Unless you go to Preferences->Advanced and turn off the appropriate option in the Privacy category.
It would help if you were a bit more specific what browser you are talking about, and what the "appropriate option" is called. There is nothing like that in Chrome; no "Preferences" in FF; and IE has "Tools | Internet Options | Advanced" and there are 50 options; which one is appropriate is anyone's guess (and none of the categories is called "Privacy".) If you name it then it's possible to debate its value.
While lighter.223 bullets (55gr and below) are unsuitable for larger game, there are several bullets available in the 62-75gr range that are quite effective against whitetails
But don't you then have to change the barrel from 1:12" twist to something like 1:8" ? Or have a completely different rifle for heavier bullets? My.223 has 1:12" and I use only lighter bullets (for varmints, like V-Max, VG) down to 39 gr. I don't hunt deer, though I probably could do so without even leaving home:-)
The advice about hogs and.22 calibers was given to me by a hunting instructor. With an optimally placed shot you could take a hog even with a 17HMR, that's not a problem. The problem is when the bullet hits sub-optimally and is deflected (or slowed down) by the hide. Stories were also told, lots of fun:-) Given that you need just a few rounds, the higher cost of larger calibers (and longer rounds) hardly matters (unlike when you are in a pasture with 300 ground squirrels frolicking all around you.) As long as you are set up with the press, an extra set of dies won't be a big deal.
But all in all, indeed - there are many debates on the Internet about usability of various.223 loads against larger game. Some people swear by it, other play it safe.
even if you personally don't log in to the Internet anymore, the majority of your peers will continue to use the Internet. That means they will be reading all of the nastygrams about you, and they will be effected by them. By not logging in yourself, you have put yourself at a disadvantage -- you no longer know what your enemies are saying about you, and thus have no way to address the libel.
I disagree. It would be the wisest choice to delete her Facebook and Twitter accounts and not read her torturers' pages either. Then the offenders would be only limited to talking amongst themselves, and though that might irritate some, at least the offenders will be denied the pleasure of delivering the pain to their victim. In fact, it would hurt them - they went to some effort to write nasty stuff about someone, and then that someone comes and says "no, I haven't looked at your pages and I don't plan to." The bullies *wanted* her to "address the libel" - and this is a never-ending job. The only winning move here is not to play.
In this case, though, the bullying was not done only through the Internet; there was a lot of physical damage done too.
since when do kids have the legal duty to make sure that others don't kill themselves?
Since they started affecting the outcome.
I must mention again that it can be only decided by courts if their influence was sufficiently harmful or not (and in this sense whether the offenders achieved the "legal duty" status by doing whatever they were doing.) But certainly there are at least two factors that are immediately obvious, and the court will not fail to notice them:
The suicide (this one, at least) wouldn't happen without actions of the defendants
The defendants had "guilty mind" (wanted to hurt the victim.)
It can be argued that the victim was free to choose another path; for example, she could run away from the hated school, from her uncaring parents, and from the heartless people of the town. That's definitely an option. But you need to have a hope for the future in order to fight for that future. Once the hope is lost, there is no reason to even try to survive. An adult could deal with the situation with relative ease. First of all, adults learned to not give a rat's behind about other people's opinions (they are often worthless - both the people and their opinions.) An emo child, however, is 1% physical and 99% mental creature. The victim probably mostly existed in opinion of others. Once that opinion, that support, dropped through the floor, she was destroyed.
I still understand your objections, mostly from the POV of the Butterfly Effect. In some cases a minor action can have a large effect. For example, a kid slightly pushes another kid in school, without meaning much harm. But the pushed kid trips over something, falls down the stair and ends up dead. Yes, the offending kid did mean some harm, but not *that* much. Should he be jailed for murder? Note that he had no "guilty mind", but the defendants in this case seemingly had it. That's why I believe there can't be a standard answer to this question; each defendant's actions must be parsed and guilt determined by capable, trained adults (judge, jury.)
That's where your initial analogy is flawed - people jumping from a burning building have no choice in the matter, and would likely have died if they remained in the building
Likely? How could anyone know that? For example, if only those people decided to stay on the roof another 3 minutes, the police helicopter would be there to pick them up. They *chose* to jump because they *thought* they are going to burn, but this here CFD analysis on the IBM supercomputer shows that they were wrong. Well, maybe they'd get 50% burns, but they'd survive, most of them at least. So jumping was their own idea, and the arsonist is only responsible for property damage, a misdemeanor perhaps.
In order for me to accept the idea that one person can be held responsible for the suicide of another, I'd have to reject the entire concept of free will.
I already suggested some response to that; but here is an example. You are caught by Spanish Inquisition and placed under the Pendulum. In addition to the Poe's setup you also have an option to kill yourself, relatively easily, at any time. The pendulum slowly descends; there is no hope of escape; the blade just cut your clothes; now the blade cut through your skin... at what point, if ever, you will choose death? Will you never choose it, instead watching your chest cut through, one tiny slice per swing, until it cuts so deep that you pass out from blood loss or from intolerable pain? Most importantly, what will a *reasonable person* choose?
