This is fitting from the show Kung Fu:

Youtube Video

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.

Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."

Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.

I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.

That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.

This is very well said.

There's a pretty solid body of "evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers to the Declaration of Independence's clear statement that We the People have the right to throw off tyranny that make it clear the 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose of keeping Gov in check.

EDIT: And recent SCOTUS and state SC rulings back this up.

SCOTUS is a puppet of their masters - I'm not saying I disagree in the specific instance, but they clearly are voting along political lines - I don't believe they are taking the constitution into mind much anymore.

I concur with that observation.

The "conservative" judges seem to be ruling towards the Constitution while the "left leaning(?)" judges are legislating from the bench.

Ours up here legislate from the bench a lot. Our previous Prime Minister, today's PM's Papa, who put our current Constitution of 1984 into place wrote all sorts of loopholes into it so that our rights are basically nil/nul. Oh, and that the West can be permanently bent over to the tune of over $600B transferred to QC and elsewhere over the last half a century. We're Communism Lite with a leaning towards the Gulags if Dear Leader could have his way (publicly stated: I admire China's "basic" dictatorship).

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

And that's really the fundamental issue. At the end of the day, maybe for all the reasons I pointed out, in America while it sounds impossible... a very, very large number (percentage) of the population doesn't support mechanisms to reduce mass violence because they don't think that there is anything to fix in the first place. They don't actively want mass violence, they just don't see it as the big negative that the rest of us do. It's seen as simply an acceptable artifact of getting the things that they want more.

Until we address the fact that half the population is A-ok with the state of things because it gives them what they want more, making an argument for how to fix things will never work because they don't see anything wrong to fix in the first place. You can call it a mental illness epidemic that so many people actually are okay with what is happening, maybe it is. But that they are okay with it, is just how things are. But no one wants to admit that they are okay with it, so instead they say "you can't completely eliminate it, so let's not bother making it better."

Nothing I could ever have written could have made my point as strongly as someone who is actually willing to write how much they were okay with it posting crazy things to try to distract us from noticing that they aren't upset by the state of things at all.

I see your post as it's own slant against those who support gun rights. You've focused on the child killing aspect, but completely ignored the manage the government aspect to citizens owning guns.
I know the 2nd amendment is about the militia, but it's also about the people not being afraid of their own government, having the ability to rise up when it becomes to corrupt.

That's what I see when people don't want to take away guns - they weigh the costs of lives lost against their concerns of the government taking over - and their opinion of keeping the government in check wins.

This is very well said.

There's a pretty solid body of "evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers to the Declaration of Independence's clear statement that We the People have the right to throw off tyranny that make it clear the 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose of keeping Gov in check.

EDIT: And recent SCOTUS and state SC rulings back this up.

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.

reminds me of Back to the Future 3 - Tannan with a gun in his hat

Yeah - you're not wrong.

Short of killing all ability to acquire shooting weapons - specific no-shooty weapons zones will always be hit by the criminals.

And even once you make shooty's illegal - it will probably take 30+ years to get enough off the streets before you actually see a decline in violence caused by them.

It's just an impractical battle from the anti-shooty people.

Real world examples say that you can take guns away quickly and effectively. It's been done in large countries before to great effect. You can want or not want gun control of different sorts, that's a different issue. But the ability to take them off of the streets and make them all but impossible to get and easy to identify when rogue (that's the biggest deal) is actually quite easy and the US is anything but an exception to the norm.

Gun related crimes do not go away when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens. Gangs be gangs and perps be perps. The cost of an off market firearm may go up as a result of the restrictions, but they are still available.

That's a solid sound bite, but statistically isn't valid. For two reasons... criminals take the path of least resistance and difficult (and risky) to obtain firearms are proven to be very hard for criminals to get. And when guns are a giveaway that you are a criminal it is way, way easier to stop someone than when carrying weapons is considered part of normal life and you can't identify a threat until it is too late.

In the real world, we know this works, it's already proven the world over. The more guns society has, the more likely they are to be fired. The fewer, the less. That doesn't mean we should go to zero guns or that guns themselves are the issue. It's just a statistical fact and a means to start reducing the violence if reducing the violence is the goal. The problem isn't knowing how to reduce violence, it's making it something that the nation prioritizes.

Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.

See.... this is the EXACT argument people make in IT about all kinds of things that's so wrong. Such horrible business (or anything) logic.

