Ten oz

Senior Members
  • Content count

    3220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

667 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About Ten oz

  • Rank
    Scientist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington D.C.
  • Interests
    Homebrew, Hiking, Cycling, independent video, politics
  • College Major/Degree
    Armed Forces Resident training
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolution
  • Occupation
    Electrician

Recent Profile Visitors

13069 profile views
  1. Arming Teachers

    Only about 40% of households have guns. Closer to 90% of households have a car. So it isn't quite as bad. Additionally it is a crime to let minors or those without a license to drive. It is common, in my experience, that parents inquire about who is driving or if someone is driving when school age kids get together. There is a known risk associated with young drivers. If such awareness could be created towards guns that would be great. Another risk factor seems to be fetish for taking photos wear tactical vest and holding firearms.
  2. Arming Teachers

    He is the President. His office is the highest one in our govt. I am not happy about that but it is a the way it is. His suggestions can simply be ignored. Assuming the GOP move forward with trying to daft something I think it is best for those opposed to have alternatives. Considering school shooters nearly always use a weapon that was in their home it might be a good idea for school administrators to start keeping track of which students are in homes with firearms. Having firearms in a home does seem to a an identifiable risk factor.
  3. Arming Teachers

    @ John Cuthber police officers are armed and police officer have been still been attacked. That said it is something being suggested at the highest levels of government. So it is a real thing being considered I think the answer to the initial question of should they be armed is a NO. However the answer to the second question isn't as simple to answer. What can schools do?
  4. Arming Teachers

    The President has suggested arming Teachers as a way to prevent future mass shootings. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-floats-bonuses-teachers-willing-carry-guns-class-n850281 Is this something that would work to prevent school shootings? What are the things schools can do to reduce the likelihood of on campus shootings?
  5. Internet Trolls

    I posted that there are anonymous people on YouTube with audience large as or larger than some journalist. I have already proved there are. Words like "crackpot" are your words and not mine. I do not need to provide you proof of things I have not posted. What I posted was 100% accurate. Large is a relative term. Are you suggesting trolls don't exist? "WASHINGTON — An estimated 126 million Americans, roughly one-third of the nation’s population, received Russian-backed content on Facebook during the 2016 campaign, according to prepared testimony the company submitted Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by NBC News." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-backed-election-content-reached-126-million-americans-facebook-says-n815791 The DNC hacked material weren't lies. Something can be true yet still used as propaganda or to sow division. Wikileaks uses anonymous sources. Had people been aware the source was Russia and Russia was interfering I think it would have influenced the way the information was processed. So you are wrong about my position. I am not directly associating anonymity with cults and lies. I am arguing that when something is anonymous its motives aren't known and that motive matters. Something true can be said for destructive or manipulative reasons. Context always is always important when consuming information Actually they do not always know who there are. That is why Twiiter froze accounts and forced people to verify they weren't bots this week. It is a constant struggle. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/conservatives-melt-down-as-twitter-annihilates-fake-accounts As for why average people should knowing; I think it is good to know the source of information. Consider that Yevgeny Prigozhin was one of the financiers for the Russia troll farms that interfered in the 2016 election. He backs groups in Syria that have tried to kill U.S. Military personnel. You don't think people should know if they are viewing info promoted by someone like him? "Yevgeny Prigozhin — a Russian businessman and restauranteur dubbed “Putin's chef" by the Russian media — is deeply involved in the Wagner Group, officials said, a paramilitary firm based in southern Russia. According to those officials, the firm deployed mercenaries in Syria who tried to strike U.S. special operations forces earlier this month. The attack failed, two intelligence officials told ABC News, as the mercenaries were decimated by U.S. airstrikes during their advance." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-troll-farm-financier-backs-russian-mercenaries-syria/story?id=53256296
  6. Bernie Sanders & Russia election interference

    “In many respects, what Mueller’s report tells us is not new to us,” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said. “We knew that they were trying to sow division within the American people. In my case, it was to tell Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Hillary Clinton is crazy, that Hillary Clinton is sick — terrible, terrible ugly stuff — and to have Bernie Sanders supporters either vote for Trump or Jill Stein or not vote at all.” https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/
  7. Internet Trolls

    https://www.youtube.com/user/AnonymousWorldvoce/videos There is literally a Youtube page called Anonymous with 1.9 million subscribers. There are many of these pages. Let's go back to my original post you are challenging: I have already provided you the proof you asked for (twice now) showing that there are anonymous people on YouTube with a greater audience than some journalists. My post was about their anonymity. The post I made is 100% accurate.You do not know who the writers and producers are or who is profiting from channels like Anonymous and Alltime Conspiracies. Arguing about the the content of those pages is not in context with the post you are responding to. This thread asks a couple of questions: " What are the long and short term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?". In response to what can or should be done I recommended that monetized blogs, YouTube, and Social Media accounts shouldn't be anonymous. I think we should know who is producing and profiting. That would not infringe on free speech. Knowing who journalists and pundits are doesn't prevent their speech so I don't see what the different is. What problems do you see or have with that suggestion?
  8. Internet Trolls

    Alltime Conspiracies, they have 1.5 million subscribers. There about page references a Facebook page and the about feature on the Facebook page references the YouTube page.
  9. Internet Trolls

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43144717 Twitter to action against bots today. Accounts were locked till verified via phone number. That is a good start to limiting those with numerous accounts using bots to make their position seems bigger than it is. Provided Twitter isn't editing individual content I like it. To that end if numerous accounts are using same verification phone number I think there should be a feature reflects the fact all the accounts are mutually managed. Free speech is a terrific thing but I think people should have some idea where the speech is coming from. I don't home addresses but rather affiliations.
  10. Internet Trolls

    It is the FCC's official page. You can search whichever standards you want to know about as it relates to the FCC. What size audience do you think average journalist has? I ask because numerous YouTube channels have millions of subscribers and I am sure you are aware of that. So what exactly are you challenging? I am not in the mood to provide links just to chase you down a rabbit hole of "what about this" challenges.
  11. Yay, GUNS!

    I addressed zap and explained why I don't feel it would work. What do you need me to clarify?
  12. Yay, GUNS!

    And? You've already stated in previous posts that you do not feel giving up anything you may have is necessary or useful. Nope, 3rd time today (2 different threads) you have misrepresented my position.
  13. Yay, GUNS!

    I explained why I didn't feel it would work. Additionally I don't recommend things I myself am unwilling to do. That is your assumption. For all you know I own a an armory of weapons.
  14. Yay, GUNS!

    It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??
  15. Internet Trolls

    I said some anonymous YouTube channel have the same size audience of some licensed journalist; not mainstream media at large. This is the second time in this thread you challenged me based on an idea I didn't post or imply. Please take better care to read my posts before arguing. If you need clarification, ask. https://www.fcc.gov/media/customer-service-standards#block-menu-block-4 The FCC does regulate the industry.