Should we charge the parents of the perpetrators with negligence, because they failed to instill proper value in their children?
Parents have no legal duty to ensure that their kids don't kill other kids. They can't be charged, unless some major wrongdoing on their part can be shown (like incitement.) But kids themselves have legal duty to not kill others. Of course courts should look into each specific case and assign blame where it belongs; that's why we have judges and juries, and not computers, deciding cases.
True, but you can only blame yourself for the confusion. 9mm caliber, as you said earlier, is NOT the 9.3 mm caliber (9.3 x 62 Mauser, perhaps?) that you later referred to. The former is a common handgun caliber, widely used in handguns and not as much in rifles. The latter is a rare rifle caliber, "seldom seen in Australia and the New World, but [...] reasonably popular in Europe and Africa," and this load is specifically made for large game. Basically it's a smaller version of an elephant gun, with a recoil that is marginally less than a horse's kick.
So no surprise that jafiwam pointed out that 9mm handgun ammo comes with 115-125 gr bullets. Only when you replied to him you cited the 9.3 mm rifle caliber. Now I know what you mean; not that it really affects the thread, really - a kid in the street can have a 9mm gun, but is very unlikely to carry a 40" or longer 9.3mm scoped African rifle:-)
For two soldiers carrying the same weight in ammo, the one with the lesser bullet weight has a lot more killing power than the one with the larger caliber bullets.
This is true in part; but another side of the truth is that 5.56 mm FMJ ammo usually wounds, but not kills, humans. This is exactly what the army wants, because wounding one enemy soldier takes two or three other soldiers out of action. With regard to damage,.223 - even HP - is considered to be a light hunting round, more suitable for varmints (like a coyote) but not recommended on larger game, like deer. And you'd need to be certified crazy to shoot a.223 at a feral hog (it will only annoy it, and make it run after you.)
You don't seem to have followed the link that I posted, which mentions "9.3mm caliber (.366" diameter)... Bullet weights typically run in the 250-300 grain range"
9mm FMJ is typically 115 grain. Weight of 250 gr is more standard for.45 ACP. 300 grain is the weight for.50.
If I say to you "let's see if we can get Bill to say bad and inaccurate things about someone", am I guilty of conspiracy to libel?
I think as soon as Bill agrees to do what you suggest, you have a textbook conspiracy on your hands.
As sad as her death is, she's the one who chose to take that path
Then it follows that an arsonist is not guilty of murder because people had to jump from the top floor of a tall building. Right?
In real life, though, there are only so many paths to take. Even if she chose a wrong path, bullies are still responsible because they forced the choice onto the victim. See the concept of "felony murder". Also consider that children are not in control of their life; they can't quit school, they can't sue bullies, they can't leave town... and people who may do something simply ignored the problem. Your objections would be far more valid if an adult is involved.
Why is it cheaper to support a proprietary driver where you have to do all the development yourself, then to help developing an open-source driver?
You can't pick and choose developers in an open source project. And it will be very expensive to support people who may be not qualified for the job. You can't expect everyone to be familiar with hardware, or with driver coding, or with industry-standard methods. If you do the programming in-house you, as a manager, simply give the job to people who know how to do it right, and it gets done right.
There is also that cathedral vs. bazaar problem. You, as a manager or as an experienced programmer, may know how certain things need to be done. Perhaps this is not your first project of this type. In the cathedral you simply issue directives how to do it, and it gets done exactly to your requirements (if not, they fix it until you like it.) In the bazaar you only can voice your opinion, and everyone else is free to ignore it. As result, if bazaar members are not as competent with this particular problem as you are, you may watch them making the same mistakes that you did 10 years ago. Meanwhile the software suffers, and your company's hardware is unfairly blamed for that. If the company supports the open-source model then it will be also said that "Company N is unable to make the feature X work, even though they allocated their best engineers to help the developers." Bad news. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
I honestly don't think there's a scarcity of materials to provide for everyone's needs. The problem is, most people don't want just what they need. They want far, far more than they need.
In this context want == need. In other contexts this is a battleground. Who is to define what other people *really* need? If you live in a 3-bedroom apartment, is it proper to do some calculations and say that you ought to move to a 2-bedroom one? Even though you are using that extra bedroom as an office, for example? Maybe your "caste" or "rank" does not allow to have an office? You see how slippery this slope is?
Another trouble here is that the "administrative allocation" approach (where someone or something tells you how much you are allowed to consume) is not self-sustaining, except under absolute dictatorship. And even then shortages are the usual result of central planning. The "money" approach - where you are allowed to use as much as you are willing to pay for - is at least automatic.
I would argue that WWI and WWII were all about tribalism.
Lacking the definition of "tribalism" that you have in mind, I simply say that all wars were, and are, caused by desire for power (at least on one side, but sometimes on several.) Power here includes the right to use the conquered land as the victor wants - arable lands, water, minerals, air, anything. Very few wars, I think, were fought because people were hungry and just wanted unused land from a neighbor to grow crops. I doubt Saddam or Hitler or any other semi-modern villain cared much about "his tribe" - at best he'd use his tribe as trusted soldiers and administrators to run the occupied land for him.
