Yeah, but most of the suggested solutions are half-ass and/or unwieldy. Yeah, everyone knows you can insert little text boxes all over a PDF doc. It's still a pain and not very flexible. I stand by my comment:)
LOL:) That sounds familiar. I did the same thing all through school. Sometimes I cut it a little too close (like having to score a 98 on a US History final), but i managed to squeak by.
They are looking to to things that the Hardware companies are not doing, like inovate.
Only if your definition of innovate is, "To create something that only works with Microsoft's proprietary software." Gee, weren't winmodems a great idea?
Mo: "Uh, is I.P. Freely here? Hey, everybody, I.P. Freely! Wait a minute... Listen to me you lousy bum. When I get a hold of you, you're dead. I swear I'm gonna slice your heart in half!"
Freud did a good deal for psychology, but he was wrong on a lot of things too. That's beside the point. Bullets move a lot faster than you do. They don't kill you any deader than a knife would, and often they do less damage than a knife would. The issue is ease of use and effectiveness in a real situation. A knife requires that you close with the attacker. You have to get into grappling range with him. That's a bad idea to begin with. A Knife also requires more physical prowess and skill than a gun does. That puts many people at a distinct disadvantage. If I'm attacked, I really don't care if the guy weighs twice as much as me and can benchpress a Buick. If I have a gun, things odds are a hell of a lot better for me than if I don't have one.
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of them? How were they conveyed to people? The same way they were conveyed to Moses? Seems like he'd need a whole legal pad to write those down rather than some stone tablets. What do you consider the status of the NT to be? Is Jesus the son of God? Does he speak for God? Are the things he said considered commandments? If not, why not? I supposed different denominations believe different things, I'm just wondering about some of the specifics in this case.
Never said it was a commandment. I believe the original post said something like "the bible says", not that it was a commandment. The bible says a whole lot more than just what's in the commandments. It's just something that Jesus supposedly said. I'm not religious anyway. I just posted the quote so that whoever asked would know what the guy was talking about.
Ok, sure. You get a knife and I'll get a gun. Then we can see which is more effective:) I think your attempt at wit explains your intellectual level quite well.
Simple. Because you never know who the victim of the misuse will be, and there's a whole lot of Americans.
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun:-)
Not at all. The gun isn't there for threat alone. That is usually enough, but sometimes a warning shot is necessary, and if even that isn't enough of a deterrant, then you may have to shoot your attacker. Knives and clubs are nearly as effective as a gun. They aren't a consideration.
But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No." For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Mt 5.33-37 (see also Jam 5.12)
First of all, I couldn't care less whether I'm statistically likely to be robbed, assaulted, murdered, or whatever. It only takes one time and just one messed up person to cost me my life. Maybe not just my life either. Maybe my girlfriend too. You're welcome to trust in chance and statistics and odds. We all would prefer to never be in a situation where we have to defend ourselves against an attacker. But not sometimes luck just isn't with you. Sometimes it's a jealous or crazy ex. Sometimes it's someone you pissed off. Sometimes it's a complete stranger who happens to have little to no regard for life. Sometimes it's someone who plans to rape you. People can never know what they may be faced with. So yes, maybe the odds are very much against you ever having to face such a situation. I hope I never am either, but if it ever does happen, I plan to be as prepared as possible. It only takes once.
First of all, I don't think that this relatively new technology is comparable to something that been around for decades. Nor am I even remotely likely to have to rely on my microwave to defend my life or my family. I don't plan to wear some stupid ring either, especially at night, which is when I would keep the gun nearby. They'll have to come up with something better than that. Then there's the question of cost. Seems like this is just another California-esque attempt to raise the price of guns so that fewer people can afford them. If someone wants to own a gun, they should be able to decide for themselves what safety features they need. They should be held responsible for anything that happens if they are negligent in taking the proper precautions too though. A little personal responsibility would go a long way in dealing with the problems of gun safety.
