--- Log opened Thu Mar 29 00:00:36 2018
01:52 -!- cordless [cordless@gateway/shell/insomnia247/x-fzqczpstutngcibr] has joined #se2600
03:31 -!- K4k [elw@unaffiliated/k4k] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:28 <@Dagmar> So, fuck these twats using cheat hardware they just _bought_ to play PokemonGO
04:29 <@Dagmar> I think I'm going to spend some time this week punishing them publicly
04:29 <@Dagmar> I'm kind of sick of seeing that group littered with posts celebrating their latest "rare catch" when all they do is leave the thing on in the car
06:20 <@Dolemite> Well, they do have to turn it back on once an hour.   heh.
06:21 -!- Dolemite [~scott@66-191-237-75.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com] has quit [Quit: brb]
06:30 -!- Dolemite [~scott@66-191-237-75.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com] has joined #se2600
06:30 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Dolemite] by ChanServ
06:30 <@Dolemite> mr0ning, be0tches and h0ez!
08:40  * aestetix hugs Dolemite 
09:20 <@opticron> Dagmar, what kind of cheat hardware?
09:20 <@opticron> just catches everything that comes into view?
09:23 <@Dolemite> I think he's referring to the Go-tcha!, which uses the approved Pokemon Go API.   It will spin every Pokestop that you pass by, and can throw one normal pokeball at every mon within range.
09:24 < oddball> aestetix: Did you see my comments about Remmington and Justice Stevens the other night?
09:24 < aestetix> oddball: yes
09:24 < oddball> cool
09:24 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o oddball] by ChanServ
09:26 < aestetix> I'm trying to think of other justices who speak publicly on issues like that. The only one I can think of is RBG
09:29 <@oddball> Well, at least Stevens is retired.
09:35 -!- K4k [elw@unaffiliated/k4k] has joined #se2600
10:02 <@Corydon76> oddball: I think Stevens is on the right track, though.  If the anti-gunners spend a considerable amount of time spinning their wheels on a Constitutional amendment, they'll be spending less on unconstitutional laws.
10:03 <@oddball> At least they'd have to be honest over their goal.
10:05 <@oddball> As I said last night, my biggest surprise over his statements is that he is now recognizing that the right to bear arms is an individual right... which he didn't do in his dissent opinion in Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago.
10:07 < aestetix> I guess my question is, whether the solution fits the problem
10:07 < aestetix> I assume the problem is that they want to stop school shootings
10:08 < aestetix> We'd basically all agree it's a horrible problem and needs to stop
10:10 <@oddball> Step 1. let's actually have the cops do their damn job.  The shooting in Florida was done by someone that should have been rotting in a cell.  The question is whether it should have been a prison cell or a padded cell.  The proper authorities *knew* this... repeatidly, but chose to not act.
10:10 <@Corydon76> We also agree that conflicts between Windows, Mac, and Linux are horrible and need to stop.  That doesn't mean we need to outlaw two of those platforms.
10:11 < dasunt> I'm fine with repealing the second amendment, TBH.
10:12 <@oddball> right.  We also need to recognize that a kid dying from a school shooting in this country is slightly more likely than getting struck by lightning.
10:12 < dasunt> The second amendment is pretty screwed up anyways.  So it's the right to bear arms.  But only firearms.  And only certain types of firearms.  Not other firearms.  And obviously not other weapons like surface-to-air missiles.
10:13 <@Corydon76> dasunt: we have restrictions on free speech, too.  I don't see that as necessarily a problem.
10:14 <@Corydon76> Right now, we have a line as to what's legal and what's not.  Some people want to move the line.  That's it.
10:14 < dasunt> Corydon76: Our restrictions on free speech tend to be those directly related to crimes.
10:14 < dasunt> There's an obscenity restriction to free speech, but that's fading away.