But as far as I can tell, your main argument is that "people can change themselves." This is often true and there is no need to debate that. But what do we do with people who can't, or just won't change themselves? Let's call them "criminals" for brevity. Do we, now non-violent pacifists, let them run loose and rob and kill us for pleasure?
This is the real issue here, IMO. You need to solve this problem first, as it is the most difficult one. That's why I mentioned "mind programming" because this [fictional] method, applied to everyone, is the only way to [forcefully] remove "bad motivation" from humankind. Can you propose something that is actually feasible? Note that you aren't allowed to depend on voluntary cooperation because criminals (existing and maybe even newborn) aren't going to cooperate; criminals don't hate themselves, they enjoy themselves, why should they give up all that pleasure of power?
And if you want to propose prisons, let me say right here that they won't be a solution (we know that because we are already there.) First, a criminal has to commit at least one crime (in practice, far more) before he is caught. Then the justice system may not keep him behind bars because of insufficient proof of his guilt. If that doesn't happen then the criminal gets trained (in prison) on better ways to hate and kill. And then he is released back into the society. No wonder he commits another crime, often within days of release. Fact is, most won't be "reformed", ever - they started on the wrong foot to begin with, and prison taught them its lessons. Many SciFi was written on the subject, and nothing short of demolition seems to work reliably (unless you count incarceration for life or execution as options.)
"By 1932, and certainly by 1933, the end of German-Soviet military co-operation efforts were in clear sight. Hitler and his Nationalist Socialists were not in a mood to co-operate with the Soviets in secret on military matters. Communism was after all seen as one of the main enemy's of the German people. In the end, it was the Soviet Union, which officially asked the Reichswehr to close all of its facilities and depart the Soviet Union in August of 1933"
Note that Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933. Spanish Civil War started in 1936, with Germany fighting on the Nationalists' side and USSR [covertly] fighting on the Republican side. While it may be correct to say that Stalin didn't see the World War coming, he was probably the only one with such an opinion. For example, this movie was released in 1940, and it is full of premonition of war with Germany.
We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all
People fight each other because there is natural scarcity of materials. Oil is one, most popular example, and wars are being fought right now over that. Another popular, highly desirable and scarce object is power over other people.
It is possible to leave those mental rudiments behind and live peacefully; but to get there you will need a mind reprogramming technology, because humans come into this world hardwired for violence, competition and survival at any cost to others. Humans aren't on top of the food chain for nothing.
How is this any different from a short range ballistics missile, other than the trajectory?
That's one big difference right here. The path of the ballistic missile, once the engine stops, is predetermined (some newest warheads excepted.) The fixed path makes it easier to shoot it down. Another fact is that the ballistic missile is high in the sky, where your radar can see it clearly. The cruise missile does opposite to all of that: it is always powered, it can change course at any time, and it hugs the ground (or sea,) where returns from the ground and from the missile are hard to tell apart; it can hide in the terrain if necessary.
A Tomahawk can be fired from a huge standoff range and hit its target.
This gives ground forces plenty of time to detect it, guess its destination, and (as crude as that) launch airplanes to intercept it. Being slow and blind, it will be a sitting duck for any fighter airplane.
With this missile, the attacker has to get relatively close to its target, thus making it vulnerable to defenses.
It may be designed for scenarios where you are *already* close to the target. Then the speed and random path of the weapon makes it much harder to defeat on approach to the target.
A big part of the value of a cruise missile is that the attacker can stay relatively safe.
I'm not so sure about that. This particular missile that they tested was a vertical launch model, which probably means you can launch it from a submarine. Also, in war it may be worth losing a small battleship to take out a carrier battle group.
The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.
P-700 was deployed in 1980, per that Wikipedia article.
And how do you solved the problem of signatures on contracts? I mean signatures that are valid in court.
I rarely need to sign a new contract - I work through someone else who does most of the signing and supplies me with jobs. But when I need to sign something I use paper. I personally could live with electronic signatures, but it takes two to tango (and it costs considerably more, once you pay to Adobe for its Acrobat, and to a CA to sign your key.)
Hitler's German was prohibited from making weapons prior to WWII (part of the WW1 peace treaty), so he outsourced the industry to Russia
Of course - Schmeisser, Krupp, Junkers, and Messerschmitt are all Russian names:-)
With regard to Treaty of Versailles, it was officially broken in 1932, with implicit approval of many important countries. Development of arms also was done under "dual use" cover.
I know there are other reasons why offices are not becoming paperless. What are your reasons?
I don't use paper at my home office. I have a printer for rare occasions, like when I want to print a backup set of driving directions for a long trip (the primary set being the GPS.) Some say they don't trust Windows (or any other OS, I guess) with their data. That's what backups are for. When was the last time you did a backup of all your papers, by the way? Papers are easy to lose and nearly impossible to find when you need them.
I have a scanner next to me, if I have a paper (like a manual on something I bought) I scan it and save. The paper manual may then be recycled. Less stuff to lay around and produce dust.
