I would ask two questions about that:

1.) what is a terrorism suspect
anyone who says they're gonna bomb their school in WoW chat? muslims? brown people? immigrants? people who use encrypted IM services? people who google 'how to make a bomb'? people who own bitcoins? all of these people have been made into terrorist suspects at one time or another

the term terrorism suspect is so broad and nebulous as to be essentially meaningless. And i understand that a part of any bill of that type would likely lay out a definition and so on and so forth, but that's just my point: you're letting one of the most simultaneously corrupt and incompetent governments in the developed world decide on a case-by-case basis whether a person should be allowed to own a gun, when I wouldn't trust them to decide on a case-by-case basis what necktie to wear.

2.) how would that stop any of these shootings
actual real terrorists wouldn't have any qualms getting their guns illegally, and nor would anyone else who isn't a terrorist but just wanted to kill a shitload of people.

and finally, what have you done about it? have to researched all of your representatives and their stances on gun control? if you really want gun control, consider voting for gun control advocates in your next election. If you think that's how we stop these shootings, then hey, go for it, but do something that isn't just whining on a competitive gaming forum for an """""esport""""" that's going nowhere.

And for your troubles:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-florida-school-shooting-20180216-story,amp.html

my personal favorites:

The resources to stop him before he started killing people were there, either in the form of an at least semi-competent FBI, or a school that actually did its duty to its students. But neither did their damn job and now 17 people are dead. If you think banning guns will do anything to help situations like this, then try it, but I guarantee that these people will still suffer, and some of them are still going to decide to kill people, they'll just use trucks, or explosives, or knives, or whatever else their uniquely damaged minds can come up with, because they think that hurting people is the only thing they can do. Treating the symptom will not accomplish anything.

sure, but NiKo and karrigan didn't have their heads in their hands because they lost 70k, they had their heads in their hands because they lost a fucking major in the closest final in CS:GO history.

and also, for players like those on FaZe, Brady and Jordan are applicable comparisons.

do you think that Michael Jordan played for the money? Or Tom Brady? Or hell, even b4nny? at this level, money is secondary to being the best in the world.

it's not about the money man, it's about winning a fucking major

pastaThat SPAM pastaThat THIS pastaThat NOODLE pastaThat TO pastaThat HELP pastaThat SKADOODLE

that would make this the third time, since envy got stomped by gambit at Columbus.

and i think it's a little disingenuous to point at a performance from nearly 4 years ago as a reason that a team should be anything but underwhelming now.

?????

mouz = russian ?

Our boy is in the most recent Thorin video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAvVbHzU-N0

it's the old Eleague intermission music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy9MeObbrpw&t=400s

in simple terms, this bug allows a program on a computer to access all of the memory on a computer without having to ask, meaning that it can see anything on your computer, including passwords, sensitive information, or anything else it might want. And because this is a hardware bug and not a software one, it affects literally everything with this hardware in it, including banking websites, google, amazon, or in short: everything. This means that an attacker can take any information that they want from anywhere that they want, and that's really really extraordinarily bad.

that is unrelated to Meltdown or Spectre, the attacks in this thread. But it's never a bad idea to make sure that you aren't vulnerable to security holes, and if you are, how to mitigate them.

Have the foo fighters always been a meme band and I never noticed?

I was under the impression that comp changes were pretty close to complete from the way they talked about it after Jungle Inferno, guess not.

Oh well, it's only as bad as last year.

someone saying no

https://steamcommunity.com/id/3875409q3187509

Net Neutrality is a non-partisan issue that has no good arguments against it. The only argument you can make against the 2015 Net Neutrality order is that the principles of Net Neutrality (those being No Blocking, No Throttling, and No Paid Prioritization) are not legitimate for some reason or another, (despite the fact that the order itself provided actual evidence that held up in a court of law, but who cares? why would I ever read a legal document to know what it actually says?). Everything else is pure ideology mired in misinformation and outright lies. Net Neutrality makes no statements on who can be an internet provider, it only says that internet providers are not allowed to block lawful traffic, throttle lawful traffic, have 'fast-lanes,' or hide any information that would allow a consumer to make an informed decision on their purchase of internet service.

The FCC has been trying to enforce Net Neutrality since its first policy statement on the Internet in 2005, and have been committed to protecting openness and transparency on communications networks since 1968. Between the 2005 policy statement and the 2015 Net Neutrality order, the FCC was caught in legal battles that ultimately ruled that the FCC was doing the right thing, but lacked the regulatory authority to enforce the rules that they were trying to anyway. The 2015 Net Neutrality order was the culmination of Ten years of legal battles that showed the FCC lacked the regulatory authority to enforce the rules that had been laid down under the Bush administration, and which reflected over 40 years of action in protecting openness and transparency in the market. The FCC's hand was forced by the pre-existing structure of the 1934 Communications act, the 1996 Telecommunications act, and their own rulings on the internet in particular. It exists as a consequences of pre-existing rules, not as a set of new rules designed only for the purpose of government over-reach.

Here are links to some of the FCC's previous policy statements and Orders on the Internet, as well as the 1996 Telecommunications act, the 1968 Carterfone Decision, and the 1934 Communications act.

You can get most of it from just reading the 2015 Order, though. Of particular note should be pages 18 to 34, which provides a history of FCC decisions regarding the internet and communication dating back to 1968, as well as the justification for enforcing these rules.