10:15 < aestetix> There are a few restrictions on free speech I'm ok with
10:15 < dasunt> OTOH, if we go with the restrictions not being against the spirit of the bill of rights, then IMO, we have an obvious solution - require strict licensing and regulation, and make it really difficult to get handguns.
10:15 <@Corydon76> dasunt: Uh, no, the restrictions tend to be those which balance against other rights.
10:15 < aestetix> Libel, slander, doxxing, other personal information like medical records
10:15 <@oddball> Honestly?  I see that as a degregation of the 2nd amendment.  The constitution gives the government the ability to issue letters of marque for privateers.  That pretty much states that they expect private citizens to be able to own/operate warships.
10:16 <@Corydon76> "Crime" by itself is a law, and where laws conflict with the constitution, the laws go bye-bye.
10:16 <@Corydon76> Only other constitutional laws can balance against free speech.
10:17 < dasunt> Back in the 1930s, SCOTUS unanamously agreed that a sawed off shotgun didn't fall under the second amendment, since it was not a typical weapon of war.
10:18 < dasunt> I'd argue that handguns, at this point, could be argued to not be typical weapons of war either.
10:18 <@Corydon76> oddball: I'm not sure we'll ever get to a Supreme Court willing to go to that length, though.
10:18 <@oddball> Corydon76: oh, I know.
10:18 <@Corydon76> Not in my lifetime, anyway
10:19 <@oddball> dasunt: Which is why handguns are standard issue to soldiers across the globe, including the US military?
10:19 < dasunt> oddball: Are they?  To the typical soldier?  AFAIK, they are not.
10:19 <@oddball> yes.  yes they are.
10:19 <@Corydon76> But a lot could change, with the ever proposals to privatize governmental functions
10:19 < dasunt> oddball: So the typical soldier in the field has a handgun?
10:19 <@oddball> yep
10:19 < dasunt> I'm not talking officers, MPs, etc.
10:19 <@Corydon76> dasunt: a sidearm?  Yes
10:20 <@oddball> In fact, the US Army just spent a few years and dropped a good chunk of cash on seleecting a new standard issue pistol.
10:21 < dasunt> I'm looking this up still.  Didn't realize that privates carried pistols in the field.
10:21 < aestetix> I mean it's not like there will be *any* amendments in the near future.
10:21 < aestetix> And if they are going to amend the constitution, there are a couple that are slightly higher priority than guns
10:22 <@oddball> Even if they're not, you're going to say that something carried by "officers, MPs, etc" isn't common in the military?
10:22 <@Corydon76> Citizens United would be a great one to fix
10:22 < aestetix> Corydon76: the one I'm thinking of would require president-elects to fully disclose all their financials
10:23 < aestetix> I realize the whole tax return thing is a precedent set by Nixon
10:23 <@Corydon76> aestetix: all would come under campaign finance law
10:23 <@oddball> And, frankly, I'd be fine with that part of Millar actually being held as the standard.  Legalize new machine guns!
10:23 < aestetix> But the two term in office was also a precedent until FDR came along, and they passed an amdnement to stop that
10:23 < dasunt> oddball: If officers carrying it makes it a military weapon, then legal restrictions on the carrying of swords by civilians has a 2nd amendment challenge.
10:24 <@oddball> I agree.
10:24 <@oddball> And I belong to an organization that is doing its best to get rid of stupid knife/sword laws.
10:24 < dasunt> LOL.  Do it.
10:25 <@oddball> Already did it here. :)
10:25 < dasunt> But, OTOH, this is silly.  Like, do civilians have the right to any weapon the US military uses?
10:25 <@opticron> oooh, I want a howitzer
10:25 <@Evilpig> if you can afford it, why not?
10:26 <@Corydon76> dasunt: are you talking about Founders intention, or are you talking about current law?
10:26 <@oddball> According to the part of Heller that you cited?  Yes.
10:26 <@oddball> s/Heller/Miller
10:26 < dasunt> Corydon76: Well, if you are talking about the FOunder's intention, then states have the right to outright ban firearms, since the US constitution only originally applied to the Federal Government.