Even when I worked at a larger company (last year) the office was mostly paperless. All communication was done through email and IM and phone. I wasn't involved with code reviews, but meetings were done without papers - using a projector connected to presenter's notebook. The only paper I handled there was time cards, and that was only because of certain accounting regulations (it must be a physical document with a signature.)
At best, I see them dominating the eBook-reader and netbook markets
There is a comment, just above, doubting iPad's impact in eBook market. I also see it this way, given that Kindle or Sony or B&N readers cost half that much, and 3G is included for free. There is also that eternal debate about eInk vs. backlit screens... and certainly battery life of an eInk device is infinitely better than anything that iPad has to offer.
But netbook market, IMO, is not going to curl up and die either. A netbook is a fully functioning portable computer. You can consume information with it, and you can equally well create information with it. This is important for people with urge to post every 5 minutes what they are doing (mostly "updating my Facebook page", apparently:-) iPad, on the other hand, is a consumption device - you can browse the Web, somewhat (without Flash) and you can watch movies, but you can't do much else. Posting a comment like this on/. would be painful, and writing a larger text would be foolish. Netbooks, with their keyboards, however small, are still better suited to the bidirectional exchange of information, and all that comes in a single package - you open it and you are good to go. No need to carry separate adapters, separate dock, separate keyboard.
I personally see iPad productively used only as a supplementary, generic Web browser. It won't have any plugins (like MS Media Player) that many Web sites use to stream music. It won't have any of the software that you know how to operate. Everything will be new, and everything will have to be bought. This will result in few apps sold, certainly less than those for iPhone. Who, outside of a few fanbois, is going to "accessorize" a computer that you rarely use and hardly ever carry with you? Especially when you already have that functionality working just fine, usually for free, on your laptop - the device that is the real competitor of iPad.
Those "five reasons" are somewhat stupid. Let's see:
they're unable to do everything you can do on a laptop - sure, and the laptop is unable to do everything that you can do on a quantum computer. So what? The only requirement here is for the tablet to do what you need it to do.
They've shipped with stylus-pointing devices that were frankly not that easy to use - does this mean that a greasy finger that covers what you press is any better?
Because full desktop/laptop operating systems don't work on a tablet device - that's certainly news (or another, deeper level of cluelessness on part of the author.) As matter of fact, they work just fine.
All user-interface mechanics on a full-blown OS are designed to work with a mouse, not your finger/stylus - leaving dirty fingers alone, the stylus and the mouse are the same to the tablet.
This is why phones have interfaces designed specifically for usage on their screen sizes and device sizes - and what does this have to do with tablets?
Can you imagine pecking around with your finger on ultra-thin scroll bars and tiny buttons? - the author clearly has a finger mania.
Very few people have one, let alone know of or even care about the device - I have a tablet, and other people have theirs, because they have a specific need for a tablet. A tablet is not a solution to all world's ills, it is a niche product - but if you have a niche application then it fits nicely.
The point isn't to cram as much technology into a tablet as physically possible. It's far better to make the tablet really intuitive to use in a way that makes sense for that kind of form factor. - No, it's far more important to preserve compatibility with existing software. You can learn how to use a tablet in minutes, and you need to do it only once. However you can't write software that fast, and you need to do it every time you need a new application.
Tablet makers: please, don't try to pump insane hardware specs into your tablets and bloat up prices. - the author is obviously unaware that most of PC functions are nowadays built into the same chip that has the CPU and memory interface and Ethernet and USB... it will cost more to have less.
Then when you need to type, you have to put the stylus down and use your fingers or peck at the virtual keys with the thing - why do you need to "put the stylus down", I wonder? Besides, typing on any tablet, beyond a few words, is ill-advised. Typing requires a keyboard. However it is interesting that the author ignores existence of pretty good handwriting recognition systems for tablets. Perhaps because they require a stylus, and not fingers?:-)
The fact that most tablets run on Windows or another non-tablet friendly OS means that pretty much most applications are not going to be tablet and finger friendly - it means just the opposite. A Windows or Linux tablet has access to all the apps that exist for those platforms, and all of those apps run just fine when controlled with a stylus. Granted, you'd have to have a frag wish if you control a FPS game with a stylus or your finger. But a USB mouse is what, $10 these days?
They are going to stop spending money on licensing fees and start spending it on "in house development". What I'm curious about is the real difference between the two.
A licensing fee, especially one that is sent abroad, is not contributing to the education or employment of citizens of the country. If you hire local developers, they will become good at programming and will be able to design more software later. This is exactly the question of giving a man a fish or a fishing rod.
If you take this situation to the extreme, as an illustration, you can have a country that spends $100M yearly on licensing and still has not a single programmer who can write "Hello, World". This means that those $100M will have to be spent year after year.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you go to Preferences->Advanced and turn off the appropriate option in the Privacy category.
It would help if you were a bit more specific what browser you are talking about, and what the "appropriate option" is called. There is nothing like that in Chrome; no "Preferences" in FF; and IE has "Tools | Internet Options | Advanced" and there are 50 options; which one is appropriate is anyone's guess (and none of the categories is called "Privacy".) If you name it then it's possible to debate its value.
