep the barrel from rusting and explain how it impacts performance of my remington 870.

Or talk about the different performance of standard 12 ga rounds, like sabot vs hammerheads.

--------------------------
As far as the NRA is concerned I have never actually seen them out right lie, Why?  They loose credibility if they do.  What you might see as "precieved as a lie" is they simply focus on the information that proves Firearms have strong benifits like protecting family.  Or showing all the stories where a firearm was used, that if not, innecent people would be dead or raped or such. Or showing how current policy would be effective or not in detering or preventing the wrong people from using firearms. or how it stops "law abiding people" from protecting family and such.
----------------------------

example: When sandy hook happened, as far as I could tell, NRA left that one alone. With the exception of fighting kneejerk, emotional, irrational policies, after the fact, that do nothing to actually reduce crime and violence, but blocks people ability to protect family and friends or to feed themselves.   Example fighting policy to restrict magazine size to the size that is NOT sold or made currently.  This is easily defeated by simply bringing more clips, so it does not in any way stop the badguy. The only people this stops is "law abiding citizens"(these people are NOT the enemy)  in a bad way by putting undue finacial burden on current law abiding gun owners.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Any way to delete sodahead account after being locked out?

I filed a complaint to FTC today about sodahead locking our accounts without warning. Not allowing us to delete critical biometric and meta data, we do not want a company like swagbuck to have. And the fact that swagbucks a company that makes its business selling User habits and data is a real issue for those that been actively trying to avoid companies like this , like me.. By using things like adblockerplus no-script, ghostery and avoiding websites like swagbucks.

FTC also suggested filing a complaint here http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

Which I intend to do.

When you look at what swagbucks does for a business and how it profits on selling your habits that should remain private. Reason needs to stay private is due to all the bad ways that data can be used against you. You should be really concerned, that this is a MAJOR privacy breach by means of an outright buyout, by a company that should not have your habits or biometric data in the first place.

I honestly believe this to be an internet crime especially the part about locking us out of the account so we could not delete sensitive information.

They could just as easily disabled the forum functions and such without actually locking the account.

This was a "data grab", there can be no other explanation in my opinion.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Will you date a younger person then how much younger?

Quote from me from another thread that has relevance here

"Which is ironic because my dad married a woman, young enough to by my sister, yet it is the longest running mariage he been able to hold onto and as far as I know is still going. But in that case she was already of legal age. if it had occured just a couple of years earlier then it would have been illegal, due to the political and religious stigma surounding "attraction" between certian age groups.."

end quote.

she was dad's 5th or 7th wife. I lost track

When it comes to love, you better grab on tight, regardless of age, in "most" cases. because it doesn't happen often. especially if your an introvert.(spending so much time alone to begin with.)

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.

Re: Will you date a younger person then how much younger?

I am in the boat with James.  irony is I been on only 1 date ever, and no I am not young.  (huffing at some of my gray hair)

I never wanted to be put in the position of bringing a child into this world that would get totured like I did by peers growing up over decades.

In the end I been ok with it being a major introvert.

I can say, I fit best with people either younger than myself or older, never with anyone within a year or three of myself.  But I had/have preferences towards those younger. (on instinctive level) Think in my case it might be genetic in light of how it worked so well for dad. (who I have not talked to in some time nor ever will again.)

But I have to admit that I Knew a couple of sisters 13/15 who had major crush on me LOL. NO I did not go there. Felt way to protective of them to even consider going there.   Their dad had to fend them off of me a couple of times.(LOL I was simply in too much shock to do anything right at that moment)  No worries I set them straight once I realized just how serious they were.   Give you context thier dad was the sole income earner of the family, who had hardtime putting food on the table for 6, so things like fruit would not be comon on their menu. I would get invited for dinner and I would be sure to bring as much fruit as I could afford to spare.  We would make a fruit sallid and every last piece would be gone by bedtime. we are talking like 10-20 lb fruit. between 7 of us.

problably the greatest age diference that I would allow is 20 years my juniorr. no worries they would be plenty legal by several years.

I really like my privacy, its nothing personal against anyone here. especially in light of having accounts locked on sodahead.