OK. If the machines are already in the US and imaged, they are not being imported. If they give away the licenses for free, they're not selling. Machines currently in inventory inside of the United States can have their content given away for free and clearly not violate the incunction.
I've taken some time to think over your question. I belive that the shotgun would be a far more effective weapon against the undead for the following reason(s)...
The shot pattern, especially with a properly choked barrel will allow for better saturation of the neck/head area per shot. Any one of the pellets penetrating the skull would inactivate(not really "kill") the zombie. Because an older one would be more dessicated, the flesh would pose less of an obstacle. Dry bone is brittle, there is even a possibility(though a remote one) that a pellet that did not penetrate the skull could cause a corresponding piece of bone on the inside of the skull to break away and damage the brain.
I'm completely discounting pumpkin/mini/musket balls because the thing that makes them so effective against living organisms would make them near useless against the undead. Hydrostatic pressure and damage to vascular tissue is what makes them so lethal. With a target that does not need its organs or blood, you are only left with a relatively heavy ammunition that's not as accurate as a much more manageable one.
For my money, 22 rimfire is the way to go. If you hunt the bargains, you can get nearly 1000 rounds for under $20. You can practice for hours on end for very little money. It's very accurate, especially at short-intermediate ranges. Standard and high velocity ammunition have more than enough power to penetrate a skull. It's not impossible to fabricate a field expedient silencer for emergencies.
I know you weren't serious when you made your statement. We'd have no change against SkyNET if we were to attack a factory with integrated defenses. The problem for SkyNET has already been solved by nature for us. How do you provide enough power to operate an 800 pound cyborg that's on the move?
It would have to compromise. Not quite to strong, not quite so fast and easy to power... Although, with today's technology they're not far off from having a machine like this that could catch or deflect a bullet, in 30 years I'm sure that the technology will be established. We'll have to rely on EMP and magnetic weapons.
500 Years ago, Europeans came to the western hemisphere and brought all kinds of diseases that the native population had no immunity against. Now, the descendants of those Europeans are getting diseases for which they have no immunity from the descendants of the natives from so long ago...
Someone in the Federal government realizes that they can tax all of that savings to increase revenue. They'll accuse these companies of being greedy profit mongers who aren't paying their fair share and tax the fuck out of the savings. They'll be moving data from state to state and the Federal government will have the jurisdiction to get involved.
Being that so much money contains traces of cocaine, think about this. The US Drug laws are such that if someone dilutes a illegal drug the entire quantity of the drug and the medium in which it was diluted are considered when determining quantity. So if you were to plunge a handful of bills into an olympic sized swimming pool, technically you've just created enough cocaine to lock you up for life.
A better way to deter burglary is to remove the motivation for burglary, but that would most likely mean additional taxes for job training programs, decent housing,
I'm all for job training programs, employment assistance programs and housing assistance programs. I think we should be doing all of that. Even so, there WILL be people who don't want to do it that way, they will want to make their living as parasites on others. Like it or not, these people are the reason why you shouldn't leave your doors unlocked at night. They're the reason why you should never leave valuables in plain sight in your car.
For instance, having a defensible location is useless when forest fires, industrial accidents, or chemical spills make your house and the area around it not worth defending, forcing you to leave.
The biggest potential disaster in recent memory was about 7-8 years ago when the military moved a decommissioned nuclear weapon nearby, it passed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 miles from my house.
I'm far enough away from any industrial site for a large scale spill to be a problem, and there is a highway about 3/4 of a mile away but if there is a spill there it would be isolated to a low number of trucks.
You know, I don't use any illegal drug. At one time, I used to smoke weed but it's been a very long time since I did that. Namely because any good job in this area requires a whiz-quiz and I enjoy working and making money more than I enjoy smoking.
That said, I'm not ready to go as far as full legalization. I think that marijuana should be decriminalized. The punishment you receive for something shouldn't be more destructive than the act itself. It's been used medicinally and recreationally for two thousand years and the worst side effect is hunger. It's not like something new where we don't know the long term effects.
Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals.
