Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

The math doesn’t work

Posted on by

Computer CPU clock speeds are now well into the gigaHertz range, meaning that there are potentially billions of things per second that can be done by the computer. Billions. Thousands of millions of cycles per second.

Why then is it impossible for my tablet to keep up with my typing? I’m not a fast typist, but a modern computer should be able keep up with the kind of fantasy, hyper typing that pushes the limits of the human hand’s ability to withstand the G forces involved in moving the fingers.

You can record audio and video simultaneously and with fairly good resolution with this thing, and one would think that taking key pad instructions at rates of a few hundred strokes per minute, converting them to text, displaying the text on screen and making a click noise would not tax the computing power beyond its limits, but it apparently does. I find this more than curious.

Either a large number of programmers and project managers have crap for brains, or we are being intentionally messed with, or converting display screen address touches and converting them to text is one of the most extremely complicated things a computer can ever do. It has to be one of those three, doesn’t it? What am I missing?

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Posted on by

The problem I see is, the left imported the Muslim threat. Then the leftists at Charlie Hebdo inflamed it with leftist snark to the point that it began shooting at them, and even killed innocent citizens in the Kosher Deli. Now they want everyone to “stand with them,” which really means fight the enemy they imported and angered, while they hide under the table, so they won’t have to face the consequences of their own stupidity.

Anonymous Conservative
January 22, 2015
Are We All Charlie Hebdo?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—user1089750

Posted on by

What a festival of disturbing, unbalanced, one-issue low IQ retards.

user1089750
January 15, 2015
Comment to Hundreds at Capitol protest new gun-purchase background checks
[This in regards to the I-594 rally in Olympia. This is what they think of you.

I would like to suggest they just keep on thinking that. Delusions are often functional right up to the point where reality obliterates them.—Joe]

Achtung, Juden! Das ist Verboten!

Posted on by

In processing a customer order today, we got a “Service Not Allowed” message from our credit card merchant services bank. They’re the ones who handle all of our credit and debit card transactions. We called them to find out what this message means, because we’d not seen it before. Well, they were by this time quite familiar with the “problem”. The problem is MBNA, in this case, who issued the card to our customer, DOES NOT ALLOW TRANSACTIONS WITH GUN RELATED BUSINESSES.

If you’re doing any business with MBNA, you’d best give them a jingle, and DO NOT FORGET this. This sort of thing seems to be on the rise, and it will get worse unless we push back, soon.

Update, Jan. 7, 2015; The customer called his bank, assuming the “Service Not Allowed” was due to a late payment on his part. As I explained to him several times; we were told by our Merchant Services bank that it was due to MBNA policy, and that our Merchant Services people were quite familiar with said policy as they’d had to deal with such denials many times previous. The customer only repeated what he’d said about a possible late payment. In any case, the transaction, on the same card, was approved today. All I can make of it, given what we were told by Merchant Services, is that MBNA will cave without comment or discussion once they’re called on it. From what commenters are saying, the practice of denying transactions may be random, or it may be targeted toward individual customers or vendors. Without more information I have no way of knowing. This would all seem quite unbelievable, except for what we already know about the recent IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, the attempted intimidation of Sharyl Attkisson and others, and other insidious pranks aimed at the perceived enemies of Progressivism.

This is how you measure racism?

Posted on by

From this “study” claiming to show that gun ownership is positively correlated to racism we find this is how they measure racism:

1.   It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.        

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

2.  Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up.  Blacks should do the same.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

3.  Some say that black leaders have been trying to push too fast.  Others feel that they haven’t pushed fast enough.  What do you think?   

<1> Trying to push very much too fast
<2> Going too slowly
<3> Moving at about the right speed

4.  How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think blacks are responsible for creating?                       

<1> All of it
<2> Most
<3> Some
<4> Not much at all

5.  How much discrimination against blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?

<1> A lot
<2> Some
<3> Just a little
<4> None at all

6.  Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class. 

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

7.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

8.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

Wow! And here I thought racism was an biased view of someone because of their race which was unsupported by, or in spite of, data. Nearly all of the questions can be answered by appropriate research. Asking these questions tells us nothing about real racism. It may well be that someone knows the factually supported answers to these questions and nearly maxes out as a racist.

For example; Imagine the survey was attempting to measure racism toward Asian women and they asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “Asian women are underrepresented on United States professional basketball teams because of racism.” The only bias that could realistically be measured is if the answer was in agreement with statement since:

  1. Statistically Asian women are shorter than average.
  2. Height is a big advantage in basketball.
  3. Both of the above conditions are well known.

