What you're basically saying here is because you know more about guns and thought about more scenarios here than I have, that somehow gives your standpoint more weight.
There's pretty much an infinite amount of ways any break-in could play out, so your opinion vs. mine is basically the difference between a minute fraction of scenarios covered, and a slightly less minute fraction. The only difference seems to be is that I realise that if something like this were to happen that I won't always predict what will happen or be able to always control the situation.
My 4 what if's are not so much what if's, rather than vague scenarios to illustrate a point. You however in yours are saying "This is how it would happen and this is what I would do". The problem with that is if 1 small thing in your prediction changes, the whole situation changes and your course of actions is invalid. Except you're still relying on them, and instead of saving your life they get you killed. Eg. what if the noise you hear is not your dog waking up, but some guy standing over you with a gun watching you reaching for something to try and kill him with. What if they've cut the lights and you can't see your entrances. What if there's more than one of them? What if they decide to use the windows?
Assumption is the mother of all f-ups as they say. When you assume something like this, it most likely will not go the way you have assumed. When you assume with a gun in your hand, you're escalating the risk because your assailant(s) now have to fear for their lives.
Despite more or less triggering this conversation, I'm pretty much ignorant to a lot when it comes to guns. I'm probably one of those people that immediately thinks of bad and dangerous when it comes to this topic.
However, even for the small weight my opinion holds I'm a firm believer that although people should be entitled to guns of some sort, there's no way they should be in the hands of irresponsible people not qualified or deserving of such a right.
I think circletimessquare makes a better case than I do for how it's more dangerous in every situation to have a gun. But I don't think that's any reason to deny people the choice to have a gun (if they're qualified). I do think it's very good reason however, to deny Joe off the street the right to bear arms, even (especially) if his reasoning is for protecting his family.
Dogs are great, I agree. We have a boxer that looks tough, and is extremely curious - meaning that a) she's aware of everything around the house, and b) even though she might only lick you to death, a boxer itching to come and see you can be an especially daunting prospect, particularly if you're aware that your goal involves getting past said dog.
However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense. For the 2 parties (you and your burglar) involved there are 4 possibilities, neither party armed, you armed, him armed, both parties armed.
Where you are armed and he is not, sure you have the advantage. But generally unarmed burglars aren't confrontational, and you have your dog anyway (which also covers you for the neither party armed scenario).
So basically it's fair to say when you have your gun, it's protection against an armed assailant.
By their nature armed assailants will be confrontational (why would they risk bringing the gun otherwise?) So you're basically facing a shootout. Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely, but unfortunately your burglar isn't going to be taking time to examine your superior firearm, so despite it your still relying on getting the first shot off, and hoping your nice equipment does its job.
Finally you have the situation where he's armed and you're not. You stick your hands up and hope he doesn't shoot. But when you think about this, why would he shoot? He wants your VCR not the risk of a second degree murder conviction (although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt).
Basically, (by this reasoning at least) the only thing your gun does is increase the chance of a shootout. And even if you're successful, your vcr is safe, you've showed that guy that broke in, but you've also killed someone, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of that are worth your VCR.
That's a myth. Probably mainly down in the difference in gallons which means european cars have a ~16% advantage (3.7/4.4 litres).
Granted generally speaking you guys go for bigger engines - the 1.8 litre's you'd call economy we'd call excess, but if you want to buy something fuel efficient there's nothing stopping you.
Exactly! Who's hair-brained idea was it to decide that touchscreens were a good idea? Not only is it tiring, you have to sit within arms reach of the display, you have to touch the display which strains your arm/hand and gets the screen messy, and you're replacing a mouse and keyboard with something vastly inferior on so many levels! And worst of all they're cool!
I'd go further to say school is the perfect environment to enlighten people that there actually is an alternative. If you can show future generations that linux/OO.o actually exists (let alone can be easy to use), my opinion is that this is an advantage that outweighs pretty much any amount of money saved.
It's because it's not as "supercool" according to Geoff Walker, global director of product management at Tyco Electronicsâ(TM).