If the proposed solution only IMPROVES things, but doesn't 100% solve them, that is used as an excuse to not fix what can be fixed.

"Oh seatbelts don't stop ALL accidents, then I won't wear them."

If the "best" solution isn't perfect, you choose a known lesser solution. This kind of approach is used only when you already know that it is better and you are attempting a distraction. That you depend a 100% solution and aren't interested in improvement tells us that your goal is not to improve things at all.

TL;DR
Nope. Not saying that at all.

We live in an era where there have been so many attempts at tyranny across the world since the late 1880s. Look it up.

Why would that be?

Cuba was "successful" but not robust enough to handle a large population. Heh, Beetles and duct taped 1950s cars? No way.

The Soviets couldn't beat or Vodka Christ out of the people so Soviet Communism eventually failed.

Chiang-Kai Shek brought Soviet Communism to China but failed. Mao, however, took that base and modified it to work with the Chinese ethos.

And voila! We have the "perfect" system for managing gobs of people. The tech was slowly developed to manage them (us) as well. But, there's still missing pieces in this puzzle thus the 10 year Agenda 2030.

But, we don't want gobs of people now do we? See Georgia Guidestones #1 (Thomas Malthus).

How do we go about reducing the world's population and make sure everyone's on board as much as possible?

Remember, too many people are way harder to control so bringing down the world population count is important.

See bug #1 and I'm suspecting that bug #2 (remember all the hemorrhagic fever stuff before the Beijing Olympics?) was destroyed by the Russians in Ukraine (they've been dripping evidence drops every week. Lots of interesting stuff with names named). Even the bug's transportation methods have been brought forward (truck crash with "bug" laden moneys anyone?).

The monkey wrench in the works is the 250M+ armed American people plus a substantial portion of them being a part of the most powerful military in the world. Plus, Patriots have been using the system set up by the American Fore Fathers to take the country back. It's a beautiful thing to see.

There are three stars on their flag:

• London
• Vatican
• Washington DC
  Why are they? Who are they? And the big question is: Who controls them?

The historical patterns are obvious. The step-by-step we've been in over the last three years is obvious. See my previous comment: Alice Bailey & Saul Alinsky primarily.

The other monkey wrench in the works: The Bolsheviks and the Maoists had an important key ingredient: Poverty.

The West is too wealthy to see a Communist/Fascist (ideology does not matter it all ends in the same place: Top Down) structure as acceptable especially after seeing, even if glimpses, the atrocities committed by the Soviets and the CCP. It may not be a conscious thing but any indication of tyranny from our so-called "benevolent" governments stir emotions and responses the incoming tyrant(s) don't want to stir.

Frog, see pot.

Our systems are infiltrated. They are corrupted.

Watching so-called law enforcement trample innocents who have the right to protest with horses (Ottawa) should have been a wake-up call. Not sure it has been though. There have been lots of instances of abuse of our rights here in Canuckistan and down there.

Not knowing history means we're doomed to repeat it and there's always a group willing to take advantage of that.

So, here we are.

@JaredBusch said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.

Except that is not what he said. So why should he have to prove something he did no say?

Less guns means less gun crime. Basic statistics there.

For a country that is an example? Japan. Yesterday's assassination highlights how low the gun crime rate is there. Guns are exceedingly heavily controlled. Gun crime is basically non-existent. Most gun crimes that do happen are happening with illegal guns.

Obviously, illegal gun are going to be mostly operated by criminals. Otherwise, they would not be illegal. Criminals are going to be much more likely to use their gun than a law abiding citizen.

Circular Argument right there.

"Illegal guns" <-- Um, yeah. They ain't going away. Tell me the Yakuza has absolutely no firearms in their possession.

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Gun control is, I think, a red herring, though. I'm 100% confident that taking away guns takes away guns and that while "bad people can always find a way" global statics show that that's a pointless argument because it makes it effectively true and that's all that matters for safety.

Obviously if there were truly zero guns mass shootings would be impossible. But I think it's also obvious that mass knifings, mass bombings, mass driving into crowds and other forms of horrific destruction would replace them. Taking away guns makes it harder, and reduces the body count. But it doesn't solve the underlying problems.