10:27 < aestetix> dasunt: except you run into the supremacy clause
10:27 <@oddball> opticron: Funny thing.  You can, if you're willing to do the paperwork.
10:27 <@oddball> Or if it's black powder.
10:27 <@opticron> I'm not surprised
10:27 < dasunt> aestetix: Didn't apply until (IIRC) one of the anti-slavery amendments.
10:27 <@Corydon76> dasunt: The Second Amendment prohibits *any* governmental interference in private citizens owning arms.
10:27 < aestetix> dasunt: interesting, you mean the 13th or 14th, right?
10:28 < aestetix> I can't remember which
10:28 <@Corydon76> dasunt: by the simple phrasing.  Remember, the First Amendment applied only to Congress, but the Second applied to both feds and the states
10:28 < dasunt> Corydon76: Nope.  It prohibits the federal government from interfering.  Just as the first prohibited the federal government from interfering with freedom of speech.
10:28 < aestetix> Well hold on
10:28 < dasunt> aestetix: Yep.  The one that was interpreted to apply the restrictions of the US constitution to the states.
10:28 <@oddball> dasunt is correct.  The US constitution only restricted Federal law until the 14th.
10:28 < aestetix> The constitution also provides the freedom of religion
10:29 < aestetix> And there were several colonies that had state religions they had to stop, IIRC
10:29 <@Corydon76> dasunt: "shall not be infringed" isn't limited only Congress.
10:29 < aestetix> I need to read up more on the 14th amendment, it seems
10:29 < dasunt> Corydon76: Look up "incorporation of the bill of rights"
10:30 <@Corydon76> In the first, it's "Congress shall make no law".  The Second, "shall not be infringed"
10:30 <@oddball> It was required to allow the Fed to force states to comply.
10:30 < aestetix> Does the 14th amendment have the due process clause?
10:30 < aestetix> I guess I can just go look
10:30 <@Corydon76> dasunt: Are you saying that states would have been free to quarter their own soldiers in the homes of private citizens?
10:30 < dasunt> Corydon76: Relevant case law appears to be Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago.
10:31 <@Corydon76> And states would have been permitted to impose cruel and unusual punishments (8th)?
10:31 < dasunt> Corydon76: Also United States v. Cruikshank in 1876 held that the second amendment didn't apply to states.
10:32 < dasunt> Corydon76: Literally, the US v. Curikshank addressed the 2nd amendment issue.  It found it didn't apply to the states.
10:32 <@oddball> Which has since been reversed by, at least, McDonald vs Chicago.
10:33 < dasunt> Sure.  That's the incorporation of the bill of rights.
10:33 <@Corydon76> Cruikshank appears to limit the rights infringed by private actors, not by the states.
10:33 < aestetix> oddball: you should give a talk about gun rights
10:34 < dasunt> By about 100 years ago, SCOTUS was finally interpreting that most of the bill of rights applied to state actions as well.
10:34 < dasunt> Where in USvCruikshank, SCOTUS said "The right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution".
10:34 <@oddball> aestetix: Decious did a pretty good talk on the history on the 2nd at Dragoncon a couple years back.
10:35 < aestetix> cool
10:35 < aestetix> I should check it out
10:35 <@oddball> There were a couple points that I wasn't real sure I agreed with him about, but it was fairly well done.
10:36 <@Corydon76> dasunt: terminology.  Rights aren't GRANTED by the Constitution.  They are PROTECTED by the Constitution.
10:36 <@oddball> let me see if I can find it.
10:36 < aestetix> Corydon76: yep
10:36 < aestetix> Corydon76: so many people don't get that
10:36 < aestetix> Because.... if your country collapses, do your rights collapse with it?
10:37 <@oddball> Here is is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM
10:37 < PigBot> The Second Amendment: A Refreshing Perspective | Dragon Con EFForums (at www.youtube.com) http://tinyurl.com/y7dtbvn5
10:37 < aestetix> thanks
10:38 <@Corydon76> dasunt: and I honestly think that the justices misstated the opinion in Cruikshank, because they're not contrasting with the states, but against infringements committed by private citizens.
