I've seen a.22lr go through a disk(top -> platters -> bottom) no problem. A.45 would have no problem doing the same.
If you tried from a different angle (say, end-to-end, or maybe side-to-side), you might have trouble going through the thicker sides, and the platters would offer more resistance when struck on edge. They would almost certainly deflect the bullet to the side, and likely fragment it as well.
I doubt a single.45 bullet would get through more than 5 or 6 1u rackmount servers. I don't intend to try, but perhaps we can convince Mythbusters to try it? They always seem anxious to destroy things.
If Canadian farmers have them, it's safe to say the Ruskies have them too. Although, given their lack of effectiveness in Canada, the Ruskies might want a backup plan. Of keep them off the ganja.
Yes, it would be a good candidate for particle board. The two are not necessarily interchangeable, however. Plywood is generally better for environments where moisture will be an issue (sheathing for houses, for example), although that depends on a number of factors, such as the glue in the plywood or resin in the particle board.
X-rays, gamma rays or other forms of body scanning would be used to create a bone signature for each person.... Depending on the selected technology, a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight.
Although their language is somewhat vague ("other forms of body scanning" is open to interpretation), they clearly are not ruling out x-rays, and are obviously leaning towards a form or radiation that would penetrate the body, rather than reflect off the surface, and the exposure would be measurable and significant. GP has a good point.
Basically for this to work, you would essentially need to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists before you scanned them. (emphasis mine)
Sort of moots the point, doesn't it? FTFA:
What if there was a way to positively identify sex offenders as they arrived at theme parks and other venues populated by young children?
You position this technology as a way to confirm suspicion about a particular individual. We have other methods for doing that (fingerprint, DNA, etc.). They are positioning this scan as a way to sift through the general population. In other words, this intended "to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists" as you say.
Actually, about 70,000 years ago, human population was reduced to only a handful - several thousand at most, spread about among disconnected, wandering tribes. So, yeah, there's probably more of that in our history than most of us would like to believe...
Back then, I ripped the guts out of my 386 and put in a P133 with 32MB RAM, a 1GB HDD, and even a T1000 for backups. That, plus a 28.8 modem. That managed to run '95 about as well as could be expected.
We need to stop assuming someone is guilty upon mere accusation,
If that person is a cult hero like Assange or Reiser, sure. Of course, if "someone" is the US government, the vast majority of/.ers have no compunctions about assuming guilt, to the point of inventing dozens of theories for which there is exactly zero proof.
Let the Swedish authorities deal with the accusations and investigation, if any, and see where things go from there. His status as geek/political hero isn't proof that he did or didn't get too "handsy" with a woman or two. His adversarial relationship with the US government does not necessarily mean that his misfortunes are of their making.
The computer, located at the headquarters of the airline in Palma de Mallorca, emits an alarm signal on the monitor when you register three similar technical problems in the same device
Pardon me if something got lost in translation, but why the hell was was there not a computer on board that could have registered a series of failures and alerted the crew? It seems that would have been useful information for them to have.
The funny thing is that a kid who changes their name to escape their past will have their name change recorded as a part of the public record... which will then be made available on the internet... which will then be connected back to their former identity, defeating the purpose of changing their name to begin with... forcing them to change their name...
Alternate scenario: They successfully change their name, but unwittingly choose a name identical to someone whose past was even worse.
Get it running, man. I get a kick from new tech, but I love the nostalgia from old tech. I still have my old XT system from college. The crazy thing still works, although it is a complete waste of electricity to do so at this point.
Sir, I am outraged, OUTRAGED, that you oppose consumer choice like FM radio in cell phones, mandatory 78 rpm record players in CD players, and of course the ever-popular integrated 35mm film projector and DVD player.
I am beginning to understand that some of the reason for the dedication to "the right to bear arms", is simply that it is a "right" granted in the US constitution.
That is part of it, I suppose. The 3rd Amendment (I have the right not to quarter troops in my house during peacetime) is largely irrelevant today, but it is still an important part of the Constitution because it, along with other parts of the Bill of Rights, indicate not what we the people can do, but rather because it tells the government what it can't do. Furthermore, it clearly indicates that the founding fathers intended (along with the 4th Amendment) to create a strong case for individual privacy and strong property rights. So even if its original function is largely obsolete, its inclusion in the whole picture is still relevant.
In any case, the right of an individual to own a firearm any purpose is as relevant now as it was at the time it was written, whether that is to hunt, engage in other sport, or to defend his/her self, family, and property.
