I use CentOS/Gnome, OSX and Win 7 and 8 and hands down 8 beat them all. The minimalist UI looks fantastic, task manager is mind blowingly awesome, but the one that took me over the top was the new copy/move dialogs. MS really nailed it with this new feature. Shows a graph of move activity, current speed, etc. but even better when it sees that you're trying to copy another file to a location that you're already trying to copy to, it cues it up rather than try and make two simultaneous transfers. On top of that you can pause/resume transfers. No longer will people say “wtf why does it say x seconds left” because they’ll clearly see that the transfer speed ebbs and flows. When you try and move files to a location where the file name already exists it gives you a very nice grouped choice dialog so you don’t have to click through prompts, this actually removes the need for “yes to all”, hard to explain without seeing it. I would say that this copy/move dialog like this would sell me on any system, it’s that good.
And of course it plays windows games, which is the primary reason for consideration in the first place. Hard to beat win 8 with all that.
Oh yeah, before I forget, fuck metro and whoever made it they should get some terrible STD. Fuck the start menu, I never liked the old one, the new one just makes me want to rip my eyes out with a spoon, but at least they removed the damn useless start button.
I've never been a fan of Stardock, but ModernMix actually seems like a good idea (for once). It allows you to run metro apps in a window. And they also have a start menu replacement for people who actually liked the old start menu, but I am not one, so you can find that link on your own if you're interested.
Bird shot from 12 feet away isn't going to penetrate through more than one wall, and what comes out the other side of that one wall is not lethal. If you use a beanbag shot it won't go through any walls. A.223 JHP will certainly go through a wall, but it will fragment and the fragments will not be as lethal as a.45 FMJ shot through the same wall. The.223 JHP probably won't go through two walls if shot at an angle, and by that time it will for sure not be lethal, although it might still take an eye out or give you a seriously bad headache.
For home defense I personally have a cheap Norinco side by side 12 gauge, and I keep it at next to the front door, it's easy for my wife to use. I have a Remington 870 pump under the bed. I'm not personally worried about penetration, so they're loaded with 00 buck.
Why on Earth would I try to warn someone that I've got a gun?
Mostly because even bad guys don't want to die. Telling someone you've got a way to defend yourself is a great way to stop them from attacking you. Even if they do have a gun, most likely they don't want to get into a shootout. Ejecting a single shell isn't going to make you run out of ammo, and it's all the proof anyone needs. I keep one in the chamber, but it's not a bad idea to warn someone that the next move they make might be their last. Shooting someone is going to make a pretty big mess in a lot of ways, physical, moral, emotional, legal etc., it's a good idea to try and avoid it if at all possible.
Why on Earth would I try to shoot someone through a wall, even if they are shooting "at" me?
Maybe a wall is a bad example of why you might want penetration. A better one is if they've ducked behind a couch or a counter. Some place where you pretty much know exactly where they are at and they seem to think that concealment is cover. And like I said before, if you're shooting a round that can't penetrate, that little bit of concealment is cover. A beanbag shot isn't going to go through a couch.
I enjoy shooting, but my lazy habits always lead me to one discipline: sniping. For that I have a Savage.308 with a US Optics SN-3. Got that guy all bubba'd out with heavy fluted barrel and every wiz bang feature you can add to the scope. It's almost like cheating. I'm not that great of a shot but I'll hit a one foot target 8/10 times at 800 yards. It's single shot, so it keeps me from blowing through too much ammo. It's almost like playing chess. Now this is making me want to go shoot too.
Thanks for the friendly post! Have fun at the range!
Not all shotgun shells are the same, using bird shot at even a medium range will fail to penetrate more than one wall, don't even get me started on beanbag shots. AR-15 rounds will breakup faster than buckshot and JHPs will breakup even faster than FMJs. If you're worried about penetration you can hardly go wrong with a shotgun with bird shot or a beanbag, and that will stop a bad guy. Using an AR-15 is almost as "safe" as far as penetration goes, it might penetrate a wall but the rounds will break apart and while it might hurt someone on the other side of a wall or two it will not hurt them as bad as a.45 FMJ or a slug.
Different rounds have different results. I do shoot, and I shoot a lot, but I've never done any sort of penetration testing myself, but there are a lot of penetration testing videos on youtube that support what I'm saying here. Even the link you provided supports using bird shot, even though it says it won't kill a person, I promise it will cause them enough pain to not want to keep doing whatever it is they're doing, and it won't go through a wall unless you shoot it point blank.