In general there are three conditions which must be met before racism measurement survey can be valid:

  1. The factually supported answers align with the biases of the creators of this test.
  2. The person taking the test knew the factually supported answers.
  3. The person taking the test answered the questions in a way that was not factually supported.

If any of the conditions are not met then the survey results are invalid. I am virtually certain the second and third conditions are false for the vast majority of people being surveyed and I suspect the first condition is as well.

There can only be one correct conclusion from this. I must be a racist.

The psychological model

Posted on by

I had an interesting “conversation” with some people on Twitter the last few days. Their contribution was a constant string of insults such as:

@jgrubb62190 @EndNRA @AWorldOutOfMind Because you show your inadequacies so proudly. Someday you might find a woman.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 9, 2014

@JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 @AWorldOutOfMind PS, at no time did I refer to myself as anti-gun, presumptuous dick-bag.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 29, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 The gun nuts are a sad, sorry lot with zero human empathy. Heartless, dense.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

@JoeHuffman @AWorldOutOfMind @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 Put your glasses on, old timer..

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@JoeHuffman @AWorldOutOfMind @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 More blog links, this guy is fucking dense!!

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@AWorldOutOfMind @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I enjoy destroying them slowly.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 And did you? I mean, you should have, but you can’t destroy Teflon Idiocy.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

@AWorldOutOfMind @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I destroy him publicly, so others can see him with his pants down.

— Darth (@DarthNihilus1) December 30, 2014

@DarthNihilus1 @JoeHuffman @CharleyVCU1988 @EndNRA @jgrubb62190 I can’t interact with them that much anymore. I get actual nausea.

— Saint Brian (@AWorldOutOfMind) December 30, 2014

You don’t win the gun rights debate by getting your peer group to agree with your insults. You win by getting public opinion on your side and winning court cases.

Yet the psychology is interesting. Insults versus logical arguments? Patting themselves on the back thinking they have won? Nausea?

Hmmm… this is all consistent with the neurological and psychology model proposed by Anonymous Conservative.

This is what I’m talking about

Posted on by

In the comment thread here ubu52 demonstrates something I have been saying for a long time. Sometimes people literally cannot “hear” (or in this case read) your words without mapping them into something else which you did not say.

Here is an abbreviated version of the conversation:

ubu52: That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying all those who wanted to see Bush/Clinton tarred and feathered actually wanted to see that.

Joe: 

And it is ridiculous to think those saying, “Rats. Destroy Them.” actually wanted to see that.

Spiegelman-Rotten

Right?

ubu52: [Repeatedly says she doesn’t get it. After completely spelling it out for her she finally says she gets it.]

Joe: [In six different contexts I ask, “Is it ridiculous to believe they are serious?”]

ubu52: So, who created it? Was it the occupiers? Was it someone Danish? Did they do it under duress or with their own free will? Was it created to mock the Nazis or was it created by someone who agreed with them? Without knowing it’s actual background, it’s really just a piece of 1940’s art.

…

Sometimes, creative people do things for effect. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they really think or feel. You are looking for some sort of deeper meaning to things that may not mean anything at all. (You’re also trying to compare them to people who are mentally ill, but that’s another topic altogether.)

You have such a black/white way of looking at things, it seems that you are incapable of seeing any of the grays in life.

I was asking if it was ridiculous to take the rat poster seriously. This was the work of the most famous genocidal group of all time targeting their most famous victims and she changes the subject to be something about “creative people” doing “things for effect” and claims I’m “incapable of seeing any of the grays in life.”

I cannot fathom how someone could see “shades of gray” in answering the question whether it was ridiculous to take the poster seriously. This poster cannot be interpreted any other way than literally deadly serious. It would be unfathomably ridiculous to interpret any other way than serious.

My question was not verbal, but in written word, repeated six times, and yet ubu52 ignores the question, changes the subject to be a question about the person who did the actual artwork, and tells me I have some deficiency in seeing the nuances of “just a piece of 1940’s art.”

Either she is deliberately trolling me to waste my time or chiefjaybob got it right, “In the end, they are all like Joan. It’s just a matter of degrees.”

Quote of the day—Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0

Posted on by

Take your skinny limp impudent dick & get on now. You’ve got kinfolk to fuck & butt a plugs to make.

Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[Via a tweet from BFD ‏@BigFatDave.

It’s very telling that we have SCOTUS decisions on our side and they resort to grade-school insults.—Joe]

Why just the gun manufacturer?

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Quote of the day—Tam

Posted on by

Wow, Mark, that was nearly wrong in every particular! It bordered on fractally wrong, in that every little piece, taken by itself, was as wrong as the whole.