The main problem with touch screens is while they're supercool, they're a pain to use. Holding my hand up to a screen for a whole day at work is probably impossible, certainly not progress in terms of input. One constraint I see is your hands have to be on the desk, and if you bring the screen down there you've other problems to do with eye strain etc. For this reason, my opinion is touchscreens are never going to work as a primary input. Maybe invent a mouse with an additional cursor attached to your thumb that you can move around independently so you can have that all-important iphone pinch zoom feature?
There's choice, and there's having to circumvent a ban on native applications. While I agree that a user interface should be simple (the rule about being able to understand a program's functions after a few minutes of said interface springs to mind), I certainly don't think that should extend to denying people the ability to have a preference. Which is what we seem to be talking about.
Reminds me of the 3 consultants joke:
3 consultants go for a job, one's a Seattleite (for the sake of the joke), the other 2 are English and Irish, for no particular reason.
The Seattleite quotes $1m, the English guy $2m, and the Irish guy an outrageous $5m. The contractor curious as to the inflated quote asks. The Irish guy calmly responds "I take $2m, you take $2m, and we give the job to the Seattliate.
Agreed, but bear in mind good business does not necessarily mean producing the best, most reliable product that makes the most customers happy. Good business is about making as much money as you can.
Take our own Ryanair airline for instance. Everybody hates them. They have a strict policy of no ticket refunds for any reason, the planes don't have reclining seats, the windows have no blinds, even the employees aren't allowed charge their phones with the company's electricity. However, people continue to come back to them because they're the cheapest.
Likewise, people don't buy apple products because they're functional - if they did the iphone would have mms and removable batteries. People buy apple products because they're chic and the thing to have. Like Michael O'Leary proved people want cheap flights, Steve Jobs has proved that some people prefer gadgets with style over substance. Apple may be getting away with murder, but it's also getting away with good business, as this topic shows.
A toyota pious might seem like a good idea, but 46mpg is deadfully low for such a compromised hybrid - 20 year old diesels will happily do that all day. So I'm supposed to prefer a stinky, poor performing Diesel that runs on fuel that costs over $1/gallon more than regular fuel, instead of a hybrid that gets the same MPG, with cheaper fuel? My point wasn't about how diesel is great - far be it from me, I hate the stuff. My point was about how a prius is pointless.
It's pointless on an energy-conservation level, the NiMH batteries used are seriously costly to produce - meaning that once it's made, a prius spends the rest of it's short life (thanks to said batteries) trying to claw back these losses.
It's pointless on an economy level too. According to toyota, it does 65mpg combined. The Aygo which has a basic petrol engine does 61mpg combined, off the same website. It might be smaller, but it costs half the price, even with the huge tax savings on the prius.
It's also pointless as a car. The batteries add weight, which ruins the handling. They're bulky, meaning you've a small car taking up a big cars space. It might all be worth it if a prius had something going for it but I can't think of anything else that seperates it from similarly sized cars.
Also living in a country where 80% of cars run it I feel pretty qualified to tell you although it's hardly condusive to anything sporty, diesel is certainly not poor performing. The diesel versions of Aygo sister cars are closing in on 100mpg. It doesn't smell too bad either.
Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
A toyota pious might seem like a good idea, but 46mpg is deadfully low for such a compromised hybrid - 20 year old diesels will happily do that all day.
The other thing about them is that they cost a fortune to make, both in money and energy. Here in Ireland at least the only reason they're affordable is down to the tax breaks you get for being "environmentally friendly".
Electric hybrids are (at the minute at least) a feel good car. Be it a pious or those completely pointless lexus v8's. The way the market is really heading is towards lighter and more aerodynamic cars with real world effective energy saving measures like BMW's stop-start technolodgy, and regenerative braking. About time cars got lighter too if you're asking me.
I hope they figure this out before they close their last Ranger lines down. I don't think even Ford are stupid enough to close down one of the few profitable brands they have.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're basically saying here is because you know more about guns and thought about more scenarios here than I have, that somehow gives your standpoint more weight.