10:38 <@oddball> I'm still waiting for SCOTUS to actually take up a case dealing with "may issue" states.  They've been dodging them lately, and there is disagreement at the circuit of appeals level about them.
10:39 <@Corydon76> It said that unlike with the federal government the Amendment provides no protection against infringements by private citizens.
10:39  * aestetix watches
10:40 < dasunt> Corydon76: The decision is pretty clear.
10:40 <@oddball> And, as a friend has stated lately, it's funny how a fraction of the crap a gun owner has to go through has been declared unconstituional out of hand for other rights.
10:40 <@Corydon76> And given that Cruikshank essentially allowed the KKK to continue to flourish in the South against black people, it's pretty clear that the decision was poorly made.
10:40 < dasunt> Corydon76: And you can check the history of case law with the incorporation of the bill of rights.
10:41 <@Corydon76> dasunt: there's precious little case law before the 14th Amendment was ratified and applied those restrictions to the states.
10:41 <@oddball> dasunt: As I said, that case's findings have been pretty much completely reversed by later cases.
10:44 < dasunt> oddball: Agreed.  USvCruikshank was later reversed after SCOTUS started to apply the US bill of rights to the state.
10:46 <@oddball> And, frankly, Cruikshank has been considered a fucked up decision, because it was decided a couple years after the ratificaion of the 14th, which plainly states that the restrictions listed in the constitution apply to the states as well.
10:46 < dasunt> USvPresser had the same conclusion.
10:46 < dasunt> "The second amendment declarse that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall notbe infringed by congress."
10:50 <@oddball> And I fail to see how the same arguments don't also apply to Presser.
10:54 < TheDukh_> random question:  anyone else find it strange how if you work remote, you sometimes never see your boss, or if you do, it's not a continuous thing?
10:55 < dasunt> interpretation of the 14th hadn't evolved yet.
10:55 <@Corydon76> TheDukh_: No, that's normal.
10:55 <@oddball> TheDukh_: If you don't work at the office, you rarely see people at the office?
10:55 <@Corydon76> I was surprised after a period of time that  a coworker went from being nearly bald to having hair.
10:56 < TheDukh_> No, I mean, at my last job, I didn't see my boss or even meet him in person for nearly 2 years
10:56 <@Corydon76> Oh, it's not that long for me.  I see them an average of about once a month.
10:57 <@oddball> TheDukh_: ah, 2 years is a bit long, but yeah... it happens.
10:58 < TheDukh_> It was weird, because I went from seeing our CISO having like a full on grizzly adams style beard to being babyfaced the next time I saw him. was kinda thrown off.
10:58 <@oddball> Even more so if you do remote contract work.  My wife has been doing a remote contract job for a couple years now, and has never been in the physical presence of her boss.
10:58 <@oddball> She's only physically met one person at the home office, and... well... that's Dementia.
10:59 < TheDukh_> same job or different job?
10:59 <@oddball> Same job.
10:59 <@oddball> er... different job than Dementia, but same job at the same company.
10:59 < TheDukh_> my co-worker was at nearly...4 years before he met him?  We had a team meeting at the office and first time we met him.
11:00 < TheDukh_> first time I met my team members was at Derby Con
11:11 <@Corydon76> A coworker just linked this.  Don't remember if it's been seen before or not.  https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/interactive/bomb-blast
11:11 < PigBot> What would happen if a nuclear bomb went off in your backyard? | Outrider (at outrider.org) http://tinyurl.com/ycub8btz
11:28 < aestetix> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlW1R0WAk0Y
11:28 < PigBot> Mark Zuckerberg in 2008: "We've learned…just exactly how important privacy is." (at www.youtube.com) http://tinyurl.com/yb3g2ytp
11:31 <@oddball> And the answer that they came to was "it's not?"