The problem with his philosophy is that not all of those in his charge are criminals, there are criminal defendants who can't afford bail. Not all of those defendants are guilty.
If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from that portion of the population. If you don't subscribe to rational choice theory, then your opinion may be different.
I imagine positional asphyxiation is a good deterrant to crime.
1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.
We could solve the overcrowing problem today. Stop locking people up for smoking weed. Basically, let anyone out of prison who's serving time for less than one pound of marijuana.
Suspected prison rapists should do their time segregated from other inmates. Allow them social time in common areas, but they spend their nights in solitary. Problem solved.
Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation?
Why? Because in many places prisons are still called "penitentiaries". They're places where people are forced to think about the crimes they have committed. The goal is to inspire themselves to rehabilitate themselves.
Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.
The theory is that the level of depravity of the crime determines how much time it will take someone to become rehabilitated. When we (as in the US) started building prisons, there weren't many things you could do to end up in one. Theft, murder, piracy, treason and rape were the things that put people in prison. To do any of those things puts you in a catagory of human being who won't be miraculously changed overnight.
Well, in that case, get a house that's in the middle of a thick forest, as far from any civilization as possible. You can't defend a house in urban areas,
Compromise my friend. Suburbs. My neighbors are far enough away that a fire at one of their houses will not easily spread to mine. I live in an area that could be defended by a handful of motivated individuals. Rioters or looters would simply move on to easier prey.
I have enough. All of the guns in the world will be useless if the structure you're defending has blind spots that attackers can use to get close.
OK, we'll delve a bit into make-believe here just because I enjoy that sort of thing. The vast majority of damage done by a high velocity rifle bullet, like a.308, is the result of hydrostatic pressure. Basically the water inside of a body transfers the force of the bullet to the surrounding tissue. That's not an issue for zombies. They don't drink water, but they're subjected to the same environmental factors as everything else, as a result they'd dessicate. There's be less water inside of them to transfer the force. So, perhaps a fresh zombie could be incapacitated by a.308 in center of mass, but one that's been undead for a while would be unaffected. It would be like shooting into a bag full of raisins.
I have a good deer rifle, it's a 30-06 so the bullets carry a little bit more kinetic energy than a.308.
This must be a recent phenomenon, I spend a fair amount of time on survivalist forums back in the mid 90s. The thing that stands out most in my mind was the advice I gave some people on avoiding lice. The reason it stands out is that there was a typo in my post and for some reason it was copied and mirrored all over the place. If I'm really inclinedBeing that I am a member of a minority group, I'm sure that I would have noticed such usage.
I see "Urban" as being an accurate representation of a certain segment of the black community. I grew up in the suburbs, there are profound differences between me and even some of my relatives who grew up in "Urban" settings. I don't take offense when people say Urban meaning a certain kind of black people. It's a fairly accurate way to say it.
Outside of entertainment, Zombies are a metaphor for social unrest. When I was house shopping, my girlfriend asked me what criteria I was using to evaluate properties. I explained that there was price, location, condition, number of bedrooms, yard space, parking, garage space, and defensibility in the event of a zombie holocaust. She thought that I was joking with that last one. Then I explained that I wasn't talking about movie zombies. I was talking about small to medium sized groups of attackers in the event of widespread social unrest. If the economy goes south and we have people robbing and looting, how well can I defend this property? The house that I eventually chose wasn't the highest on the zombie defense mark, but it was in the top third.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you want to write commercial software on top of it, which is what Nokia wants to enable.
The problem isn't with commercial software. It's with proprietary software.
LK
OK. If the machines are already in the US and imaged, they are not being imported. If they give away the licenses for free, they're not selling. Machines currently in inventory inside of the United States can have their content given away for free and clearly not violate the incunction.
LK
Touche
BUT, other companies are still pedaling their hardware that infringes on Tivo's (still valid) hardware patents.
You can get a patent on a crippled computer, a hard drive, and a video capture interface?
LK
I have no interest in the android because it's not open enough for my liking. If I wanted an iPhone, I would have gone out ant gotten an iPhone.