I am concerned that people of the US tend to be very one eyed in their views
Yes and no. We have a huge variety of opinions and schools of thought here. The traditional conservative and liberal movements here don't begin to cover much of it; I think that's why there's so much dissatisfaction with politics these days. The leaders in power occupy such a middle-of-the-road platform of compromises, they have little in common with those who vote them in. I haven't been truly excited about any candidate for many years.
That being said, there is an uncomfortable truth to what you say, in that vast numbers of people here get their opinions handed to them rather than bother to develop them on their own. They tend to buy into political positions the way tweens buy into pop music.
I'd simply encourage you to question some of those things that are cultural norms in the US, and work out whether they are actually good things or just "what we do around here".
You've hit on something there. Personally, I am continually reinventing my political views. I find as I get older I get much more libertarian. Not big "L" Libertarian, which seems to have been co-opted as a codeword for "let's write a blank check to big business", but little "l" libertarian, meaning small government, lower taxes, greater individual freedom.
Of course, this leads me to support things like the right to gay marriage. Few of my fellow 2nd Amendment-supporting friends completely agree with me on that, and few of my gay-marriage-supporting friends agree with my rather outspoken 2nd Amendment stance. Go figure.
I don't mean to say that drug gangs are branching into arms manufacturing (although they could, I'm sure it wouldn't be as profitable as their core business, and there are plenty of arms manufacturers as it is). My point was simply that making guns isn't as difficult as many seem to believe. I saw an investigative report within the past year or two showing small arms manufacturing going on inside a small building in one of the more lawless regions of Pakistan.
The drug gangs in question are getting their guns from a number of sources. Keep in mind that to get full auto M-16s (not to mention the.50 cal Ma Deuces), their most convenient source is the Mexican armed forces and police, many of whom are already on the gangs' payrolls.
As a result of this, "paranoid, trigger happy" is the resultant state.
And I'm saying that this isn't the case. Your perception is not in tune with the actual situation here. The great majority of Americans don't own guns, and apparently don't feel the need. However, the majority of Americans do believe it is their right to have legal access to guns if they choose.
Most of us don't view this as any kind of problem, social or otherwise. It is the free exercise of a basic right.
For myself, the US attitude to crime and punishment as well as "guns for self defence", seems very alien.
More like "guns [as a last resort for] self defense". No gun owner I know wants to use their gun for killing. But it is better than the alternative.
Various surveys have been done, one, by the Clinton administration (anti-gun folks), found that 2 to 2.5 million times per year in the US, guns were used for defensive purposes. Also, this rarely involved killing the assailant, since most of the time simply brandishing or firing a warning shot was sufficient to drive off the attacker. The corollary to this is that without those guns (most of which were NOT used in a lethal fashion), there would have been far more violent crime. If we look at the UK, they do have a low homicide rate, and homicide by firearm is vanishingly low. However, the homicide rate was low even before gun control, and so I don't really see a strong connection there. What is apparent, however, is that the overall violent crime rate went up after gun control was put in place.
I am puzzled that folks say, in the UK, are willing to put up with the higher violent crime rates and loss of personal freedoms that comes from gun control laws.
any employee can go up to the CEO of the company and tell him "everything is shit, because your not doing X Y Z"
I wish we had more of that here. I can't tell you how many companies I've seen that were totally screwed up, and everyone but the pinhead in charge knew exactly what the problems were, but no one would say a word for fear of losing their job.
I rarely see a 3-digit UID, and when I do, they usually have something insightful to say. That being said, you're way off.
American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv.
No. This is an ugly stereotype. We don't really live like GTA 4. Ironically, it seems that the propaganda is working the other way around.
Throw unlimited availability of firearms in the mix
There are limits. Lots of them..
and you have the most dangerous society in the developed world
I would disagree.
most major American cities have a highe homicide rate than São Paulo, Brazil
First, you cherry-picked that number. The remainder of Brazil is still dangerous as hell, with homicide rates 5 to 10 times the rate in Sao Paolo (Maceio ranks at the top with a stunning 104.01), with an overall murder rate of 25.2 for the last year available (2007), which is roughly 5 times the number for the US in the same period. Sao Paolo seem to be benefiting from increased enforcement, but at the expense of the right of individuals to defend themselves, which is inexcusable. Enforcement of reasonable existing laws is the best way to deal with violence.
Homicide (for the US, includes non-negligent homicide) rates per 100,000:
Sao Paolo, Brazil: 10.44 (recent)
Chicago, Illinois: 18.0 (2008)
Austin, TX: 3.1 (2008)
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet its homicide rate exceeds that of Sao Paolo, so I don't think that restrictive laws alone are the answer. Texas, on the other hand, has less restrictive gun laws, and many places there despite their alleged "cowboy" mentality have very low homicide rates. More restrictive laws don't help. Better enforcement of reasonable existing laws does.