Any competent person only needs 1 shot with a 20 gauge shotgun...
Competent? One shot? People miss, and miss a lot, for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes it's because they are not competent. Sometimes it's just because they are nervous and miss. Sometimes the bad guy is moving. Sometimes there is more than one bad guy. Sometimes the bad guy is shooting back and they have to return fire from cover. The number of reasons that more than one shot might be needed is very high.
On top of that, a wound from a single shot of a weapon like that is far worse than a couple of rounds from an AR-15.
Well, that's a very subjective statement. A single shot from a 20 gauge shot gun to the pinky finger is far less critical than an 5.56 between the eyes or through the heart. A shotgun, especially a lower powered one like a 20 gauge, is far less likely to kill someone than an AR-15 when shot from the same distance to the same area. Add any kind of ballistic armor and now the 20 gauge is almost useless. Not that bad guys rock bullet proof vests a lot. The point is, an AR-15 is actually a lot more deadly than a 20 gauge single shot shot gun. And if you're worried about shooting through the walls with an AR-15 you can always use hollow point bullets.
The biggest problem with Joe's plan of shooting warning shots, and his problems are numerous, is that if you have a double barrel shot gun and you shoot two shots into the air you're left with an unloaded weapon. If the bad guy has a weapon you're now in a shootout with an unloaded gun. Not only will the bad guy now be shooting to kill, but you'll have to reload, While being shot at.
Using a shotgun is a double edge sword. The good part is that is doesn't shoot through walls so you're not going to hit anyone in other rooms. But that's also a bad part, if the bad guy has a gun and is shooting at you through the wall, you can't return fire with a shotgun. Shotguns are easy to aim, but they lack the ability to choose what you're shooting at. If someone you don't want to hit is near someone you do want to hit, you're kinda out of luck. A bad thing about a shotgun is that it's quite long, and turning around inside a narrow hallway can be a pain, but the same can be said for an AR-15.
Double barrel and single shot shotguns lack a pump, so there's no way to "warn" the bad guy that you might be sending a cloud of buckshot at him. As mentioned before, double barrel shotguns only have two shots, which is really not enough. If you miss twice, for whatever reason you're in trouble. Using the pump on a pump shotgun is probably enough to scare off even armed bad guys, after all, they want to live just as much as the next guy. However, when you're actually shooting at an armed bad guy, that's a whole other story, you leave the bad guy no choice but to return fire.
Why the fuck does Joe's wife need a god damn shotgun, or any gun? They live at the US Naval Observatory and have a full time contingent of heavily armed marines and secret service agents! All of which are armed with AR-15s, 9mm, G36's, Hand grenades etc.. If Joe's and his wife still have a need for guns, than certainly it can be argued that those of us without heavily armed guards need weapons.
And of course the grand overriding argument is that we don't maintain weapons to fend off crooks, that's just a useful benefit. The real reason we have gobs of high powered rifles with large magazine capacities is so we can stand a chance if ever a need rises to water the tree of liberty. Once you give up a freedom for "public safety" or any other reason, it's almost impossible to get it back. We do not need to overthrow the government we have today, but we are always only one generation from a complete Soviet style tyranny. I've heard the argument "what's an AR-15 going to do to a tank or an F-22". Well, the tank crew doesn't live in the tank, and the
No, Android is gaining market share faster than iOS
Yeah, that's another way of saying that Apple is losing market share. Those are customers that could have been Apple customers but for whatever reason they chose Android.
I don't like OS monoculture, but when the goal of one of the players is to make an OS monoculture I would like to see them fail or at the very least become marginalized out of significance.
Isn't that one of the many Samsung phones Apple sought an injunction for claiming that it infringed on their iPhone design patent because among other ambiguous design concepts it had rounded corners and was therefor indistinguishable from an iPhone? (yes)
No I didn't get that from the Android talking points, if such a thing exists, I closely followed the court cases on Groklaw as they happened.
theRunicBard was correct, and you're just parsing words like an Apple lawyer.
You don't understand. They don't like it when people rip them off . It's perfectly fine if they rip other people off. Their entire existence is based on ripping off other people's ideas and improving upon them, then trying to convince an ignorant public that they invented the concept in the first place.