While lighter .223 bullets (55gr and below) are unsuitable for larger game, there are several bullets available in the 62-75gr range that are quite effective against whitetails
But don't you then have to change the barrel from 1:12" twist to something like 1:8" ? Or have a completely different rifle for heavier bullets? My .223 has 1:12" and I use only lighter bullets (for varmints, like V-Max, VG) down to 39 gr. I don't hunt deer, though I probably could do so without even leaving home :-)
The advice about hogs and .22 calibers was given to me by a hunting instructor. With an optimally placed shot you could take a hog even with a 17HMR, that's not a problem. The problem is when the bullet hits sub-optimally and is deflected (or slowed down) by the hide. Stories were also told, lots of fun :-) Given that you need just a few rounds, the higher cost of larger calibers (and longer rounds) hardly matters (unlike when you are in a pasture with 300 ground squirrels frolicking all around you.) As long as you are set up with the press, an extra set of dies won't be a big deal.
But all in all, indeed - there are many debates on the Internet about usability of various .223 loads against larger game. Some people swear by it, other play it safe.
So you are saying we should punish bullies because their "victims" may be mass murder[er]s?
Not "may be" but "may become." Kids learn not only from their teachers.
even if you personally don't log in to the Internet anymore, the majority of your peers will continue to use the Internet. That means they will be reading all of the nastygrams about you, and they will be effected by them. By not logging in yourself, you have put yourself at a disadvantage -- you no longer know what your enemies are saying about you, and thus have no way to address the libel.
I disagree. It would be the wisest choice to delete her Facebook and Twitter accounts and not read her torturers' pages either. Then the offenders would be only limited to talking amongst themselves, and though that might irritate some, at least the offenders will be denied the pleasure of delivering the pain to their victim. In fact, it would hurt them - they went to some effort to write nasty stuff about someone, and then that someone comes and says "no, I haven't looked at your pages and I don't plan to." The bullies *wanted* her to "address the libel" - and this is a never-ending job. The only winning move here is not to play.
In this case, though, the bullying was not done only through the Internet; there was a lot of physical damage done too.
since when do kids have the legal duty to make sure that others don't kill themselves?
Since they started affecting the outcome.
I must mention again that it can be only decided by courts if their influence was sufficiently harmful or not (and in this sense whether the offenders achieved the "legal duty" status by doing whatever they were doing.) But certainly there are at least two factors that are immediately obvious, and the court will not fail to notice them:
It can be argued that the victim was free to choose another path; for example, she could run away from the hated school, from her uncaring parents, and from the heartless people of the town. That's definitely an option. But you need to have a hope for the future in order to fight for that future. Once the hope is lost, there is no reason to even try to survive. An adult could deal with the situation with relative ease. First of all, adults learned to not give a rat's behind about other people's opinions (they are often worthless - both the people and their opinions.) An emo child, however, is 1% physical and 99% mental creature. The victim probably mostly existed in opinion of others. Once that opinion, that support, dropped through the floor, she was destroyed.
I still understand your objections, mostly from the POV of the Butterfly Effect. In some cases a minor action can have a large effect. For example, a kid slightly pushes another kid in school, without meaning much harm. But the pushed kid trips over something, falls down the stair and ends up dead. Yes, the offending kid did mean some harm, but not *that* much. Should he be jailed for murder? Note that he had no "guilty mind", but the defendants in this case seemingly had it. That's why I believe there can't be a standard answer to this question; each defendant's actions must be parsed and guilt determined by capable, trained adults (judge, jury.)
That's where your initial analogy is flawed - people jumping from a burning building have no choice in the matter, and would likely have died if they remained in the building
Likely? How could anyone know that? For example, if only those people decided to stay on the roof another 3 minutes, the police helicopter would be there to pick them up. They *chose* to jump because they *thought* they are going to burn, but this here CFD analysis on the IBM supercomputer shows that they were wrong. Well, maybe they'd get 50% burns, but they'd survive, most of them at least. So jumping was their own idea, and the arsonist is only responsible for property damage, a misdemeanor perhaps.
In order for me to accept the idea that one person can be held responsible for the suicide of another, I'd have to reject the entire concept of free will.
I already suggested some response to that; but here is an example. You are caught by Spanish Inquisition and placed under the Pendulum. In addition to the Poe's setup you also have an option to kill yourself, relatively easily, at any time. The pendulum slowly descends; there is no hope of escape; the blade just cut your clothes; now the blade cut through your skin ... at what point, if ever, you will choose death? Will you never choose it, instead watching your chest cut through, one tiny slice per swing, until it cuts so deep that you pass out from blood loss or from intolerable pain? Most importantly, what will a *reasonable person* choose?
Should we charge the parents of the perpetrators with negligence, because they failed to instill proper value in their children?
Parents have no legal duty to ensure that their kids don't kill other kids. They can't be charged, unless some major wrongdoing on their part can be shown (like incitement.) But kids themselves have legal duty to not kill others. Of course courts should look into each specific case and assign blame where it belongs; that's why we have judges and juries, and not computers, deciding cases.