Mental healthy, high stress, a torn society, a lack of social bonding, horrific education standards, religious hatred, government corruption, a constant stream of "there is no future"... all add into the mass shooting or mass whatever problem, I think. The question here isn't why is it mass SHOOTINGs, that's easy... because guns are the easiest way to MASS do anything. What Dash is asking is why the increase in MASS something or others.

Well said.

Alice Bailey's 10-Step dismantling of a Western Society and the basis for the UN's Charter.

Saul Alinsky's battle plans for destroying from within.

Lenin and Marx.

The ideology really doesn't matter as far as branding goes. Peeps gonna hurt on other peeps. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. That being said, there's a subset of peeps (Catherine Austin Fitts - Planet Lockdown) who believe themselves above and beyond us evolved forward if you will. The game is truly global and diabolical with the narrative and house of cards coming down the pushes for a worldwide government/tyrannical structure are getting more and more insane. It's actually neat to see but painful for us Canucks and others around the world.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Gun control is, I think, a red herring, though. I'm 100% confident that taking away guns takes away guns and that while "bad people can always find a way" global statics show that that's a pointless argument because it makes it effectively true and that's all that matters for safety.

Obviously if there were truly zero guns mass shootings would be impossible. But I think it's also obvious that mass knifings, mass bombings, mass driving into crowds and other forms of horrific destruction would replace them. Taking away guns makes it harder, and reduces the body count. But it doesn't solve the underlying problems.

Mental healthy, high stress, a torn society, a lack of social bonding, horrific education standards, religious hatred, government corruption, a constant stream of "there is no future"... all add into the mass shooting or mass whatever problem, I think. The question here isn't why is it mass SHOOTINGs, that's easy... because guns are the easiest way to MASS do anything. What Dash is asking is why the increase in MASS something or others.

When you put it like that (as I basically already said above - and clearly agree with) - you're right, I put to specific a point on the shooting - my real question - why the mass desire to hurt others has seemingly seemed to have increased?

Perhaps when taken in this context, it hasn't? Humans by their nature I believe are violent.

Getting into the tinfoil hat zone...

The weaponization of Dissociative Identity Disorder a la Bourne, Conspiracy Theory (Gibson), and Bucky/Zemo.

Monarch --> MK Ultra.

Not a believer? Okay, but there are truly evil people in this world who love to throw sh*t in our faces and those that have been dropping hints for decades (Gibson for one).

EDIT: The US of A is a monkey wrench in the works. One World Order cannot be established when 250M+ p*ssed and armed people turn and face the tyrant(s).

EDIT 2: I love American Patriots! W00t! Man, what an awesome push to take back the Republic from the infiltrators!

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.

reminds me of Back to the Future 3 - Tannan with a gun in his hat

Yeah - you're not wrong.

Short of killing all ability to acquire shooting weapons - specific no-shooty weapons zones will always be hit by the criminals.

And even once you make shooty's illegal - it will probably take 30+ years to get enough off the streets before you actually see a decline in violence caused by them.

It's just an impractical battle from the anti-shooty people.

Real world examples say that you can take guns away quickly and effectively. It's been done in large countries before to great effect. You can want or not want gun control of different sorts, that's a different issue. But the ability to take them off of the streets and make them all but impossible to get and easy to identify when rogue (that's the biggest deal) is actually quite easy and the US is anything but an exception to the norm.

Gun related crimes do not go away when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens. Gangs be gangs and perps be perps. The cost of an off market firearm may go up as a result of the restrictions, but they are still available.

That's a solid sound bite, but statistically isn't valid. For two reasons... criminals take the path of least resistance and difficult (and risky) to obtain firearms are proven to be very hard for criminals to get. And when guns are a giveaway that you are a criminal it is way, way easier to stop someone than when carrying weapons is considered part of normal life and you can't identify a threat until it is too late.

In the real world, we know this works, it's already proven the world over. The more guns society has, the more likely they are to be fired. The fewer, the less. That doesn't mean we should go to zero guns or that guns themselves are the issue. It's just a statistical fact and a means to start reducing the violence if reducing the violence is the goal. The problem isn't knowing how to reduce violence, it's making it something that the nation prioritizes.

Citations please. Show me one society that removed firearms from citizen's hands that had zero gun related crime. I'll wait.

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@pmoncho said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

If not then, I think the parents/adults believe it is for their children's mental protection and will do anything to not let them feel bad. The rest of the planet knows in the long term the mockery is detrimental to their children's future.