I wonder how traceable a gun with no serial number is.
Very. Acid can be used to recover a filed-off serial number. It is a basic forensics technique.
Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.
And you dismiss his source "cuz you [hate] guns. Good for you." See? Other people can play at that too. Of course, you didn't do what he did; he actually made a point and backed it up. You're just sitting there whining because he doesn't agree with you.
almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point
And every car and beer that leads to a DUI vehicular homicide were purchased legally. Only their owners' irresponsible and illegal use of them differentiates them from the perfectly legal ones safely used every day. So, naturally we should ban them all...
American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico
No. People are pulling those triggers. Criminals motivated by lucrative drug trade and protected by a corrupt government are pulling those triggers, and you and I both know that they source their weapons from any number of sources, many of which are not American.
The criminals still have guns, and always will. All gun prohibition does is give the criminal a vulnerable target.
All I know is I do not want to live anywhere near anyone that has a weapon that will almost assume my death any time he chooses.
As you already admitted, you can't stop murders - if I want to kill you, I could do that with a kitchen knife, or my bare hands, or a hammer, or my car. Are you afraid to live near me because I have these all these lethal things? If yes, there is nowhere safe for you. If no, then please realize that I am no more likely to kill you with a gun than with what I already have.
both PRESERVE the Second Amendment AND make it more DIFFICULT for Mexican drug cartels (and probably felons here in the U.S.) to purchase MASS QUANTITIES of weapons
Please, enlighten me. How would you preserve my rights as an American, and simultaneously make sure that no American guns end up in cartel hands?
I think it's curious that right now the anti-gun crowd is using the same tactics that the anti-cannabis crowd did nearly a century ago. In the 1930's, the government didn't make cannabis illegal outright; they simply made legal ownership impossible. The same thing is happening today in the US with guns - parts of Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other states have de facto handgun bans.
Part of the problem you're encountering is that you want to enact laws to restrict those who don't care about laws. There are already laws that serve to restrict law-abiding people.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a .22lr go through a disk(top -> platters -> bottom) no problem. A .45 would have no problem doing the same.
If you tried from a different angle (say, end-to-end, or maybe side-to-side), you might have trouble going through the thicker sides, and the platters would offer more resistance when struck on edge. They would almost certainly deflect the bullet to the side, and likely fragment it as well.
I doubt a single .45 bullet would get through more than 5 or 6 1u rackmount servers. I don't intend to try, but perhaps we can convince Mythbusters to try it? They always seem anxious to destroy things.
If Canadian farmers have them, it's safe to say the Ruskies have them too. Although, given their lack of effectiveness in Canada, the Ruskies might want a backup plan. Of keep them off the ganja.
Yes, it would be a good candidate for particle board. The two are not necessarily interchangeable, however. Plywood is generally better for environments where moisture will be an issue (sheathing for houses, for example), although that depends on a number of factors, such as the glue in the plywood or resin in the particle board.
It's already been available as a hardwood floor material for years now. I'm not sure you could make decent plywood out of it, since plywood manufacturing requires shaving the stock into sheets.
X-rays, gamma rays or other forms of body scanning would be used to create a bone signature for each person. ... Depending on the selected technology, a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight.
Although their language is somewhat vague ("other forms of body scanning" is open to interpretation), they clearly are not ruling out x-rays, and are obviously leaning towards a form or radiation that would penetrate the body, rather than reflect off the surface, and the exposure would be measurable and significant. GP has a good point.
Basically for this to work, you would essentially need to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists before you scanned them. (emphasis mine)
Sort of moots the point, doesn't it? FTFA:
What if there was a way to positively identify sex offenders as they arrived at theme parks and other venues populated by young children?
You position this technology as a way to confirm suspicion about a particular individual. We have other methods for doing that (fingerprint, DNA, etc.). They are positioning this scan as a way to sift through the general population. In other words, this intended "to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists" as you say.
Actually, about 70,000 years ago, human population was reduced to only a handful - several thousand at most, spread about among disconnected, wandering tribes. So, yeah, there's probably more of that in our history than most of us would like to believe ...
Back then, I ripped the guts out of my 386 and put in a P133 with 32MB RAM, a 1GB HDD, and even a T1000 for backups. That, plus a 28.8 modem. That managed to run '95 about as well as could be expected.
Side thought: Wouldn't it be funny if Microsoft released a Linux-based phone?
Wouldn't it be funnier if it were a huge success?