Take the smart phone for example. The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone. Same goes for iPod, same goes for iPad, same goes for just about every popular product Apple makes. There's no accident there. It's aggressive, manipulative and deceptive marketing that makes that happen. So much so that they have many times been successfully sued and or banned over their deceptive marketing tactics.
IMO, and I'll probably be modded down for this, there can be no greater irony than having the words "OS" in "OSX" when it's just a modified version of FreeBSD and unrelated to the previous versions of their OS line. If Apple had any intellectual honesty they would have called is MacBSD or something similar. Every time I see a Mac boot I feel sorry for The Regents of the University of California. Credit needs to go to the people who made the OS, not the people who shamelessly threw their window handler on top of it and re-branded it.
And pray tell what behavior is that? Apple didn't invent a damn thing that Android uses. For every "invention" that Apple has sued over there's at least a half dozen devices prior to the iPhone that implement that functionality or design.
The article summary was wrong about * and so are you. At least the language in the summary leaves much to be desired, although they are correct about it being a numerator, they leave off the part that it matches the previous character or subexpression. * = the previous character or subexpression zero or more times. As Stradenko pointed out to get ANY character you need . (period). To get any character zero or more times you need.* (period asterix). To get the solution to anything with more than one line you need [\s\S]*.
So you're pretty far off the mark as far as 42 goes.
Your logic is astoundingly wrong. You say it's no good to have armed guards on school grounds but go on to say that the only way to stop the crazed shooters is with armed guards arriving after the fact, which seems to contradict your previous statement. It's perfectly obvious that having armed guards on the school grounds would save lives. Like you said later, it's all about time.
I'm sure that's why when it comes to things we hold dear, there are already armed guards there. Banks, the POTUS, the SCOTUS, members of congress all have armed guards with them. But you wouldn't dare to apply your illogical solutions to them for fear of being humiliated.
The term 'green-on-blue attack' refers to the (quite common) situations where an aghan security force member will launch a surprise attack on NATO military personnel with which he is supposed to be working. Again, it turns out to not be that difficult to kill a few armed, trained, soldiers if you just wait for their backs to be turned.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps if the state police turned on the local police and started shooting you can use this analogy. Students are not armed, as Afghan security is. In the "green on blue" attacks the blues are the target, not a 3rd party. The blues trust the greens to walk around with assault weapons. There are so many logical fallacies that there isn't even time to go through them all.
More broadly, the relationship to magazine capacity is one of time: Given enough time to muster a response, the cops do show up in overwhelming numbers and either kill the shooter or cause them to kill themselves This means that the main question is how efficient they can be during the time that they have.
So ask yourself this question. In a situation where there is a crazed gunman going around shooting people. Would you rather A) have a gun or a person with a gun there to defend you from the shooter or B) be defenseless? The very idea that changing magazines would somehow slow the gunman down more than people shooting back is just stupid. And yes, it's better some people catch stray rounds from school security officers guns, which rarely if ever happens, than allow the gunman to walk around unhindered shooting everyone. There are many more people saved from the use of guns than killed by criminals with guns. Besides, criminals will have and use whatever gun or magazine they want no matter what the law says. That's basically what this whole article is about.
talking point: Columbine had an armed guard, who was apparently not all that useful.
And like chill pointed out, you're wrong. It would be nice if you read the article he linked to show you just how wrong you are. If there was no armed guard I can't imagine how many dozens more would be dead. From the article:
The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.
If it was common where you live that is was necessary to weld a large iron shield around your car to prevent attack from roving bands of rhinoceroses, yes. If on the other hand you want to protect yourself from carjackings and robbery it might be a better idea to take a gun with you. Pointing a welder at a crook and saying "make my day" doesn't have the same effect.
Also, nothing can stop a bad welder, they just blow away any project they work on. You're better off replacing the whole thing and starting from scratch. But most get it sooner or later. Using a MIG welder helps though.
That's called an a priori observation. It's like saying that all bachelors are unmarried. The very act of making "broad generalizations that are misleading and mostly incorrect" makes you != "a smart person".
FYI Modern militaries don't "charge at each other". And military guns still have bayonets and soldiers still have combat knives. Most death in combat comes from indirect fire, a.k.a.: not from an assault rifle or pistol. Also, if guns are the cause of so much violence, why hasn't the crime rate in the UK dropped since the banning of guns? Why has the crime rate in the US dropped during the same time period without the use of draconian gun laws? In fact it has dropped since the assault weapons ban expired. All of this seems to contradict the idea that guns cause violence.