There's pretty much an infinite amount of ways any break-in could play out, so your opinion vs. mine is basically the difference between a minute fraction of scenarios covered, and a slightly less minute fraction. The only difference seems to be is that I realise that if something like this were to happen that I won't always predict what will happen or be able to always control the situation.
My 4 what if's are not so much what if's, rather than vague scenarios to illustrate a point. You however in yours are saying "This is how it would happen and this is what I would do". The problem with that is if 1 small thing in your prediction changes, the whole situation changes and your course of actions is invalid. Except you're still relying on them, and instead of saving your life they get you killed. Eg. what if the noise you hear is not your dog waking up, but some guy standing over you with a gun watching you reaching for something to try and kill him with. What if they've cut the lights and you can't see your entrances. What if there's more than one of them? What if they decide to use the windows?
Assumption is the mother of all f-ups as they say. When you assume something like this, it most likely will not go the way you have assumed. When you assume with a gun in your hand, you're escalating the risk because your assailant(s) now have to fear for their lives.
Excellent point.
Despite more or less triggering this conversation, I'm pretty much ignorant to a lot when it comes to guns. I'm probably one of those people that immediately thinks of bad and dangerous when it comes to this topic.
However, even for the small weight my opinion holds I'm a firm believer that although people should be entitled to guns of some sort, there's no way they should be in the hands of irresponsible people not qualified or deserving of such a right.
I think circletimessquare makes a better case than I do for how it's more dangerous in every situation to have a gun. But I don't think that's any reason to deny people the choice to have a gun (if they're qualified). I do think it's very good reason however, to deny Joe off the street the right to bear arms, even (especially) if his reasoning is for protecting his family.
Clearly, species are going extinct in great numbers, it's largely due to us, and most species are not adapting.
Prove it.
Dogs are great, I agree. We have a boxer that looks tough, and is extremely curious - meaning that a) she's aware of everything around the house, and b) even though she might only lick you to death, a boxer itching to come and see you can be an especially daunting prospect, particularly if you're aware that your goal involves getting past said dog.
However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense. For the 2 parties (you and your burglar) involved there are 4 possibilities, neither party armed, you armed, him armed, both parties armed.
Where you are armed and he is not, sure you have the advantage. But generally unarmed burglars aren't confrontational, and you have your dog anyway (which also covers you for the neither party armed scenario).
So basically it's fair to say when you have your gun, it's protection against an armed assailant.
By their nature armed assailants will be confrontational (why would they risk bringing the gun otherwise?) So you're basically facing a shootout. Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely, but unfortunately your burglar isn't going to be taking time to examine your superior firearm, so despite it your still relying on getting the first shot off, and hoping your nice equipment does its job.
Finally you have the situation where he's armed and you're not. You stick your hands up and hope he doesn't shoot. But when you think about this, why would he shoot? He wants your VCR not the risk of a second degree murder conviction (although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt).
Basically, (by this reasoning at least) the only thing your gun does is increase the chance of a shootout. And even if you're successful, your vcr is safe, you've showed that guy that broke in, but you've also killed someone, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of that are worth your VCR.
You assume too much.
So what you're saying is you choose your candidates based on the bad things they don't do?
What is squeeing? It sounds like it might be a word used to describe squealing in excitement to the point of incontinence?
I'm officially calling tomorrow "Global anti-ripping people off with crappy software" day
That's a myth. Probably mainly down in the difference in gallons which means european cars have a ~16% advantage (3.7/4.4 litres).
Granted generally speaking you guys go for bigger engines - the 1.8 litre's you'd call economy we'd call excess, but if you want to buy something fuel efficient there's nothing stopping you.
Exactly! Who's hair-brained idea was it to decide that touchscreens were a good idea? Not only is it tiring, you have to sit within arms reach of the display, you have to touch the display which strains your arm/hand and gets the screen messy, and you're replacing a mouse and keyboard with something vastly inferior on so many levels! And worst of all they're cool!
I accidentally modded you flamebait there, Given the context it's kind of funny that I'm posting this to undo it.
Scientific notation my friend!