LK
I've taken some time to think over your question. I belive that the shotgun would be a far more effective weapon against the undead for the following reason(s)...
The shot pattern, especially with a properly choked barrel will allow for better saturation of the neck/head area per shot. Any one of the pellets penetrating the skull would inactivate(not really "kill") the zombie. Because an older one would be more dessicated, the flesh would pose less of an obstacle. Dry bone is brittle, there is even a possibility(though a remote one) that a pellet that did not penetrate the skull could cause a corresponding piece of bone on the inside of the skull to break away and damage the brain.
I'm completely discounting pumpkin/mini/musket balls because the thing that makes them so effective against living organisms would make them near useless against the undead. Hydrostatic pressure and damage to vascular tissue is what makes them so lethal. With a target that does not need its organs or blood, you are only left with a relatively heavy ammunition that's not as accurate as a much more manageable one.
For my money, 22 rimfire is the way to go. If you hunt the bargains, you can get nearly 1000 rounds for under $20. You can practice for hours on end for very little money. It's very accurate, especially at short-intermediate ranges. Standard and high velocity ammunition have more than enough power to penetrate a skull. It's not impossible to fabricate a field expedient silencer for emergencies.
LK
I know you weren't serious when you made your statement. We'd have no change against SkyNET if we were to attack a factory with integrated defenses. The problem for SkyNET has already been solved by nature for us. How do you provide enough power to operate an 800 pound cyborg that's on the move?
It would have to compromise. Not quite to strong, not quite so fast and easy to power... Although, with today's technology they're not far off from having a machine like this that could catch or deflect a bullet, in 30 years I'm sure that the technology will be established. We'll have to rely on EMP and magnetic weapons.
LK
500 Years ago, Europeans came to the western hemisphere and brought all kinds of diseases that the native population had no immunity against. Now, the descendants of those Europeans are getting diseases for which they have no immunity from the descendants of the natives from so long ago...
LK
Genetic tests and genital examination.
LK
Someone in the Federal government realizes that they can tax all of that savings to increase revenue. They'll accuse these companies of being greedy profit mongers who aren't paying their fair share and tax the fuck out of the savings. They'll be moving data from state to state and the Federal government will have the jurisdiction to get involved.
LK
Being that so much money contains traces of cocaine, think about this. The US Drug laws are such that if someone dilutes a illegal drug the entire quantity of the drug and the medium in which it was diluted are considered when determining quantity. So if you were to plunge a handful of bills into an olympic sized swimming pool, technically you've just created enough cocaine to lock you up for life.
LK
A better way to deter burglary is to remove the motivation for burglary, but that would most likely mean additional taxes for job training programs, decent housing,
I'm all for job training programs, employment assistance programs and housing assistance programs. I think we should be doing all of that. Even so, there WILL be people who don't want to do it that way, they will want to make their living as parasites on others. Like it or not, these people are the reason why you shouldn't leave your doors unlocked at night. They're the reason why you should never leave valuables in plain sight in your car.
For instance, having a defensible location is useless when forest fires, industrial accidents, or chemical spills make your house and the area around it not worth defending, forcing you to leave.
The biggest potential disaster in recent memory was about 7-8 years ago when the military moved a decommissioned nuclear weapon nearby, it passed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 miles from my house.
I'm far enough away from any industrial site for a large scale spill to be a problem, and there is a highway about 3/4 of a mile away but if there is a spill there it would be isolated to a low number of trucks.
LK
You know, I don't use any illegal drug. At one time, I used to smoke weed but it's been a very long time since I did that. Namely because any good job in this area requires a whiz-quiz and I enjoy working and making money more than I enjoy smoking.
That said, I'm not ready to go as far as full legalization. I think that marijuana should be decriminalized. The punishment you receive for something shouldn't be more destructive than the act itself. It's been used medicinally and recreationally for two thousand years and the worst side effect is hunger. It's not like something new where we don't know the long term effects.
LK
Also, when I do get my Doctorate, outside of the professional and academic settings I'm not going to throw my Dr. title around like this twat.
