Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose? If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
The ban on government-financed research was done because the researchers were caught faking the results... again!
Gun-ban activists have been caught doing fake statistics again and again over the years. Partly because they think the "end justifies the means" and partly out of pure ignorance of firearms. If you are against guns then you should check your data -very- carefully.
... If it happens to trained police officers, do you really believe it doesn't happen with ordinary gun "enthusiasts" who are trying to be heroes?...
Civilian gun people actually tend to be better trained in the safe handling and accurate use, than police or soldiers. Most police only use guns very occaisionally, it is not the main part of their job. Few ever take it up as a hobby. That is one reason that lots of shots get fired and few hit anything, in police shootouts.
Besides, even the worst of what you are describing would be better than having a terrorist shoot the whole crowd, with no one stopping them.
How naive. Shots would be heard and the first "good guys" would draw their guns. The second good guys would think the first good guys were the original shooters and would therefore shoot *them*. Death by friendly fire is what would occur -- a lot.
Actually, it does not happen that way. Most people educate themselves in safe gun handling and there are courses available all over.
But perhaps it's best if ID10t city people are not given such things...;-)
Yes, and that is really frustrating to me, personally. I always do my best estimate, and then add some time for padding. When I finish right on my estimate, my boss is happy, but I secretly know that I've gone over my true estimate!
You make estimates that turn out to be off by a predictable amount. You add a "fudge factor" to the estimates to correct for the error, even though the reason for the error is not yet known. The estimates end up within tolerance. 8-)
Sounds like Engineering to me. The better you get, the smaller the "fudge factor" needs to be. Eventually, some scientist will figure out the reason for the error, if you haven't done it first.
The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future
Y'know, it would be nice the summary even remotely hinted at how this thing "predicted in the future."
Yes.
The device can show when the next event will occur, if you advance the date dial and observe the other dials. One example is advance knowledge of lunar eclipses.
And most arguments are mearly about the definitions of words. Arguing with someone who speaks a different dialect, about the definitions of words, will never get you anywhere! 8-P
It was not a clock, because it had no timekeeping mechanism, no balance wheel or spring or pendulum.
You would set the date and time desired, and it would show the positions of objects in the sky. Lots of objects!
It is a specialized computer with "program in masked rom", not generalized. You could call it a calculator, but it is considerebly more complex than that.
The ones I've seen online had no tuner and no speakers plus were more expensive than an ordinary smart tv. Real bargain for sure.
Well, of course you have to pay more to avoid the adds. But if you don't buy it, the money will be gone anyway in a week. On the other hand, if you buy the add supported TV, the adds will be there every day -forever-.
The problem was that IE's rendering engine was used throughout Windows,...
Microsoft did not use the IE rendering engine in other other parts of windows, until it was clear they were about to get sued. It was done to support their argument that it could not be removed. I was using it at the time and saw it happen, update by update. 8-{
"... that policy changed to install-nothing by default, and we just have someone review the security updates each patch day and make a list of any that it seems (a) we might actually need and (b) don't come bundled with anything else we don't want."
1. Isn't that kind of expensive? 2. if you can't trust your supplier not to try to trick you why are you using that supplier?
Am I the only one that finds this situation to be surreal?
Not the only one. But when all other companies in that industry use the same software, you might have no choice in what you use. (That may be changing now...)
And the careful checking is done by every competent company that doesn't want to die, reguardless of system used.
It's true that many people don't understand that. And Microsoft is counting on it.
It's also true that many people, that did understand it, got "updated" anyway.
I have turned off all updates and downloads from Microsoft, because it really is my evaluation that the "updates" are more dangerous that the "hackers". At least to me... YMMV.
It would be like claiming that open use of the QWERTY keyboard risks destroying the writing of books, because, you know, somehow, free use of QWERTY in some way makes it more likely that people will be able to steal novels.
They are ignorant lawyers and don't know the difference between an info list and operational code. Or, maybe they don't think "the law" knows. Or, maybe they just don't think the public knows. (Or maybe they just don't think...)
Slashdot Mirror
To quote a very old phrase: ... isn't."
"Friendly fire
Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose?
If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
The ban on government-financed research was done because the researchers were caught faking the results ... again!
Gun-ban activists have been caught doing fake statistics again and again over the years. Partly because they think the "end justifies the means" and partly out of pure ignorance of firearms. If you are against guns then you should check your data -very- carefully.
... If it happens to trained police officers, do you really believe it doesn't happen with ordinary gun "enthusiasts" who are trying to be heroes? ...
Civilian gun people actually tend to be better trained in the safe handling and accurate use, than police or soldiers. Most police only use guns very occaisionally, it is not the main part of their job. Few ever take it up as a hobby. That is one reason that lots of shots get fired and few hit anything, in police shootouts.