As a parent, I think exactly the opposite and I see the toll the constant mockery has on others. Kids know very well when they get "praised" for doing badly.

Our job is to teach our kids "Sticks & Stones" and "Water off a duck's back".

A person's dignity and integrity has nothing to do with what other people think of them.

I don't give a flying fook what others think of me or my opinions and my value as a human being has nothing to do with what others think as well.

The value of the human person is intrinsic to being human. It's what sets us apart from the animals.

We live in a Clown world where peep's feelings trump everything and others need to be psychic or something to not "harm" them or do "violence" to them with words. What poppycock.

Kids will be cruel. It's what they do. How one learns to deal with it is how one can succeed in a world where others will do actual violence to them to get ahead. So, teach them street smarts in person and virtually and always be cautious around others.

@scottalanmiller said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.

reminds me of Back to the Future 3 - Tannan with a gun in his hat

Yeah - you're not wrong.

Short of killing all ability to acquire shooting weapons - specific no-shooty weapons zones will always be hit by the criminals.

And even once you make shooty's illegal - it will probably take 30+ years to get enough off the streets before you actually see a decline in violence caused by them.

It's just an impractical battle from the anti-shooty people.

Real world examples say that you can take guns away quickly and effectively. It's been done in large countries before to great effect. You can want or not want gun control of different sorts, that's a different issue. But the ability to take them off of the streets and make them all but impossible to get and easy to identify when rogue (that's the biggest deal) is actually quite easy and the US is anything but an exception to the norm.

Gun related crimes do not go away when firearms are removed from the hands of citizens. Gangs be gangs and perps be perps. The cost of an off market firearm may go up as a result of the restrictions, but they are still available.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@pmoncho said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@pmoncho said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Another possible reason I thought of was, sheer boredom with "idle hands."

Heck, "They started quarreling out of sheer boredom" is used as the example in the Cambridge dictionary.

So to that end:

I'm wondering if lately, the whole trophy for everyone/entitlement mentality is a driving force for younger people doing this.

It's possible. One would think inclusion would give a sense of pride but maybe it is having the reverse affect.

Inclusion stops once they are out of school and the real world smacks them upside the head. There is no inclusion in the normal workforce.

That said - all the under 24 year olds - well - I'm not sure school is really that inclusive, children certainly are not. Age is what generally bring pemper to people... You see all kinds of collage age people protesting, etc - but the older folk - not so much. The youth are generally the ones really bucking the system, that "teenage rebellion stage" which lasts well into most of their 20's...

We home school. We do so for good reason.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

EDIT: As far as causation goes, no, one could attribute factors across the board. But, and it's a big one, the catch is that all large centers have similar attributes as far as poverty, unemployment, and so on. Once we factor that in, the party demarks become a lot clearer.

Please show me a large, I mean 1 million plus (and that might even be to small) metro that doesn't lean all liberal/democrat.

Nebraska a typically Red state is now a purple state because the single large metro is so liberal/democrat.

Once the 2020 election gets fixed I'll believe the Democrat Party can won't be elected anywhere in the US of A. 2000 Mules and so much more.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Yup. And there's a distinct/direct correlation between guns and crime and the Democrat Party.

Please expand that thought.

Chicago - Shots, Shots, Shots
DC - Shots, Shots, Shots

Again, look at the FBI statistics. It's not hard to put together what party affiliation the anti-gun powers that be belong to.

We live in an era of "Think this way because experts say so" without anyone taking the time to actually dig in to the statistics. That's all it takes is to put some effort and critical thinking skills into something to figure out who is blowing it out their arse and who is not.

I'm not sure I agree with that specific outlook - you don't have causation there.

What do you have is HUGE population, low wages -
most large metros in the USA are voting democrats.

What you are more likely saying is - those who hate guns for whatever reason are voting them out - but that's also voting gun violence up. the voters aren't looking at the cause of the actual violence. just one thing that's part of the violence.

After 40+ years you'd think they would realize that getting rid of guns (not sure that they really have) hasn't worked - it's time to try something new - but those new things are VERY hard and require even greater sacrifices to accomplish.

I agree. I see states that are pulling in concealed carry and training for teachers. That's a good start.

Where do the most violent crimes/mass shooting happen? In so-called "gun free zones".