Nope. It's not perfectly fine. I think the parents of such children should be arrested and charged with, at the very least, negligent homicide. Probably something more severe than that though. If you're going to have a gun, you'd damn well better be responsible for it. As for safeties, any responsible owner would want one. I should introduce you to some gun owners that I know. I doubt you'd call them irresponsible. They're either former military, former police officers, current police officers, or simply very well trained civilians. They know how to handle guns safely. You don't see military people shooting themselves in the foot all the time do you? Of course not. Because guns are quite safe when handled with the proper respect and training. I'm certainly not saying that people should be able to own guns but not be responsible for them. If their kids are not properly trained to handle the weapons, then they should not be able to get ahold of them. If they do, it's the parent's fault, plain and simple, and they should face the consequences. I know, you're gonna say it's too late for the kids. Well yes, that's true. But the same kind of irresponsibility is what allows kids to drown, or poison themselves, etc. You can't sanitize the world for kids. It's a parent's job to teach them and protect them along the way. If that means the parent doesn't want to own a gun, then fine. They won't have to deal with that responsibility. Oh, and it's not that I "feel personally violated" by the extra "safety feature." It's that that feature would most likely make the gun unreliable and less effective. Nobody can afford to have a gun that is unreliable.
Probably a troll, but on the off chance that anyone thinks he's making sense, I'll respond. If MS wants to give the school a good deal, fine. Why do they need to keep it a secret from the taxpayers that are paying the bills? How is it good for me as a taxpayer to not know what kind of terms the schools I'm helping to pay for are agreeing to? How will I know if they've agreed to some horrible terms? If MS wants to deal with publicly funded schools, then it needs to be above the board and not try to hide anything from the public.
I think that's what I was saying. There are many factors, and simply banning or allowing guns is not the be-all-end-all solution that either side makes it out to be. Comparisons between different countries and cultures are very difficult to make. I prefer to deal only with the US since that is where I live. Studies done here, along with simple common sense lead me to believe that banning guns is a bad idea for this country. I can't say that applies to every country though.
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to just replace a few parts of the weapon to remove the "smart gun" tech? Wouldn't that be cheaper than buying a whole new gun (especially if non-smart-guns are no longer available)? All in all though, I think I agree with what you're saying. If the tech was at least as reliable as current weapons are without the tech, then it probably wouldn't be much of a problem. The ability to easily assign it to someone else would definitely be needed though.
Actually it probably won't even make a dent in the market. It wouldn't be difficult to simply replace a few parts in a weapon to rid it of the "smart gun" tech. I really don't know who they think would buy a gun like this anyway. Nobody wants a gun that may not work when it's needed. Most people that own and practice with a gun wouldn't want to have one that they couldn't let someone else practice with either. Go to a range sometime. People try other people's guns out. Sometimes they are considering buying that model. Sometimes they are just doing it for the sake of comparison. Either way, I don't see people being interested in these weapons, so I don't see them making any kind of difference other than to make it tougher for law-abiding citizens of NJ to buy a decent firearm.
How many people will you be sentencing to death because they can no longer defend themselves? Do you have any idea how many lives guns save every year? Even the most conservative numbers I've seen place it at around 100,000. The largest estimates are over 2 million. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In the vast majority of cases the gun isn't even fired. Granted, not every situation will result in death. Some may only result in injury, rape, or property loss, but there's no way to tell what the outcome will be until it happens. Better that people have the mean to prevent it from happening. That means both having common sense and having the means to defend yourself.
There are over 40 million guns in the US. Only a very tiny fraction are misused. That tells me something about the responsibility of most "gun nuts". Criminals can arm themselves regardless of what the law says. Parents have been teaching gun safety to their kids for a couple centuries. The problem is not the guns. They are a necessary evil in a world where some people wish to deprive others of life and/or liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but most of the suggested solutions are half-ass and/or unwieldy. Yeah, everyone knows you can insert little text boxes all over a PDF doc. It's still a pain and not very flexible. I stand by my comment :)
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Nope
LOL :) That sounds familiar. I did the same thing all through school. Sometimes I cut it a little too close (like having to score a 98 on a US History final), but i managed to squeak by.