Tam
December 7, 2014
Sigh
[I read Mark Morford’s troll piece and briefly considered blogging about it. But I prefer to blog about things that either no one has noticed yet or that I have a quasi-unique viewpoint on. And this piece has been well covered by many others. This is just a small sample:

I had completely dismissed it as blog material. Morford is just too easy of a target and I have dealt with him at length before. Then I read the last sentence I quoted above of Tam’s. Wow!

I have seen this sort of thing many times before but didn’t have a name for it. Fractally wrong. I like it. I like it a lot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Dowson

Posted on by

We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely.

While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures.

Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.

Steve Dowson
Detective Chief Inspector
Lancashire, England
August 10, 2014
Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife
SurrenderYourKnife1SurrenderYourKnife2
[Via a Tweet from Chris Knox.

No. This is not satire. Here is another link to marvel at.

Read carefully. Notice how they measure success in terms of symbolism and good intentions? Measuring success in terms of crime rates is not even hinted at. No mention of the futility.

This is a culture that has some serious mental problems. They apparently cannot distinguish between their fantasy of good intentions and the reality of criminal behavior. Do they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin?

This would be our future if we were to surrender to the anti-Second Amendment people.—Joe]

First 594 casualty

Posted on by

I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.

Quote of the day—Derek Amarpreet Whitman

Posted on by

Total paranoia. You will be one of the first people to be killed.

Derek Amarpreet Whitman
November 11, 2014
Comment to Gun Control Groups Eye More State Ballot Initiatives After Victory In Washington State
[I find it very interesting that in one sentence Whitman tells a gun owner he is paranoid and in the very next sentence tells him that he will be one of the first people to be killed. This is yet another demonstration that these people are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

This is what they think of us

Posted on by

From Alexis Clark:

B1s3IDFCUAANuLC

She describes herself as “Pleasantly Opinionated.”

If she thinks calling people who live in a certain area names like that is “pleasantly opinionated” you shouldn’t be surprised that she got the labels on her map mixed up.

Update: The Tweet and the picture were deleted a few hours after I posted this.

Michigan Episcopal Church wants to ban guns

Posted on by

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to ban your guns.

We have Episcopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution as evidence to the contrary. The resolution says:

RESOLVED: that the 180th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan, in response to the impact on Michigan communities of deaths from gun violence, join with other faith communities calling for the following steps to be taken by Federal and State lawmakers:

1. Requiring and enforcing universal background checks on all gun sales;
2. A clear ban on all future sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting);
3. Making gun trafficking a Federal crime;

…

The Episcopal Church supports the U.S. Constitution’s protections of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; but, we also stand for public policies to ban gun violence and assault weapons.

You have to marvel at the naiveté and/or stupid exhibited here.

You can’t support the Second Amendment then make the demands for background checks anymore than you could require background checks for sales of First Amendment materials. One would guess they support the First Amendment and would claim protection if gun owners were to demand they be punished for hate speech because of their vocal support of restrictions to gun ownership.

Background checks on all gun sales? As the supporters of I-594 in Washington State found out there are lots of devils in the details. Will gifts and loans require background checks? If not then they have a big loophole. If yes will we then end up with me being able to loan my gun to my son but not my daughter in law? If I loan it to him can he then loan it her? Or maybe I can gift it to him and then he can loan it to her and then after a week he can gift it back to me. Or if all “transfers” require background checks will it make gun rentals impractical? Or how about letting your buddy (or a new shooter or student) take a few shots with your gun? Or loaning a gun to someone for the evening or a weekend with a suddenly active stalker and no FFL available to do the background check? Truly “universal background checks” will result in a chilling effect on the exercise of specific enumerated right. If there are enough exceptions to avoid clear infringement of the right then any claim of society benefit is delusional.

A “clear” ban on “military-style” weapons? I’m speculating the word “clear” was an acknowledgement of the difficulties with the Federal 1994 (and various states) “assault weapon” bans. But the issues aren’t resolved by demanding the ban be “clear”. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and detachable magazines restrictions were all minor stumbling blocks to people wishing to exercise their rights. We were still able to create, sell, and use firearms that gave anti-gun people the evil black rifle hysterics. And now we have the Heller decision which said firearms in common use are protected. Evil black rifles are now the most popular type of rifle in the entry country. So, good luck with your demands to violate that specific enumerated right.

“High capacity” magazines? The Heller decision said firearms in common use were protected so good luck with that as well.

I have no idea what they mean by “gun trafficking”. Firearm wholesalers? Retailers? Private sales? The Second Amendment would rendered meaningless if you couldn’t buy and sell the protected items.