You may not like this becuase it doesn't fit your little world view, but millions of people defend themselves each year with guns. This is a recent example of a mom who saved herself and her children from god knows what - with a gun.
The truth of the matter is that people cause violence. It's not a coincidence that all of the recent mass shootings in every country have been the result of mentally unstable people. Banning guns does nothing but put the guns in the hands of criminals and removes them from the hands of people who would otherwise protect themselves from the same criminals who are going to have guns no matter what the law says. People, who want to ban guns in good faith, are ignorant and have the blood of innocents on their hands.
They are jointly owned by Nokia and Sony. So the developers of the technology in question own the company. It is not simply a 3rd party that buys up patents to sue other companies. Because they are owned by the people who developed the technology, I wouldn't call them a patent troll.
Even if such "facts" where "facts" you're ignoring the fact that in TFA they're taking about what is very, very clearly a theory and calling it "scientific fact".
Observations are not facts, they are observations. Relying upon observations as fact is tautological. That is to say they rely upon other scientific "facts" in a lattice work of unconformable observations. In the end it always relies upon circular logic. Our best scientific theories are the best we can come up with with the simple instruments at our disposal. They are a postiori observations. Only in math do we deal with a priori facts. People have made incorrect observations all throughout the history of science due to miss-calibrated equipment, poor resolution microscopes etc. and declared "facts" as you say. Even your very eyes are easily fooled. There are certain schools of thought that believe as you believe: that there can be scientific facts, but I don't subscribe to them. I am a student of Thomas Kuhn. And now we can begin Kuhn flame war.
I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution, or any other strong scientific theories. But I do have a problem with the abuse of science by declaring "scientific fact". There are no "scientific facts" only very strong theories that have stood up against falsification many times. The phrase itself is a lie. By declaring it a "fact" you're saying there are no problems or conflict with the theory and that no evolution can occur within the theory itself. And for something that is as little understood as evolution this is disservice to people that should simply be taught the scientific method and presented with the most recent theories put for by science in the specific field they are studying at the time. For example, evolution shouldn't be taught in a general education class or a class on government. When you're studying biology or life science evolution should be one of the core principals put forth. But to teach anything as 'scientific fact" is bastardization of science. I can imagine in the 18th century the same idea of teaching "scientific fact" being put forth by the proponents of Phlogiston theory. Science is fluid, and we learn new things all the time that make old paradigms obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
I use CentOS/Gnome, OSX and Win 7 and 8 and hands down 8 beat them all. The minimalist UI looks fantastic, task manager is mind blowingly awesome, but the one that took me over the top was the new copy/move dialogs. MS really nailed it with this new feature. Shows a graph of move activity, current speed, etc. but even better when it sees that you're trying to copy another file to a location that you're already trying to copy to, it cues it up rather than try and make two simultaneous transfers. On top of that you can pause/resume transfers. No longer will people say “wtf why does it say x seconds left” because they’ll clearly see that the transfer speed ebbs and flows. When you try and move files to a location where the file name already exists it gives you a very nice grouped choice dialog so you don’t have to click through prompts, this actually removes the need for “yes to all”, hard to explain without seeing it. I would say that this copy/move dialog like this would sell me on any system, it’s that good.
And of course it plays windows games, which is the primary reason for consideration in the first place. Hard to beat win 8 with all that.
Oh yeah, before I forget, fuck metro and whoever made it they should get some terrible STD. Fuck the start menu, I never liked the old one, the new one just makes me want to rip my eyes out with a spoon, but at least they removed the damn useless start button.
I've never been a fan of Stardock, but ModernMix actually seems like a good idea (for once). It allows you to run metro apps in a window. And they also have a start menu replacement for people who actually liked the old start menu, but I am not one, so you can find that link on your own if you're interested.
My god man, I spit my drink out all over my screen!
Outstanding work. Carry on!
How can they not talk about Carmack's chosen one? This seems to be the best hope for affordable VR for the masses.
http://www.oculusvr.com/
Bird shot from 12 feet away isn't going to penetrate through more than one wall, and what comes out the other side of that one wall is not lethal. If you use a beanbag shot it won't go through any walls. A .223 JHP will certainly go through a wall, but it will fragment and the fragments will not be as lethal as a .45 FMJ shot through the same wall. The .223 JHP probably won't go through two walls if shot at an angle, and by that time it will for sure not be lethal, although it might still take an eye out or give you a seriously bad headache.