They are looking to to things that the Hardware companies are not doing, like inovate.
Only if your definition of innovate is, "To create something that only works with Microsoft's proprietary software." Gee, weren't winmodems a great idea?
Which is part of the reason that MS hasn't paid a penny in taxes for years.
Heh. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone refer to Microsoft's market position as "unfortunate." :)
Not exact scripts, but the Simpsons Archive has the highlights of each episode at least. Lot of cool stuff there :)
LOL! Is that the G-rated version? :)
Freud did a good deal for psychology, but he was wrong on a lot of things too. That's beside the point. Bullets move a lot faster than you do. They don't kill you any deader than a knife would, and often they do less damage than a knife would. The issue is ease of use and effectiveness in a real situation. A knife requires that you close with the attacker. You have to get into grappling range with him. That's a bad idea to begin with. A Knife also requires more physical prowess and skill than a gun does. That puts many people at a distinct disadvantage. If I'm attacked, I really don't care if the guy weighs twice as much as me and can benchpress a Buick. If I have a gun, things odds are a hell of a lot better for me than if I don't have one.
Interesting. I didn't know anything about the Bible saying that nothing could be added or removed? What verses can I look at on that one?
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of them? How were they conveyed to people? The same way they were conveyed to Moses? Seems like he'd need a whole legal pad to write those down rather than some stone tablets. What do you consider the status of the NT to be? Is Jesus the son of God? Does he speak for God? Are the things he said considered commandments? If not, why not? I supposed different denominations believe different things, I'm just wondering about some of the specifics in this case.
Never said it was a commandment. I believe the original post said something like "the bible says", not that it was a commandment. The bible says a whole lot more than just what's in the commandments. It's just something that Jesus supposedly said. I'm not religious anyway. I just posted the quote so that whoever asked would know what the guy was talking about.
Ok, sure. You get a knife and I'll get a gun. Then we can see which is more effective :) I think your attempt at wit explains your intellectual level quite well.
That should say, "Knives and clubs aren't nearly as effective as a gun."
If so, why do you need so many?
:-)
Simple. Because you never know who the victim of the misuse will be, and there's a whole lot of Americans.
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun
Not at all. The gun isn't there for threat alone. That is usually enough, but sometimes a warning shot is necessary, and if even that isn't enough of a deterrant, then you may have to shoot your attacker. Knives and clubs are nearly as effective as a gun. They aren't a consideration.
Where does it say that?
First of all, I couldn't care less whether I'm statistically likely to be robbed, assaulted, murdered, or whatever. It only takes one time and just one messed up person to cost me my life. Maybe not just my life either. Maybe my girlfriend too. You're welcome to trust in chance and statistics and odds. We all would prefer to never be in a situation where we have to defend ourselves against an attacker. But not sometimes luck just isn't with you. Sometimes it's a jealous or crazy ex. Sometimes it's someone you pissed off. Sometimes it's a complete stranger who happens to have little to no regard for life. Sometimes it's someone who plans to rape you. People can never know what they may be faced with. So yes, maybe the odds are very much against you ever having to face such a situation. I hope I never am either, but if it ever does happen, I plan to be as prepared as possible. It only takes once.
First of all, I don't think that this relatively new technology is comparable to something that been around for decades. Nor am I even remotely likely to have to rely on my microwave to defend my life or my family. I don't plan to wear some stupid ring either, especially at night, which is when I would keep the gun nearby. They'll have to come up with something better than that. Then there's the question of cost. Seems like this is just another California-esque attempt to raise the price of guns so that fewer people can afford them. If someone wants to own a gun, they should be able to decide for themselves what safety features they need. They should be held responsible for anything that happens if they are negligent in taking the proper precautions too though. A little personal responsibility would go a long way in dealing with the problems of gun safety.