You say PISTOL bullets, I say RIFLE bullets.
True, but you can only blame yourself for the confusion. 9mm caliber, as you said earlier, is NOT the 9.3 mm caliber (9.3 x 62 Mauser, perhaps?) that you later referred to. The former is a common handgun caliber, widely used in handguns and not as much in rifles. The latter is a rare rifle caliber, "seldom seen in Australia and the New World, but [...] reasonably popular in Europe and Africa," and this load is specifically made for large game. Basically it's a smaller version of an elephant gun, with a recoil that is marginally less than a horse's kick.
So no surprise that jafiwam pointed out that 9mm handgun ammo comes with 115-125 gr bullets. Only when you replied to him you cited the 9.3 mm rifle caliber. Now I know what you mean; not that it really affects the thread, really - a kid in the street can have a 9mm gun, but is very unlikely to carry a 40" or longer 9.3mm scoped African rifle :-)
For two soldiers carrying the same weight in ammo, the one with the lesser bullet weight has a lot more killing power than the one with the larger caliber bullets.
This is true in part; but another side of the truth is that 5.56 mm FMJ ammo usually wounds, but not kills, humans. This is exactly what the army wants, because wounding one enemy soldier takes two or three other soldiers out of action. With regard to damage, .223 - even HP - is considered to be a light hunting round, more suitable for varmints (like a coyote) but not recommended on larger game, like deer. And you'd need to be certified crazy to shoot a .223 at a feral hog (it will only annoy it, and make it run after you.)
You don't seem to have followed the link that I posted, which mentions "9.3mm caliber (.366" diameter) ... Bullet weights typically run in the 250-300 grain range"
9mm FMJ is typically 115 grain. Weight of 250 gr is more standard for .45 ACP. 300 grain is the weight for .50.
If I say to you "let's see if we can get Bill to say bad and inaccurate things about someone", am I guilty of conspiracy to libel?
I think as soon as Bill agrees to do what you suggest, you have a textbook conspiracy on your hands.
As sad as her death is, she's the one who chose to take that path
Then it follows that an arsonist is not guilty of murder because people had to jump from the top floor of a tall building. Right?
In real life, though, there are only so many paths to take. Even if she chose a wrong path, bullies are still responsible because they forced the choice onto the victim. See the concept of "felony murder". Also consider that children are not in control of their life; they can't quit school, they can't sue bullies, they can't leave town... and people who may do something simply ignored the problem. Your objections would be far more valid if an adult is involved.
Why is it cheaper to support a proprietary driver where you have to do all the development yourself, then to help developing an open-source driver?
You can't pick and choose developers in an open source project. And it will be very expensive to support people who may be not qualified for the job. You can't expect everyone to be familiar with hardware, or with driver coding, or with industry-standard methods. If you do the programming in-house you, as a manager, simply give the job to people who know how to do it right, and it gets done right.
There is also that cathedral vs. bazaar problem. You, as a manager or as an experienced programmer, may know how certain things need to be done. Perhaps this is not your first project of this type. In the cathedral you simply issue directives how to do it, and it gets done exactly to your requirements (if not, they fix it until you like it.) In the bazaar you only can voice your opinion, and everyone else is free to ignore it. As result, if bazaar members are not as competent with this particular problem as you are, you may watch them making the same mistakes that you did 10 years ago. Meanwhile the software suffers, and your company's hardware is unfairly blamed for that. If the company supports the open-source model then it will be also said that "Company N is unable to make the feature X work, even though they allocated their best engineers to help the developers." Bad news. If you want something done right, do it yourself.
People who are willing to pay $39.95 for this service most likely need it, badly.
This would be more impressive if WWII hadn't already started in 1939.
Germany hasn't attacked the USSR until June 22, 1941.
I honestly don't think there's a scarcity of materials to provide for everyone's needs. The problem is, most people don't want just what they need. They want far, far more than they need.
In this context want == need. In other contexts this is a battleground. Who is to define what other people *really* need? If you live in a 3-bedroom apartment, is it proper to do some calculations and say that you ought to move to a 2-bedroom one? Even though you are using that extra bedroom as an office, for example? Maybe your "caste" or "rank" does not allow to have an office? You see how slippery this slope is?
Another trouble here is that the "administrative allocation" approach (where someone or something tells you how much you are allowed to consume) is not self-sustaining, except under absolute dictatorship. And even then shortages are the usual result of central planning. The "money" approach - where you are allowed to use as much as you are willing to pay for - is at least automatic.
I would argue that WWI and WWII were all about tribalism.
Lacking the definition of "tribalism" that you have in mind, I simply say that all wars were, and are, caused by desire for power (at least on one side, but sometimes on several.) Power here includes the right to use the conquered land as the victor wants - arable lands, water, minerals, air, anything. Very few wars, I think, were fought because people were hungry and just wanted unused land from a neighbor to grow crops. I doubt Saddam or Hitler or any other semi-modern villain cared much about "his tribe" - at best he'd use his tribe as trusted soldiers and administrators to run the occupied land for him.