For home defense I personally have a cheap Norinco side by side 12 gauge, and I keep it at next to the front door, it's easy for my wife to use. I have a Remington 870 pump under the bed. I'm not personally worried about penetration, so they're loaded with 00 buck.
Mostly because even bad guys don't want to die. Telling someone you've got a way to defend yourself is a great way to stop them from attacking you. Even if they do have a gun, most likely they don't want to get into a shootout. Ejecting a single shell isn't going to make you run out of ammo, and it's all the proof anyone needs. I keep one in the chamber, but it's not a bad idea to warn someone that the next move they make might be their last. Shooting someone is going to make a pretty big mess in a lot of ways, physical, moral, emotional, legal etc., it's a good idea to try and avoid it if at all possible.
Maybe a wall is a bad example of why you might want penetration. A better one is if they've ducked behind a couch or a counter. Some place where you pretty much know exactly where they are at and they seem to think that concealment is cover. And like I said before, if you're shooting a round that can't penetrate, that little bit of concealment is cover. A beanbag shot isn't going to go through a couch.
I enjoy shooting, but my lazy habits always lead me to one discipline: sniping. For that I have a Savage .308 with a US Optics SN-3. Got that guy all bubba'd out with heavy fluted barrel and every wiz bang feature you can add to the scope. It's almost like cheating. I'm not that great of a shot but I'll hit a one foot target 8/10 times at 800 yards. It's single shot, so it keeps me from blowing through too much ammo. It's almost like playing chess. Now this is making me want to go shoot too.
Thanks for the friendly post! Have fun at the range!
Not all shotgun shells are the same, using bird shot at even a medium range will fail to penetrate more than one wall, don't even get me started on beanbag shots. AR-15 rounds will breakup faster than buckshot and JHPs will breakup even faster than FMJs. If you're worried about penetration you can hardly go wrong with a shotgun with bird shot or a beanbag, and that will stop a bad guy. Using an AR-15 is almost as "safe" as far as penetration goes, it might penetrate a wall but the rounds will break apart and while it might hurt someone on the other side of a wall or two it will not hurt them as bad as a .45 FMJ or a slug.
Different rounds have different results. I do shoot, and I shoot a lot, but I've never done any sort of penetration testing myself, but there are a lot of penetration testing videos on youtube that support what I'm saying here. Even the link you provided supports using bird shot, even though it says it won't kill a person, I promise it will cause them enough pain to not want to keep doing whatever it is they're doing, and it won't go through a wall unless you shoot it point blank.
Competent? One shot? People miss, and miss a lot, for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes it's because they are not competent. Sometimes it's just because they are nervous and miss. Sometimes the bad guy is moving. Sometimes there is more than one bad guy. Sometimes the bad guy is shooting back and they have to return fire from cover. The number of reasons that more than one shot might be needed is very high.
Well, that's a very subjective statement. A single shot from a 20 gauge shot gun to the pinky finger is far less critical than an 5.56 between the eyes or through the heart. A shotgun, especially a lower powered one like a 20 gauge, is far less likely to kill someone than an AR-15 when shot from the same distance to the same area. Add any kind of ballistic armor and now the 20 gauge is almost useless. Not that bad guys rock bullet proof vests a lot. The point is, an AR-15 is actually a lot more deadly than a 20 gauge single shot shot gun. And if you're worried about shooting through the walls with an AR-15 you can always use hollow point bullets.
The biggest problem with Joe's plan of shooting warning shots, and his problems are numerous, is that if you have a double barrel shot gun and you shoot two shots into the air you're left with an unloaded weapon. If the bad guy has a weapon you're now in a shootout with an unloaded gun. Not only will the bad guy now be shooting to kill, but you'll have to reload, While being shot at.
Using a shotgun is a double edge sword. The good part is that is doesn't shoot through walls so you're not going to hit anyone in other rooms. But that's also a bad part, if the bad guy has a gun and is shooting at you through the wall, you can't return fire with a shotgun. Shotguns are easy to aim, but they lack the ability to choose what you're shooting at. If someone you don't want to hit is near someone you do want to hit, you're kinda out of luck. A bad thing about a shotgun is that it's quite long, and turning around inside a narrow hallway can be a pain, but the same can be said for an AR-15.