Nope. It's not perfectly fine. I think the parents of such children should be arrested and charged with, at the very least, negligent homicide. Probably something more severe than that though. If you're going to have a gun, you'd damn well better be responsible for it. As for safeties, any responsible owner would want one. I should introduce you to some gun owners that I know. I doubt you'd call them irresponsible. They're either former military, former police officers, current police officers, or simply very well trained civilians. They know how to handle guns safely. You don't see military people shooting themselves in the foot all the time do you? Of course not. Because guns are quite safe when handled with the proper respect and training. I'm certainly not saying that people should be able to own guns but not be responsible for them. If their kids are not properly trained to handle the weapons, then they should not be able to get ahold of them. If they do, it's the parent's fault, plain and simple, and they should face the consequences. I know, you're gonna say it's too late for the kids. Well yes, that's true. But the same kind of irresponsibility is what allows kids to drown, or poison themselves, etc. You can't sanitize the world for kids. It's a parent's job to teach them and protect them along the way. If that means the parent doesn't want to own a gun, then fine. They won't have to deal with that responsibility. Oh, and it's not that I "feel personally violated" by the extra "safety feature." It's that that feature would most likely make the gun unreliable and less effective. Nobody can afford to have a gun that is unreliable.
Probably a troll, but on the off chance that anyone thinks he's making sense, I'll respond. If MS wants to give the school a good deal, fine. Why do they need to keep it a secret from the taxpayers that are paying the bills? How is it good for me as a taxpayer to not know what kind of terms the schools I'm helping to pay for are agreeing to? How will I know if they've agreed to some horrible terms? If MS wants to deal with publicly funded schools, then it needs to be above the board and not try to hide anything from the public.
I think that's what I was saying. There are many factors, and simply banning or allowing guns is not the be-all-end-all solution that either side makes it out to be. Comparisons between different countries and cultures are very difficult to make. I prefer to deal only with the US since that is where I live. Studies done here, along with simple common sense lead me to believe that banning guns is a bad idea for this country. I can't say that applies to every country though.
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to just replace a few parts of the weapon to remove the "smart gun" tech? Wouldn't that be cheaper than buying a whole new gun (especially if non-smart-guns are no longer available)? All in all though, I think I agree with what you're saying. If the tech was at least as reliable as current weapons are without the tech, then it probably wouldn't be much of a problem. The ability to easily assign it to someone else would definitely be needed though.
Actually it probably won't even make a dent in the market. It wouldn't be difficult to simply replace a few parts in a weapon to rid it of the "smart gun" tech. I really don't know who they think would buy a gun like this anyway. Nobody wants a gun that may not work when it's needed. Most people that own and practice with a gun wouldn't want to have one that they couldn't let someone else practice with either. Go to a range sometime. People try other people's guns out. Sometimes they are considering buying that model. Sometimes they are just doing it for the sake of comparison. Either way, I don't see people being interested in these weapons, so I don't see them making any kind of difference other than to make it tougher for law-abiding citizens of NJ to buy a decent firearm.
Do you have any idea how many lives guns save every year?
In all fairness, that should say "Do you have any idea how many times guns are used in self-defense every year?"
How many people will you be sentencing to death because they can no longer defend themselves? Do you have any idea how many lives guns save every year? Even the most conservative numbers I've seen place it at around 100,000. The largest estimates are over 2 million. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In the vast majority of cases the gun isn't even fired. Granted, not every situation will result in death. Some may only result in injury, rape, or property loss, but there's no way to tell what the outcome will be until it happens. Better that people have the mean to prevent it from happening. That means both having common sense and having the means to defend yourself.
There are over 40 million guns in the US. Only a very tiny fraction are misused. That tells me something about the responsibility of most "gun nuts". Criminals can arm themselves regardless of what the law says. Parents have been teaching gun safety to their kids for a couple centuries. The problem is not the guns. They are a necessary evil in a world where some people wish to deprive others of life and/or liberty.