We need to stop assuming someone is guilty upon mere accusation,
If that person is a cult hero like Assange or Reiser, sure. Of course, if "someone" is the US government, the vast majority of /.ers have no compunctions about assuming guilt, to the point of inventing dozens of theories for which there is exactly zero proof.
Let the Swedish authorities deal with the accusations and investigation, if any, and see where things go from there. His status as geek/political hero isn't proof that he did or didn't get too "handsy" with a woman or two. His adversarial relationship with the US government does not necessarily mean that his misfortunes are of their making.
Thanks for the excellent info.
...
And the building-a-better-idiot arms race continues
The computer, located at the headquarters of the airline in Palma de Mallorca, emits an alarm signal on the monitor when you register three similar technical problems in the same device
Pardon me if something got lost in translation, but why the hell was was there not a computer on board that could have registered a series of failures and alerted the crew? It seems that would have been useful information for them to have.
The funny thing is that a kid who changes their name to escape their past will have their name change recorded as a part of the public record ... which will then be made available on the internet ... which will then be connected back to their former identity, defeating the purpose of changing their name to begin with ... forcing them to change their name ...
Alternate scenario: They successfully change their name, but unwittingly choose a name identical to someone whose past was even worse.
Get it running, man. I get a kick from new tech, but I love the nostalgia from old tech. I still have my old XT system from college. The crazy thing still works, although it is a complete waste of electricity to do so at this point.
Not doubting you completely, but maybe it was ISA? IIRC, PCI didn't come out until the days of 486/Pentium.
Either way, kind of an odd thing to see, especially since audio cards of any type weren't in general use until later.
Sir, I am outraged, OUTRAGED, that you oppose consumer choice like FM radio in cell phones, mandatory 78 rpm record players in CD players, and of course the ever-popular integrated 35mm film projector and DVD player.
I am beginning to understand that some of the reason for the dedication to "the right to bear arms", is simply that it is a "right" granted in the US constitution.
That is part of it, I suppose. The 3rd Amendment (I have the right not to quarter troops in my house during peacetime) is largely irrelevant today, but it is still an important part of the Constitution because it, along with other parts of the Bill of Rights, indicate not what we the people can do, but rather because it tells the government what it can't do. Furthermore, it clearly indicates that the founding fathers intended (along with the 4th Amendment) to create a strong case for individual privacy and strong property rights. So even if its original function is largely obsolete, its inclusion in the whole picture is still relevant.
In any case, the right of an individual to own a firearm any purpose is as relevant now as it was at the time it was written, whether that is to hunt, engage in other sport, or to defend his/her self, family, and property.
I am concerned that people of the US tend to be very one eyed in their views
Yes and no. We have a huge variety of opinions and schools of thought here. The traditional conservative and liberal movements here don't begin to cover much of it; I think that's why there's so much dissatisfaction with politics these days. The leaders in power occupy such a middle-of-the-road platform of compromises, they have little in common with those who vote them in. I haven't been truly excited about any candidate for many years.
That being said, there is an uncomfortable truth to what you say, in that vast numbers of people here get their opinions handed to them rather than bother to develop them on their own. They tend to buy into political positions the way tweens buy into pop music.
I'd simply encourage you to question some of those things that are cultural norms in the US, and work out whether they are actually good things or just "what we do around here".
You've hit on something there. Personally, I am continually reinventing my political views. I find as I get older I get much more libertarian. Not big "L" Libertarian, which seems to have been co-opted as a codeword for "let's write a blank check to big business", but little "l" libertarian, meaning small government, lower taxes, greater individual freedom.
Of course, this leads me to support things like the right to gay marriage. Few of my fellow 2nd Amendment-supporting friends completely agree with me on that, and few of my gay-marriage-supporting friends agree with my rather outspoken 2nd Amendment stance. Go figure.
I don't mean to say that drug gangs are branching into arms manufacturing (although they could, I'm sure it wouldn't be as profitable as their core business, and there are plenty of arms manufacturers as it is). My point was simply that making guns isn't as difficult as many seem to believe. I saw an investigative report within the past year or two showing small arms manufacturing going on inside a small building in one of the more lawless regions of Pakistan.
.50 cal Ma Deuces), their most convenient source is the Mexican armed forces and police, many of whom are already on the gangs' payrolls.
The drug gangs in question are getting their guns from a number of sources. Keep in mind that to get full auto M-16s (not to mention the
As a result of this, "paranoid, trigger happy" is the resultant state.
And I'm saying that this isn't the case. Your perception is not in tune with the actual situation here. The great majority of Americans don't own guns, and apparently don't feel the need. However, the majority of Americans do believe it is their right to have legal access to guns if they choose.
