That is the same sort of silliness as banning software but applied to hardware instead. Furthermore, many terrorist attacks have been done using knives and machetes such as the May 22, 2013 Woolwich attack.
Guns should be reconsidered because they kill so many people every single day in "normal" violence. It's sad that it takes a bunch of affluent white people getting killed for us to have a discussion on gun control.
Yes. It's still sad that we have to have several people getting killed by the same person in the same day for it to become a public discussion. People get shot to death every day, but we don't care because they're all separate incidents (boiling a frog). Also they're mostly black but that doesn't make race the reason.
The problem is, for example, that gang violence is exempt from "mass shooting" classification. So yes, we care because there was a mass shooting. It's called a mass shooting because it wasn't poor people shooting at each other.
And still, you're missing the point. Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence in this country. We clearly do not discuss gun control due to gun violence, so clearly the goal of gun control is not to curb gun violence. We discuss gun control due to specific, exceedingly rare types of gun violence. One can only assume that the goal, then, is to prevent those specific, exceedingly rare instances of gun violence.
Not a tautology. I called you out for making a baseless, refutable claim. Consider the shooting in Charleston, S.C. Were the victims in that church affluent and white? Seems to me we had a national conversation following that shooting, as well.
> And still, you're missing the point.
I only took exception with the part of your argument about the national conversation shifting to gun violence in the wake of mass shootings of "affluent white" victims. Anything else you inferred from my statement is strictly a product of your imagination.
We've been having gun control discussions for decades. The issue has been decided. Gun enthusiasts having access to their hobby has been determined to be worth about ten thousand deaths per year. The cost is understood and accepted.
I use RequestPolicy[1] to prevent cross-site requests. If only NoScript is used and a user has allowed javascript on a domain, then NoScript allows cross-site requests and javascript from that domain to run on any domain.
I decided to use Yandex Speller since at the time I was researching this issue it was clear that Google Spell was an undocumented and unsupported feature. http://api.yandex.ru/speller/
1. They could email you.
2. They could send you a SMS.
3. They could let you view your bandwidth usage by logging into their site.
4. They could provide an application (desktop or mobile) to keep track of your bandwidth and alert you at certain points.
My provider (T-Mobile in the UK, using a mobile 3g dongle) send me an SMS, and the connection software has lots of graphs and numbers.
They still send interstitial content warning me that I've exceeded my fair-use limit. It's a bit annoying because I very carefully checked what the limits were before I signed up.
What's worse is that they use weird, broken, IP addresses and horrible proxies for image mangling.
I use T-Mobile as my mobile carrier and as far as I know they do numbers 2, 3, and 4 that you listed here. I know this because I have received an SMS when I neared my 2GB of unlimited 4G data transfer. I also have logged into their site and used the app on my phone (HTC One S) to monitor my data usage. The phone app even tells you how much data was used by each app and when. It is fantastic. Could that be so hard for Comcast?
My ISP gives emails at 50%, 80% and of course 100%. They also do options 3 and 4 (no idea about 2) but the emails are so very easy, and knowing you've hit 50% gives you time to mitigate before you get capped.
Why is this necessary if Google Plus already exists? Couldn't they just add the features to Google Plus and include them in the search results?