11:40 <@Corydon76> I think they came to the conclusion that it was best if they could appear to safeguard privacy while selling us all out
11:41 < aestetix> which is why this latest drama is so bad
11:41 < aestetix> it wasn't a data breach, it was a reputation breach
11:42 < aestetix> it also doesn't help that facebook hq is in the bay area, which is very very very hostile to trump, and now it turns out facebook "helped" trump get elected
11:43 <@Corydon76> There's some question about that, now, at least in terms of Cambridge Analytica
11:43 < aestetix> well
11:43 < aestetix> I admit I only watched about an hour of Wylie's testimony
11:44 <@Corydon76> It appears they helped him get the Republican nomination
11:44 < aestetix> so maybe there are some new things I didn't see
11:44 < TheDukh_> Zuckerberg won't go the way of Elizabeth Holmes or Travis Kalanick, everyone knew he was an asshole beforehand who would do whatever it took.
11:44 <@Corydon76> Whether they helped him win the general election is another question
11:44 < aestetix> Corydon76: I think Trump did a pretty good job winning the primary on his own
11:44 < aestetix> Helped by the fact that the rest of them were a clown circus
11:45 < TheDukh_> They prolly helped Trump with the primary because they thought he would be an easier candidate to take down vs some of the more established republicans
11:45 <@Corydon76> Jeb Bush wasn't a bad choice
11:45 < TheDukh_> Kasich wouldn't have been bad either.  God forbid if it had of been Cruz
11:45 <@Corydon76> TheDukh_: Facebook was unwitting in that election assistance
11:46 <@Corydon76> What they were looking for was a clear example of how their platform could be said to benefit the population
11:47 <@Corydon76> Or least, to benefit the business community enough that they could continue to raise money
12:03 < aestetix> god sometimes mutt pisses me off so much
12:03 < aestetix> does anyone here use mutt?
12:04 <@Corydon76> Not often, anymore
12:04 -!- TheDukh_ [~thedukh@66-38-50-21.pool.dsl.duo-county.com] has quit []
12:04 < aestetix> Corydon76: maybe you can answer this question though
12:04 < aestetix> If I've been writing an email for a while, and then I hit to send it, I often get this ssl timeout issue
12:04 < aestetix> Any idea how to fix that? It's really, really, really annoying
12:14 -!- TheDukh [~thedukh@66-38-50-21.pool.dsl.duo-county.com] has joined #se2600
12:45 -!- xray [~xray@c-73-43-4-206.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
12:46 -!- xray [~xray@c-73-43-4-206.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
12:48  * dasunt holds in his rant at work.
13:02 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:03 -!- PigBot [~PigBot@wilpig.org] has joined #se2600
13:12 < aestetix> dasunt: any chance you're a mutt expert?
13:16 <@_NSAKEY> aestetix: You should use a real client, like gmail.
13:16 < aestetix> lol
13:17 < aestetix> how many gigs of ram would that take? :p
13:18 <@Corydon76> aestetix: How are you sending your emails?  The connection shouldn't start until you hit Send.
13:18 <@_NSAKEY> Not nearly as many as slack.
13:18 < aestetix> Corydon76: IMAP
13:18 <@_NSAKEY> I'm still pissed that they're getting rid of the IRC gateway.
13:18 <@Corydon76> IMAP doesn't send anything.  It's purely a message store
13:19 <@Corydon76> The options for sending are: 25, 465, and 587
13:19 <@Corydon76> 25 is plaintext, 465 is SSL and 587 is commonly authenticated with STARTTLS.
13:19 < aestetix> oh, right
13:19 < aestetix> 465
13:20 <@Corydon76> Sounds like mutt may be opening the connection first.  I would suggest that you configure your local MTA and then use local mail sending
13:20 < aestetix> ok, I'll look into that
13:20 < aestetix> thanks
13:21 <@Corydon76> As in, configure sendmail or postfix.