Most of us don't view this as any kind of problem, social or otherwise. It is the free exercise of a basic right.
For myself, the US attitude to crime and punishment as well as "guns for self defence", seems very alien.
More like "guns [as a last resort for] self defense". No gun owner I know wants to use their gun for killing. But it is better than the alternative.
Various surveys have been done, one, by the Clinton administration (anti-gun folks), found that 2 to 2.5 million times per year in the US, guns were used for defensive purposes. Also, this rarely involved killing the assailant, since most of the time simply brandishing or firing a warning shot was sufficient to drive off the attacker. The corollary to this is that without those guns (most of which were NOT used in a lethal fashion), there would have been far more violent crime. If we look at the UK, they do have a low homicide rate, and homicide by firearm is vanishingly low. However, the homicide rate was low even before gun control, and so I don't really see a strong connection there. What is apparent, however, is that the overall violent crime rate went up after gun control was put in place.
I am puzzled that folks say, in the UK, are willing to put up with the higher violent crime rates and loss of personal freedoms that comes from gun control laws.
any employee can go up to the CEO of the company and tell him "everything is shit, because your not doing X Y Z"
I wish we had more of that here. I can't tell you how many companies I've seen that were totally screwed up, and everyone but the pinhead in charge knew exactly what the problems were, but no one would say a word for fear of losing their job.
That is all.
American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv.
No. This is an ugly stereotype. We don't really live like GTA 4. Ironically, it seems that the propaganda is working the other way around.
Throw unlimited availability of firearms in the mix
There are limits. Lots of them..
and you have the most dangerous society in the developed world
I would disagree.
most major American cities have a highe homicide rate than São Paulo, Brazil
First, you cherry-picked that number. The remainder of Brazil is still dangerous as hell, with homicide rates 5 to 10 times the rate in Sao Paolo (Maceio ranks at the top with a stunning 104 .01), with an overall murder rate of 25.2 for the last year available (2007), which is roughly 5 times the number for the US in the same period. Sao Paolo seem to be benefiting from increased enforcement, but at the expense of the right of individuals to defend themselves, which is inexcusable. Enforcement of reasonable existing laws is the best way to deal with violence.
Homicide (for the US, includes non-negligent homicide) rates per 100,000:
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet its homicide rate exceeds that of Sao Paolo, so I don't think that restrictive laws alone are the answer. Texas, on the other hand, has less restrictive gun laws, and many places there despite their alleged "cowboy" mentality have very low homicide rates. More restrictive laws don't help. Better enforcement of reasonable existing laws does.
I wonder how traceable a gun with no serial number is.
Very. Acid can be used to recover a filed-off serial number. It is a basic forensics technique.
Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.
And you dismiss his source "cuz you [hate] guns. Good for you." See? Other people can play at that too. Of course, you didn't do what he did; he actually made a point and backed it up. You're just sitting there whining because he doesn't agree with you.
almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point
And every car and beer that leads to a DUI vehicular homicide were purchased legally. Only their owners' irresponsible and illegal use of them differentiates them from the perfectly legal ones safely used every day. So, naturally we should ban them all ...
American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico
No. People are pulling those triggers. Criminals motivated by lucrative drug trade and protected by a corrupt government are pulling those triggers, and you and I both know that they source their weapons from any number of sources, many of which are not American.
All I know is I do not want to live anywhere near anyone that has a weapon that will almost assume my death any time he chooses.
As you already admitted, you can't stop murders - if I want to kill you, I could do that with a kitchen knife, or my bare hands, or a hammer, or my car. Are you afraid to live near me because I have these all these lethal things? If yes, there is nowhere safe for you. If no, then please realize that I am no more likely to kill you with a gun than with what I already have.
both PRESERVE the Second Amendment AND make it more DIFFICULT for Mexican drug cartels (and probably felons here in the U.S.) to purchase MASS QUANTITIES of weapons
Please, enlighten me. How would you preserve my rights as an American, and simultaneously make sure that no American guns end up in cartel hands?
I think it's curious that right now the anti-gun crowd is using the same tactics that the anti-cannabis crowd did nearly a century ago. In the 1930's, the government didn't make cannabis illegal outright; they simply made legal ownership impossible. The same thing is happening today in the US with guns - parts of Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other states have de facto handgun bans.
Part of the problem you're encountering is that you want to enact laws to restrict those who don't care about laws. There are already laws that serve to restrict law-abiding people.
So, you plan on solving one failed prohibition's problems with another failed prohibition?
And you think that is in any way "sensible"?