But the item that pegged my naiveté and stupid detection meters was their call for a ban on “high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting)”. The very purpose of hunting is to kill as quickly and humanly as possible. To that end hunting ammunition has been evolving for the last several centuries to make it the most deadly it can possibly be with the exception of delivering chemical, nuclear, or biological agents which kill more slowly than a lead projectile which expands upon impact. There is no commercially available ammunition more deadly than that ordinarily used in hunting.

So just what were they thinking here? I’m pretty sure thinking is outside of their domain of expertise so such a question should be rejected on the basis that it presumes facts not in evidence.

Quote of the day—witchwind

Posted on by

For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

witchwind
October 7, 2014
UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?
[Via Sean Sorrentino via Michael Z. Williamson on Facebook.

Also in her utopia:

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

And if that isn’t sufficient to confirm she been off of her anti-psychotic meds too long here is a clincher (pretty much every paragraph would do, but I particularly like this sentence):

Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone.

Regardless, don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Crude insults are the best they have

Posted on by

I recently tweeted this:

@CamEdwards @robdelaney @NRA @YouLikeAaron In a debate you lead with the best you have. They have crude insults. We have SCOTUS rulings.

It was in response to this tweet from rob delaney (@robdelaney):

This is how @NRA guys have sex. RT @YouLikeAaron:

The associated drawing is so crude I’m putting it “below the fold.”

This is entirely consistent with The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans. They are not data and logic driven. Anti-gun people are driven by emotions. They know that insulting and degrading people is what is effective on them. They therefore attempt to use this same tactic on us as their best weapon in a debate.

In a lot of ways you really can model them as not having matured beyond grade school.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—Angela Davis

Posted on by

I am totally in favor of gun control, of removing guns not only from civilians but also from police.

…

I talked about the fact that my father had guns when I was growing up; our families needed to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Angela Davis
May 6, 2014
Angela Y. Davis on what’s radical in the 21st century
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take away your guns.

After reading the article I breathed a heavy sigh. Barb asked what was wrong. I answered, “I just don’t know what to do with this. How do you respond to this?”

At some level Davis understands why gun ownership is important but she also wants to take guns from all private hands.

I guess it comes with the territory of being so crazy that you advocate for communism.—Joe]

Quote of the 2014 November election—Nick Hanauer

Posted on by

We need more school shootings!!! Vote yes on Initiative 591.

Nick Hanauer
October 24, 2014
Too Soon? Nick Hanauer Posts Sarcastically, ‘We Need More School Shootings!!!
nick-hanauer_tweet
[Via WAC.

In addition to the moral bankruptcy, blood dancing, and exceedingly poor taste Nick Hanauer is a top funder raiser for I-594.

I-594 is the anti-gun initiative in Washington State which would outlaw many common and innocent acts related to gun ownership. One such example is my loaning a gun to Barb for the weekend so she could take a class. If I-594 were law we would have had to seek out a FFL, pay a fee, and fill out a bunch of paperwork for when I “transferred” the gun to her, and then again when she “transferred” it back.

I-591 is the pro-gun initiative which would limit Washington State to background checks to the same criteria as Federal background checks. And, assuming Hanauer is rational, then the only thing that could possibly be what he was referring to with I-591 being a issue in regards to school shootings is the following:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

So, unless Hanauer thinks unlawful confiscation of guns is in the future, he has crap for brains in making the statement he did.

My conclusions is that with this post he just confirms the relationship between those opposed to our fundamental rights, crap for brains, and inherent evil.—Joe]

University of Idaho advocating crimes against gun owners

Posted on by

Via ammoland; University of Idaho “Executive Director for Public Safety and Security” (nod nod, wink wink), Matt Dorschel, has openly advocated abusing the 911 system to harass peaceable gun owners, potentially leading to another “SWATting” of an innocent person.

Intentional misuse of the 911 system is one crime, and this jackass (and anyone who takes his advice) is also committing a federal crime, violating 18 USC 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”.

This warrants calls and letters to the Latah County Sheriff’s department, the U. of I. president, your ID State Representatives, and to the Governor’s office. The Moscow, ID Police Department contracts with the University of Idaho for campus security, to the tune of around a million dollars, or so I was told, which in this tiny town is a HUGE pile of cash. There’s a major conflict of interest there, and I wouldn’t bother with the city PD for that reason. We have a criminal in our midst, and we’re paying the son of a bitch.

Someone inside the U. of I. I.T. system needs to get hold of Dorschel’s e-mails and other communications before his “hard drive fails”. Pronto!

Hat Tip; Info Wars