I'll be perfectly happy with Lord.
LK
Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals.
The problem with his philosophy is that not all of those in his charge are criminals, there are criminal defendants who can't afford bail. Not all of those defendants are guilty.
If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from that portion of the population. If you don't subscribe to rational choice theory, then your opinion may be different.
I imagine positional asphyxiation is a good deterrant to crime.
LK
1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.
We could solve the overcrowing problem today. Stop locking people up for smoking weed. Basically, let anyone out of prison who's serving time for less than one pound of marijuana.
Suspected prison rapists should do their time segregated from other inmates. Allow them social time in common areas, but they spend their nights in solitary. Problem solved.
LK
Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation?
Why? Because in many places prisons are still called "penitentiaries". They're places where people are forced to think about the crimes they have committed. The goal is to inspire themselves to rehabilitate themselves.
Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.
The theory is that the level of depravity of the crime determines how much time it will take someone to become rehabilitated. When we (as in the US) started building prisons, there weren't many things you could do to end up in one. Theft, murder, piracy, treason and rape were the things that put people in prison. To do any of those things puts you in a catagory of human being who won't be miraculously changed overnight.
LK
Someone (hint: Not me) really needs to learn when others are being sarcastic.
I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
If you'd read my other post on this topic, I think you'd know where I'm coming from.
LK
Or any of us who watched TV in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
LK
Well, in that case, get a house that's in the middle of a thick forest, as far from any civilization as possible. You can't defend a house in urban areas,
Compromise my friend. Suburbs. My neighbors are far enough away that a fire at one of their houses will not easily spread to mine. I live in an area that could be defended by a handful of motivated individuals. Rioters or looters would simply move on to easier prey.
There's an easy way to deter burglary. Dogs. Even little dogs make enough noise to alert you to unwelcomed visitors.
LK
I have enough. All of the guns in the world will be useless if the structure you're defending has blind spots that attackers can use to get close.
OK, we'll delve a bit into make-believe here just because I enjoy that sort of thing. The vast majority of damage done by a high velocity rifle bullet, like a .308, is the result of hydrostatic pressure. Basically the water inside of a body transfers the force of the bullet to the surrounding tissue. That's not an issue for zombies. They don't drink water, but they're subjected to the same environmental factors as everything else, as a result they'd dessicate. There's be less water inside of them to transfer the force. So, perhaps a fresh zombie could be incapacitated by a .308 in center of mass, but one that's been undead for a while would be unaffected. It would be like shooting into a bag full of raisins.
I have a good deer rifle, it's a 30-06 so the bullets carry a little bit more kinetic energy than a .308.
LK
This must be a recent phenomenon, I spend a fair amount of time on survivalist forums back in the mid 90s. The thing that stands out most in my mind was the advice I gave some people on avoiding lice. The reason it stands out is that there was a typo in my post and for some reason it was copied and mirrored all over the place. If I'm really inclinedBeing that I am a member of a minority group, I'm sure that I would have noticed such usage.
I see "Urban" as being an accurate representation of a certain segment of the black community. I grew up in the suburbs, there are profound differences between me and even some of my relatives who grew up in "Urban" settings. I don't take offense when people say Urban meaning a certain kind of black people. It's a fairly accurate way to say it.
LK
Sounds like the train of thought the Militia type in Michigan go through.
Or shopkeepers in Los Angeles.
Or anyone who's aware of events that took place in the 1960s.
LK
Outside of entertainment, Zombies are a metaphor for social unrest. When I was house shopping, my girlfriend asked me what criteria I was using to evaluate properties. I explained that there was price, location, condition, number of bedrooms, yard space, parking, garage space, and defensibility in the event of a zombie holocaust. She thought that I was joking with that last one. Then I explained that I wasn't talking about movie zombies. I was talking about small to medium sized groups of attackers in the event of widespread social unrest. If the economy goes south and we have people robbing and looting, how well can I defend this property? The house that I eventually chose wasn't the highest on the zombie defense mark, but it was in the top third.
LK