Besides, even the worst of what you are describing would be better than having a terrorist shoot the whole crowd, with no one stopping them.
How naive. Shots would be heard and the first "good guys" would draw their guns. The second good guys would think the first good guys were the original shooters and would therefore shoot *them*. Death by friendly fire is what would occur -- a lot.
Actually, it does not happen that way. Most people educate themselves in safe gun handling and there are courses available all over.
But perhaps it's best if ID10t city people are not given such things... ;-)
WTF is wrong with Walgreens? They should sell guns and ammo too.
They used to. But the id10T city people screamed at them and they finally quit. 8-(
All the drugstore and hardware stores used to, and many still do. Just not in the cities.
Yes, and that is really frustrating to me, personally. I always do my best estimate, and then add some time for padding. When I finish right on my estimate, my boss is happy, but I secretly know that I've gone over my true estimate!
You make estimates that turn out to be off by a predictable amount. You add a "fudge factor" to the estimates to correct for the error, even though the reason for the error is not yet known. The estimates end up within tolerance. 8-)
Sounds like Engineering to me. The better you get, the smaller the "fudge factor" needs to be. Eventually, some scientist will figure out the reason for the error, if you haven't done it first.
"Keep truck'in!"
The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future
Y'know, it would be nice the summary even remotely hinted at how this thing "predicted in the future."
Yes.
The device can show when the next event will occur, if you advance the date dial and observe the other dials. One example is advance knowledge of lunar eclipses.
An Orrery requires a computer to be able to work.
And most arguments are mearly about the definitions of words. Arguing with someone who speaks a different dialect, about the definitions of words, will never get you anywhere! 8-P
It was not a clock, because it had no timekeeping mechanism, no balance wheel or spring or pendulum.
You would set the date and time desired, and it would show the positions of objects in the sky. Lots of objects!
It is a specialized computer with "program in masked rom", not generalized. You could call it a calculator, but it is considerebly more complex than that.
... Where are the Details?
It's all Classified! 8-P
P.S. How come you could use all caps, but I got an error?
A lot of systems have old habits from back in the 1970's, like short passwords.
But if the new versions allow 120 characters for just the first name, I think they could afford a longer password and hash. 8-P
And are all the limited choices of "secret questions" something that could be easily found via 5 minutes on Google
Um ... you know you are supposed to lie, right? ;-)
Yeah...
Although, my old wired router has a long list for blocked addresses. 8-}
How about blocking the Microsoft Update site in your Firewall? Perminantly.
The ones I've seen online had no tuner and no speakers plus were more expensive than an ordinary smart tv. Real bargain for sure.
Well, of course you have to pay more to avoid the adds. But if you don't buy it, the money will be gone anyway in a week.
On the other hand, if you buy the add supported TV, the adds will be there every day -forever-.
The problem was that IE's rendering engine was used throughout Windows, ...
Microsoft did not use the IE rendering engine in other other parts of windows, until it was clear they were about to get sued. It was done to support their argument that it could not be removed. I was using it at the time and saw it happen, update by update. 8-{
Get a cheap wired router and set up -it's- firewall. And password it. M$ can't get to that ... I think.
Yes.
See "Dancing Bunny syndrome". 8-{
"... that policy changed to install-nothing by default, and we just have someone review the security updates each patch day and make a list of any that it seems (a) we might actually need and (b) don't come bundled with anything else we don't want."
1. Isn't that kind of expensive?
2. if you can't trust your supplier not to try to trick you why are you using that supplier?
Am I the only one that finds this situation to be surreal?
Not the only one. But when all other companies in that industry use the same software, you might have no choice in what you use. (That may be changing now...)
And the careful checking is done by every competent company that doesn't want to die, reguardless of system used.
It's true that many people don't understand that. And Microsoft is counting on it.
It's also true that many people, that did understand it, got "updated" anyway.
I have turned off all updates and downloads from Microsoft, because it really is my evaluation that the "updates" are more dangerous that the "hackers".
At least to me... YMMV.
Department of Homeland Security Still Uses COBOL
So does your Bank ! So what?
It would be like claiming that open use of the QWERTY keyboard risks destroying the writing of books, because, you know, somehow, free use of QWERTY in some way makes it more likely that people will be able to steal novels.
Good Analogy! 8-)
... There is no bright-line seperating out APIs and code.
Actually, there is. But if someone can't read the language, they won't see the line.
... Is it - well - it relies on courts acting rationally.
This is true, and has always been a danger to technical work.
When you see the phrase "The Cloud", read it as "Monopoly Control". 8-P
I think it is known as "Poisoning the well". 8-(
They are ignorant lawyers and don't know the difference between an info list and operational code. Or, maybe they don't think "the law" knows. Or, maybe they just don't think the public knows. (Or maybe they just don't think...)