Criminals gonna perp. Guns gonna be available to them in perpetuity. That has not changed since perps smuggled spears into "spear free zones" and started slashing.

EDIT: As far as causation goes, no, one could attribute factors across the board. But, and it's a big one, the catch is that all large centers have similar attributes as far as poverty, unemployment, and so on. Once we factor that in, the party demarks become a lot clearer.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Yup. And there's a distinct/direct correlation between guns and crime and the Democrat Party.

Please expand that thought.

Chicago - Shots, Shots, Shots
DC - Shots, Shots, Shots

Again, look at the FBI statistics. It's not hard to put together what party affiliation the anti-gun powers that be belong to.

We live in an era of "Think this way because experts say so" without anyone taking the time to actually dig in to the statistics. That's all it takes is to put some effort and critical thinking skills into something to figure out who is blowing it out their arse and who is not.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

EDIT 2: Switzerland. Every household has a gun. It's mandatory service there. Where's the mass shootings?

We have one of the highest per capita firearms ownership up here and yet where are the mass shootings?

Why is that? Why would the focus be on disarming the US as a nation? What could the possible motive be for removing over 300M firearms from We the People's hands?

I think another issue we have is that we are looked at as a single country (of course which we are) but really we shouldn't be. At best we should be look regionally or only at the state level. That would put us comparably much closer to the rest of the world. Granted we'll have places like Nebraska/S. Dakota/N. Dakota/Montanna have super low populations compared to our landmasses.. but still.. stop looking at the USA as a single thing - and break it into more closely related parts for your comparisons.

Yup. And there's a distinct/direct correlation between guns and crime and the Democrat Party.

@Dashrender said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

I'm curious what people thing the reason is that mass shootings have supposedly increased?

I don't have any hard numbers to know that they really have - only that the media is making an bigger and bigger deal out of it it seems.

The FBI publishes statistics every year.

And every year the media ignores the fact that the most violent places to live in the US of A are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws while the safest ones to live in are where concealed and open carry are the norm. Castle Laws greatly improve those statistics too.

Another statistic that gets ignored is the number of times someone with a firearm that uses it to defeat a perp with a firearm or firearms. But then, that doesn't fit the narrative does it?

As a Canuck, we have self-defense with equal force written into our Rule of Law but our "law enforcement" agencies and "legal system" go all-out lawfare on anyone that defends themselves reasonably with equal force. The case will get thrown out ... eventually but it will cost the defender $250K to get there.

Cherish the Second Amendment. It's the only thing standing between We the People and Tyranny. The Founding Fathers put it in there for a very specific reason.

EDIT: As far as "mass shootings" go, why is the perp's mental illness background never mentioned or only in brief do we see "they were a loner" "they kept to themselves" and so on?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people and with all manner of devices.
Joker: "I'm going to make this pencil disappear." SLAM

EDIT 2: Switzerland. Every household has a gun. It's mandatory service there. Where's the mass shootings?

We have one of the highest per capita firearms ownership up here and yet where are the mass shootings?

Why is that? Why would the focus be on disarming the US as a nation? What could the possible motive be for removing over 300M firearms from We the People's hands?

@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

Which was preceded by the "stare at your book" nature trail.

I remember something a comedian once said about, "the shallow end of the gene pool" that is probably applicable here.

@dafyre said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

@nadnerB said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

OMG, this is so true! I can't tell you how many times the slot covers have helped me get them straight enough to properly seat the CPU!

I'd point a light at them and look for the out of place shadow.

Worst one was an Intel Xeon Scalable socket. I was sweating as that was a possible costly error. The proc slipped.

AMD was brilliant with the slide tray. Slip it in, drop the tray down, and we're locked and ready to go. Simple and no chance of dropping the CPU.

@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

@nadnerB said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

oooh I'm getting reported for this one

This is old because everyone is super happy with Nvidia now.

The reason people didn't like Nvidia in the past was an absolute refusal to allow their drivers into Linux. Last week they reversed this and have embraced the ecosystem. So they've totally done a 180.

All about wine here.

Probably has a lot to do with their aims with the all-in-one (have no idea what they are called right now) graphics compute systems they are building with Mellanox kit.

I think most of the education world runs on some flavour of *NIX or *BSD?

@nadnerB said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

Looks more like a built-in shower to me. After playing in the mud that would be da'bomb so no trouble walking in the door after a mudfest.