13:21 < aestetix> right
13:21 < aestetix> I notice that when I lose my internet connection, I can't navigate mails
13:21 < aestetix> Which I had assumed was due to IMAP not locally caching
13:21 <@Corydon76> I know with sendmail, it's fairly easy to configure it to forward all mail to another host, and you can have it run over 465 and SSL, or another port of your choosing, and include authentication
13:22 <@Corydon76> You mean Mutt not locally caching
13:22 < aestetix> actually mutt does locally cache
13:22 <@Corydon76> IMAP is just a protocol for a message store
13:22 < aestetix> heh ok
13:24 < aestetix> https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-very-unnerving-existence-of-teen-boss-a-magazine-for-girls
13:24 < PigBot> The Very Unnerving Existence of Teen Boss, a Magazine for Girls | The New Yorker (at www.newyorker.com) http://tinyurl.com/ydymzyjd
13:25 < aestetix> There really is nothing good about this magazine's existence
13:26 <@Corydon76> I see one thing good about it.
13:26 <@Corydon76> It's keep you occupied on a rant while the rest of us work.
13:45 < dasunt> aestetix: Used mutt years ago, but now I have to use Outlook because I've made mistakes in life.
13:51 < aestetix> can mutt connect to outlook/exchange?
13:54 <@Evilpig> sure via pop
15:01 < dasunt> WTF?  Why won't windows 10 let me run "Local Users and Groups" as admin?
15:05 < dasunt> Okay, guess I have to run MMC as admin, then add it.  Because, yay, Microsoft is still having difficulty grasping the concept of running as an unprivileged user for most things.
16:33 < TheDukh> Today has been a good day.
16:45 < dasunt> Why is Technet a flaming pile of dogshit?
16:46 < dasunt> Q:  "I'm getting error 0xC000DEAD.  It says the DoWiget Service is not running.  How do I fix this?"  A:  "Your DoWidget service is not running.  You will need to fix that."
19:03 -!- aestetix_ [~aestetix@phalse.2600.com] has joined #se2600
19:12 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: @opticron, PigBot, @Corydon76, @_NSAKEY, @oddball, aestetix, dfused, @ChanServ, @NotLarry, ^020d,  (+1 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
19:13 -!- Netsplit over, joins: PigBot, @oddball, @_NSAKEY, @Corydon76, dfused, @rhia, @NotLarry, ^020d, @opticron, @ChanServ
19:23 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-qgcejgohvyqorhcn] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:23 -!- Imgur[m] [nebimgurma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-tzxcvnettsyzdgcz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
19:33 -!- Imgur[m] [nebimgurma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-nmqdaaiibjujrrjr] has joined #se2600
20:26 -!- K`Tetch [~no@24-178-141-147.dhcp.thtn.ga.charter.com] has joined #se2600
20:26 -!- K`Tetch [~no@24-178-141-147.dhcp.thtn.ga.charter.com] has quit [Changing host]
20:26 -!- K`Tetch [~no@unaffiliated/ktetch] has joined #se2600
20:28 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/session] has joined #se2600
20:28 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/session] has quit [Changing host]
20:28 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-erseanfiqdoqjndg] has joined #se2600
20:29 -!- sasquatc4 [~sasquatch@2601:282:702:1eb8:e8be:e05f:35bb:96a0] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:32 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-erseanfiqdoqjndg] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
20:32 -!- Imgur[m] [nebimgurma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-nmqdaaiibjujrrjr] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:54 -!- Dolemite [~scott@66-191-237-75.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
20:55 -!- Dolemite [~scott@66-191-237-75.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com] has joined #se2600
20:55 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Dolemite] by ChanServ
20:55 -!- Imgur[m] [nebimgurma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-yghviudbixjvcaxt] has joined #se2600
21:08 -!- dc0de[m] [dc0dematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-jkvtasilqcucstaw] has joined #se2600
--- Log closed Fri Mar 30 00:00:38 2018