Double barrel and single shot shotguns lack a pump, so there's no way to "warn" the bad guy that you might be sending a cloud of buckshot at him. As mentioned before, double barrel shotguns only have two shots, which is really not enough. If you miss twice, for whatever reason you're in trouble. Using the pump on a pump shotgun is probably enough to scare off even armed bad guys, after all, they want to live just as much as the next guy. However, when you're actually shooting at an armed bad guy, that's a whole other story, you leave the bad guy no choice but to return fire.
Why the fuck does Joe's wife need a god damn shotgun, or any gun? They live at the US Naval Observatory and have a full time contingent of heavily armed marines and secret service agents! All of which are armed with AR-15s, 9mm, G36's, Hand grenades etc.. If Joe's and his wife still have a need for guns, than certainly it can be argued that those of us without heavily armed guards need weapons.
And of course the grand overriding argument is that we don't maintain weapons to fend off crooks, that's just a useful benefit. The real reason we have gobs of high powered rifles with large magazine capacities is so we can stand a chance if ever a need rises to water the tree of liberty. Once you give up a freedom for "public safety" or any other reason, it's almost impossible to get it back. We do not need to overthrow the government we have today, but we are always only one generation from a complete Soviet style tyranny. I've heard the argument "what's an AR-15 going to do to a tank or an F-22". Well, the tank crew doesn't live in the tank, and the
Apple looking to add Samsung's Galaxy S3 to their injunction
Yeah, that's another way of saying that Apple is losing market share. Those are customers that could have been Apple customers but for whatever reason they chose Android.
I don't like OS monoculture, but when the goal of one of the players is to make an OS monoculture I would like to see them fail or at the very least become marginalized out of significance.
I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.
Isn't that one of the many Samsung phones Apple sought an injunction for claiming that it infringed on their iPhone design patent because among other ambiguous design concepts it had rounded corners and was therefor indistinguishable from an iPhone? (yes)
No I didn't get that from the Android talking points, if such a thing exists, I closely followed the court cases on Groklaw as they happened.
theRunicBard was correct, and you're just parsing words like an Apple lawyer.
You don't understand. They don't like it when people rip them off . It's perfectly fine if they rip other people off. Their entire existence is based on ripping off other people's ideas and improving upon them, then trying to convince an ignorant public that they invented the concept in the first place.
Take the smart phone for example. The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone. Same goes for iPod, same goes for iPad, same goes for just about every popular product Apple makes. There's no accident there. It's aggressive, manipulative and deceptive marketing that makes that happen. So much so that they have many times been successfully sued and or banned over their deceptive marketing tactics.
IMO, and I'll probably be modded down for this, there can be no greater irony than having the words "OS" in "OSX" when it's just a modified version of FreeBSD and unrelated to the previous versions of their OS line. If Apple had any intellectual honesty they would have called is MacBSD or something similar. Every time I see a Mac boot I feel sorry for The Regents of the University of California. Credit needs to go to the people who made the OS, not the people who shamelessly threw their window handler on top of it and re-branded it.
And pray tell what behavior is that? Apple didn't invent a damn thing that Android uses. For every "invention" that Apple has sued over there's at least a half dozen devices prior to the iPhone that implement that functionality or design.
The Sabre Pyramid. By this time next year, everyone will have one.
The article summary was wrong about * and so are you. At least the language in the summary leaves much to be desired, although they are correct about it being a numerator, they leave off the part that it matches the previous character or subexpression. * = the previous character or subexpression zero or more times. As Stradenko pointed out to get ANY character you need . (period). To get any character zero or more times you need .* (period asterix). To get the solution to anything with more than one line you need [\s\S]*.
So you're pretty far off the mark as far as 42 goes.
http://alandove.com/content/2013/01/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-orf/ It was searching existing databases. There is no lab. There were no experiments.
A luddite on a tech site. How quaint.
Your logic is astoundingly wrong. You say it's no good to have armed guards on school grounds but go on to say that the only way to stop the crazed shooters is with armed guards arriving after the fact, which seems to contradict your previous statement. It's perfectly obvious that having armed guards on the school grounds would save lives. Like you said later, it's all about time.
I'm sure that's why when it comes to things we hold dear, there are already armed guards there. Banks, the POTUS, the SCOTUS, members of congress all have armed guards with them. But you wouldn't dare to apply your illogical solutions to them for fear of being humiliated.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps if the state police turned on the local police and started shooting you can use this analogy. Students are not armed, as Afghan security is. In the "green on blue" attacks the blues are the target, not a 3rd party. The blues trust the greens to walk around with assault weapons. There are so many logical fallacies that there isn't even time to go through them all.