I'd go further to say school is the perfect environment to enlighten people that there actually is an alternative. If you can show future generations that linux/OO.o actually exists (let alone can be easy to use), my opinion is that this is an advantage that outweighs pretty much any amount of money saved.
I'm guessing your co-workers really love you! The only thing more annoying than someone who is good what they do is someone who loves doing it.
It's because it's not as "supercool" according to Geoff Walker, global director of product management at Tyco Electronicsâ(TM).
The main problem with touch screens is while they're supercool, they're a pain to use. Holding my hand up to a screen for a whole day at work is probably impossible, certainly not progress in terms of input. One constraint I see is your hands have to be on the desk, and if you bring the screen down there you've other problems to do with eye strain etc. For this reason, my opinion is touchscreens are never going to work as a primary input. Maybe invent a mouse with an additional cursor attached to your thumb that you can move around independently so you can have that all-important iphone pinch zoom feature?
I think you mean grammEr.
There's choice, and there's having to circumvent a ban on native applications. While I agree that a user interface should be simple (the rule about being able to understand a program's functions after a few minutes of said interface springs to mind), I certainly don't think that should extend to denying people the ability to have a preference. Which is what we seem to be talking about.
Reminds me of the 3 consultants joke: 3 consultants go for a job, one's a Seattleite (for the sake of the joke), the other 2 are English and Irish, for no particular reason. The Seattleite quotes $1m, the English guy $2m, and the Irish guy an outrageous $5m. The contractor curious as to the inflated quote asks. The Irish guy calmly responds "I take $2m, you take $2m, and we give the job to the Seattliate.
Agreed, but bear in mind good business does not necessarily mean producing the best, most reliable product that makes the most customers happy. Good business is about making as much money as you can.
Take our own Ryanair airline for instance. Everybody hates them. They have a strict policy of no ticket refunds for any reason, the planes don't have reclining seats, the windows have no blinds, even the employees aren't allowed charge their phones with the company's electricity. However, people continue to come back to them because they're the cheapest.
Likewise, people don't buy apple products because they're functional - if they did the iphone would have mms and removable batteries. People buy apple products because they're chic and the thing to have. Like Michael O'Leary proved people want cheap flights, Steve Jobs has proved that some people prefer gadgets with style over substance. Apple may be getting away with murder, but it's also getting away with good business, as this topic shows.
It's pointless on an energy-conservation level, the NiMH batteries used are seriously costly to produce - meaning that once it's made, a prius spends the rest of it's short life (thanks to said batteries) trying to claw back these losses.
It's pointless on an economy level too. According to toyota, it does 65mpg combined. The Aygo which has a basic petrol engine does 61mpg combined, off the same website. It might be smaller, but it costs half the price, even with the huge tax savings on the prius.
It's also pointless as a car. The batteries add weight, which ruins the handling. They're bulky, meaning you've a small car taking up a big cars space. It might all be worth it if a prius had something going for it but I can't think of anything else that seperates it from similarly sized cars.
Also living in a country where 80% of cars run it I feel pretty qualified to tell you although it's hardly condusive to anything sporty, diesel is certainly not poor performing. The diesel versions of Aygo sister cars are closing in on 100mpg. It doesn't smell too bad either.
A toyota pious might seem like a good idea, but 46mpg is deadfully low for such a compromised hybrid - 20 year old diesels will happily do that all day.
The other thing about them is that they cost a fortune to make, both in money and energy. Here in Ireland at least the only reason they're affordable is down to the tax breaks you get for being "environmentally friendly".
Electric hybrids are (at the minute at least) a feel good car. Be it a pious or those completely pointless lexus v8's. The way the market is really heading is towards lighter and more aerodynamic cars with real world effective energy saving measures like BMW's stop-start technolodgy, and regenerative braking. About time cars got lighter too if you're asking me.
I downloaded a little program a few years ago called Syncback, I find it does what I need between windows computers. Does the synchronisation thing too. http://www.download.com/SyncBack/3000-2242_4-10548 273.html?tag=lst-0-1