That's quite a comment you wrote, thanks!
But as far as I can tell, your main argument is that "people can change themselves." This is often true and there is no need to debate that. But what do we do with people who can't, or just won't change themselves? Let's call them "criminals" for brevity. Do we, now non-violent pacifists, let them run loose and rob and kill us for pleasure?
This is the real issue here, IMO. You need to solve this problem first, as it is the most difficult one. That's why I mentioned "mind programming" because this [fictional] method, applied to everyone, is the only way to [forcefully] remove "bad motivation" from humankind. Can you propose something that is actually feasible? Note that you aren't allowed to depend on voluntary cooperation because criminals (existing and maybe even newborn) aren't going to cooperate; criminals don't hate themselves, they enjoy themselves, why should they give up all that pleasure of power?
And if you want to propose prisons, let me say right here that they won't be a solution (we know that because we are already there.) First, a criminal has to commit at least one crime (in practice, far more) before he is caught. Then the justice system may not keep him behind bars because of insufficient proof of his guilt. If that doesn't happen then the criminal gets trained (in prison) on better ways to hate and kill. And then he is released back into the society. No wonder he commits another crime, often within days of release. Fact is, most won't be "reformed", ever - they started on the wrong foot to begin with, and prison taught them its lessons. Many SciFi was written on the subject, and nothing short of demolition seems to work reliably (unless you count incarceration for life or execution as options.)
Here is something to start if you want to educate yourself on the topic: http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.html
Your link says:
"By 1932, and certainly by 1933, the end of German-Soviet military co-operation efforts were in clear sight. Hitler and his Nationalist Socialists were not in a mood to co-operate with the Soviets in secret on military matters. Communism was after all seen as one of the main enemy's of the German people. In the end, it was the Soviet Union, which officially asked the Reichswehr to close all of its facilities and depart the Soviet Union in August of 1933"
Note that Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933. Spanish Civil War started in 1936, with Germany fighting on the Nationalists' side and USSR [covertly] fighting on the Republican side. While it may be correct to say that Stalin didn't see the World War coming, he was probably the only one with such an opinion. For example, this movie was released in 1940, and it is full of premonition of war with Germany.
We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all
People fight each other because there is natural scarcity of materials. Oil is one, most popular example, and wars are being fought right now over that. Another popular, highly desirable and scarce object is power over other people.
It is possible to leave those mental rudiments behind and live peacefully; but to get there you will need a mind reprogramming technology, because humans come into this world hardwired for violence, competition and survival at any cost to others. Humans aren't on top of the food chain for nothing.
How is this any different from a short range ballistics missile, other than the trajectory?
That's one big difference right here. The path of the ballistic missile, once the engine stops, is predetermined (some newest warheads excepted.) The fixed path makes it easier to shoot it down. Another fact is that the ballistic missile is high in the sky, where your radar can see it clearly. The cruise missile does opposite to all of that: it is always powered, it can change course at any time, and it hugs the ground (or sea,) where returns from the ground and from the missile are hard to tell apart; it can hide in the terrain if necessary.
A Tomahawk can be fired from a huge standoff range and hit its target.
This gives ground forces plenty of time to detect it, guess its destination, and (as crude as that) launch airplanes to intercept it. Being slow and blind, it will be a sitting duck for any fighter airplane.
With this missile, the attacker has to get relatively close to its target, thus making it vulnerable to defenses.
It may be designed for scenarios where you are *already* close to the target. Then the speed and random path of the weapon makes it much harder to defeat on approach to the target.
A big part of the value of a cruise missile is that the attacker can stay relatively safe.
I'm not so sure about that. This particular missile that they tested was a vertical launch model, which probably means you can launch it from a submarine. Also, in war it may be worth losing a small battleship to take out a carrier battle group.
A maneuver is a large deviation from the initial flight path
Ok, does the P-700 qualify then?
The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.
P-700 was deployed in 1980, per that Wikipedia article.
I'm not sure that many businesses will love to send all their confidential documents to some Internet company.
And how do you solved the problem of signatures on contracts? I mean signatures that are valid in court.
I rarely need to sign a new contract - I work through someone else who does most of the signing and supplies me with jobs. But when I need to sign something I use paper. I personally could live with electronic signatures, but it takes two to tango (and it costs considerably more, once you pay to Adobe for its Acrobat, and to a CA to sign your key.)
Hitler's German was prohibited from making weapons prior to WWII (part of the WW1 peace treaty), so he outsourced the industry to Russia
Of course - Schmeisser, Krupp, Junkers, and Messerschmitt are all Russian names :-)
With regard to Treaty of Versailles, it was officially broken in 1932, with implicit approval of many important countries. Development of arms also was done under "dual use" cover.
I know there are other reasons why offices are not becoming paperless. What are your reasons?
I don't use paper at my home office. I have a printer for rare occasions, like when I want to print a backup set of driving directions for a long trip (the primary set being the GPS.) Some say they don't trust Windows (or any other OS, I guess) with their data. That's what backups are for. When was the last time you did a backup of all your papers, by the way? Papers are easy to lose and nearly impossible to find when you need them.