So ask yourself this question. In a situation where there is a crazed gunman going around shooting people. Would you rather A) have a gun or a person with a gun there to defend you from the shooter or B) be defenseless? The very idea that changing magazines would somehow slow the gunman down more than people shooting back is just stupid. And yes, it's better some people catch stray rounds from school security officers guns, which rarely if ever happens, than allow the gunman to walk around unhindered shooting everyone. There are many more people saved from the use of guns than killed by criminals with guns. Besides, criminals will have and use whatever gun or magazine they want no matter what the law says. That's basically what this whole article is about.
And like chill pointed out, you're wrong. It would be nice if you read the article he linked to show you just how wrong you are. If there was no armed guard I can't imagine how many dozens more would be dead. From the article:
If it was common where you live that is was necessary to weld a large iron shield around your car to prevent attack from roving bands of rhinoceroses, yes. If on the other hand you want to protect yourself from carjackings and robbery it might be a better idea to take a gun with you. Pointing a welder at a crook and saying "make my day" doesn't have the same effect.
Also, nothing can stop a bad welder, they just blow away any project they work on. You're better off replacing the whole thing and starting from scratch. But most get it sooner or later. Using a MIG welder helps though.
That's called an a priori observation. It's like saying that all bachelors are unmarried. The very act of making "broad generalizations that are misleading and mostly incorrect" makes you != "a smart person".
FYI Modern militaries don't "charge at each other". And military guns still have bayonets and soldiers still have combat knives. Most death in combat comes from indirect fire, a.k.a.: not from an assault rifle or pistol. Also, if guns are the cause of so much violence, why hasn't the crime rate in the UK dropped since the banning of guns? Why has the crime rate in the US dropped during the same time period without the use of draconian gun laws? In fact it has dropped since the assault weapons ban expired. All of this seems to contradict the idea that guns cause violence.
You may not like this becuase it doesn't fit your little world view, but millions of people defend themselves each year with guns. This is a recent example of a mom who saved herself and her children from god knows what - with a gun.
The truth of the matter is that people cause violence. It's not a coincidence that all of the recent mass shootings in every country have been the result of mentally unstable people. Banning guns does nothing but put the guns in the hands of criminals and removes them from the hands of people who would otherwise protect themselves from the same criminals who are going to have guns no matter what the law says. People, who want to ban guns in good faith, are ignorant and have the blood of innocents on their hands.
*Your
C# != Microsoft.
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm
They are jointly owned by Nokia and Sony. So the developers of the technology in question own the company. It is not simply a 3rd party that buys up patents to sue other companies. Because they are owned by the people who developed the technology, I wouldn't call them a patent troll.
Even if such "facts" where "facts" you're ignoring the fact that in TFA they're taking about what is very, very clearly a theory and calling it "scientific fact".
Observations are not facts, they are observations. Relying upon observations as fact is tautological. That is to say they rely upon other scientific "facts" in a lattice work of unconformable observations. In the end it always relies upon circular logic. Our best scientific theories are the best we can come up with with the simple instruments at our disposal. They are a postiori observations. Only in math do we deal with a priori facts. People have made incorrect observations all throughout the history of science due to miss-calibrated equipment, poor resolution microscopes etc. and declared "facts" as you say. Even your very eyes are easily fooled. There are certain schools of thought that believe as you believe: that there can be scientific facts, but I don't subscribe to them. I am a student of Thomas Kuhn.
And now we can begin Kuhn flame war.
I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution, or any other strong scientific theories. But I do have a problem with the abuse of science by declaring "scientific fact". There are no "scientific facts" only very strong theories that have stood up against falsification many times. The phrase itself is a lie. By declaring it a "fact" you're saying there are no problems or conflict with the theory and that no evolution can occur within the theory itself. And for something that is as little understood as evolution this is disservice to people that should simply be taught the scientific method and presented with the most recent theories put for by science in the specific field they are studying at the time. For example, evolution shouldn't be taught in a general education class or a class on government. When you're studying biology or life science evolution should be one of the core principals put forth. But to teach anything as 'scientific fact" is bastardization of science. I can imagine in the 18th century the same idea of teaching "scientific fact" being put forth by the proponents of Phlogiston theory. Science is fluid, and we learn new things all the time that make old paradigms obsolete.