I have a scanner next to me, if I have a paper (like a manual on something I bought) I scan it and save. The paper manual may then be recycled. Less stuff to lay around and produce dust.
Even when I worked at a larger company (last year) the office was mostly paperless. All communication was done through email and IM and phone. I wasn't involved with code reviews, but meetings were done without papers - using a projector connected to presenter's notebook. The only paper I handled there was time cards, and that was only because of certain accounting regulations (it must be a physical document with a signature.)
At best, I see them dominating the eBook-reader and netbook markets
There is a comment, just above, doubting iPad's impact in eBook market. I also see it this way, given that Kindle or Sony or B&N readers cost half that much, and 3G is included for free. There is also that eternal debate about eInk vs. backlit screens... and certainly battery life of an eInk device is infinitely better than anything that iPad has to offer.
But netbook market, IMO, is not going to curl up and die either. A netbook is a fully functioning portable computer. You can consume information with it, and you can equally well create information with it. This is important for people with urge to post every 5 minutes what they are doing (mostly "updating my Facebook page", apparently :-) iPad, on the other hand, is a consumption device - you can browse the Web, somewhat (without Flash) and you can watch movies, but you can't do much else. Posting a comment like this on /. would be painful, and writing a larger text would be foolish. Netbooks, with their keyboards, however small, are still better suited to the bidirectional exchange of information, and all that comes in a single package - you open it and you are good to go. No need to carry separate adapters, separate dock, separate keyboard.
I personally see iPad productively used only as a supplementary, generic Web browser. It won't have any plugins (like MS Media Player) that many Web sites use to stream music. It won't have any of the software that you know how to operate. Everything will be new, and everything will have to be bought. This will result in few apps sold, certainly less than those for iPhone. Who, outside of a few fanbois, is going to "accessorize" a computer that you rarely use and hardly ever carry with you? Especially when you already have that functionality working just fine, usually for free, on your laptop - the device that is the real competitor of iPad.
Those "five reasons" are somewhat stupid. Let's see:
they're unable to do everything you can do on a laptop - sure, and the laptop is unable to do everything that you can do on a quantum computer. So what? The only requirement here is for the tablet to do what you need it to do.
They've shipped with stylus-pointing devices that were frankly not that easy to use - does this mean that a greasy finger that covers what you press is any better?
Because full desktop/laptop operating systems don't work on a tablet device - that's certainly news (or another, deeper level of cluelessness on part of the author.) As matter of fact, they work just fine.
All user-interface mechanics on a full-blown OS are designed to work with a mouse, not your finger/stylus - leaving dirty fingers alone, the stylus and the mouse are the same to the tablet.
This is why phones have interfaces designed specifically for usage on their screen sizes and device sizes - and what does this have to do with tablets?
Can you imagine pecking around with your finger on ultra-thin scroll bars and tiny buttons? - the author clearly has a finger mania.
Very few people have one, let alone know of or even care about the device - I have a tablet, and other people have theirs, because they have a specific need for a tablet. A tablet is not a solution to all world's ills, it is a niche product - but if you have a niche application then it fits nicely.
The point isn't to cram as much technology into a tablet as physically possible. It's far better to make the tablet really intuitive to use in a way that makes sense for that kind of form factor. - No, it's far more important to preserve compatibility with existing software. You can learn how to use a tablet in minutes, and you need to do it only once. However you can't write software that fast, and you need to do it every time you need a new application.
Tablet makers: please, don't try to pump insane hardware specs into your tablets and bloat up prices. - the author is obviously unaware that most of PC functions are nowadays built into the same chip that has the CPU and memory interface and Ethernet and USB... it will cost more to have less.
Then when you need to type, you have to put the stylus down and use your fingers or peck at the virtual keys with the thing - why do you need to "put the stylus down", I wonder? Besides, typing on any tablet, beyond a few words, is ill-advised. Typing requires a keyboard. However it is interesting that the author ignores existence of pretty good handwriting recognition systems for tablets. Perhaps because they require a stylus, and not fingers? :-)
The fact that most tablets run on Windows or another non-tablet friendly OS means that pretty much most applications are not going to be tablet and finger friendly - it means just the opposite. A Windows or Linux tablet has access to all the apps that exist for those platforms, and all of those apps run just fine when controlled with a stylus. Granted, you'd have to have a frag wish if you control a FPS game with a stylus or your finger. But a USB mouse is what, $10 these days?
They are going to stop spending money on licensing fees and start spending it on "in house development". What I'm curious about is the real difference between the two.
A licensing fee, especially one that is sent abroad, is not contributing to the education or employment of citizens of the country. If you hire local developers, they will become good at programming and will be able to design more software later. This is exactly the question of giving a man a fish or a fishing rod.
If you take this situation to the extreme, as an illustration, you can have a country that spends $100M yearly on licensing and still has not a single programmer who can write "Hello, World". This means that those $100M will have to be spent year after year.