Drive device costs down... yes. But, drive prices down, no. Push service upgrades? Why would they invest time and money in that if you have to buy their product anyway? Same goes for keeping up with styles. And even with the device costs, should they actually spend the money to find out how to be more efficient, or just use cheaper/lower quality products (and get the device costs down without having to invest any resources).
He is trying to make a faithful reproduction. In actuality, he is going to use another organism's DNA as a base and splice genes from the passenger pidgeon onto it. So, it will be a mixture of the two creature's DNA. Might be 99% passenger pidgeon, but that is still a mixture. So, it will be a GMO. Not trying to judge whether this is "good" or "bad", just trying to be accurate.
Passenger pidgeons would be easy to eradicate again if needed. They rely on having enormous numbers to survive (like a cicada, or locusts). When a flock moves into the area, there are not enough predators to eat anywhere near a significant portion of the population. If they don't have a big enough flock, then they are easily wiped out by natural predation. And, if they do have a big flock, then humans can kill off a majority of it (as we have demonstrated in the past).
I don't know what sort of Communist society you live in, but in America people create jobs for people because they profit from it, not for charity. Jobs will be created when there is demand for those jobs (or the products that those jobs create). If there is no demand (for example, if there is no middle class to buy the products) then the rich people will not the create jobs. And they shouldn't. But, if all the rich people decide to stop creating jobs ("going Galt"), then there will still be demand and middle class or poor people will create the jobs themselves (because there is potential to make money - this is how small businesses are created).
It boggles my mind that all these Republicans think they have to worship rich people as gods or they will take all the jobs away. I don't thank my boss for giving me a job. My boss thanks me for being hardworking and productive by giving me bonuses and raises. My boss (who is a conservative) made a joke right after the election that he is going to have to fire people because his taxes were going to go up. I told him (lightheartedly of course) that if I did not already make him more money than I cost, then he should go ahead and fire me because I don't work for charity. Guess what? I am still working (he did not fire me).
Almost all electric cars on the road can accept 120V AC, so to be 30 miles from "the point of no return", you would have to be 30 miles from any electrical outlet.
I do not see a need for a high capacity clip in an assault rifle for anything other than enjoyment (shooting at targets), mass killings, or military actions. Since military actions and mass killings are not things that I believe a civilian needs to be prepared to do, I figure that a high capacity magazine is only needed for enjoyment. If you disagree please explain to me in what other situations it is needed by civilians.
You want a conversion by me to your deluded way of thinking that objects are responsible for the havoc their operators cause.
A nuclear bomb is just an object. It is not responsible for the havoc its operator causes. But, for some reason you refused to answer my question as to whether a nuclear bomb should be protected under the second amendment. You seem to think it is obvious why a high capacity magazine is protected under the statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." while a nuclear weapon is not. The nuclear weapon is an extreme case that tries to make the point that the statement is not black and white so you have to draw the line somewhere. I am asking where you draw the line and it is not clear from your response. Maybe you like to see the world in black and white and just refuse to answer questions that fall in the grey in between.
You describe "offensive arms" and "defensive arms". Are "defensive arms" the only ones protected by the constitution? Since there is no mention of "defensive arms" (just "arms") in the constitution, then can you point me to the court case that made this distinction? I am not just trying to trip you up. If there is a court case that made that distinction then I want to know about it.
And, how do you justify characterizing a high-capacity magazine as a "defensive arm"? It seems like in almost all defensive situations that a civilian would encounter you should need a maximum of maybe 10 rounds. More than that and you are probably using it as an offensive weapon.
I was not a big fan of gun control. I figure that people kill people, not guns and that humans naturally do not want to go on shooting sprees. So, I thought our biggest problem was that we don't have effective systems to provide the help to people with mental health problems. That was until a few days after the shooting when I heard what the NRA and people like you have to say. Then I realized that the biggest proponent of guns is full of people who are paranoid and possibly delusional. And it seems not very intelligent as well ("You may have drones and smart bombs but I have my assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. BRING IT ON!!!"). Then I began to start thinking that maybe we have the mental health problems in this country BECAUSE of the gun lobby that thrives on and encourages paranoid and delusional thinking. I am not afraid of the average American owning a gun. I am afraid of people in the NRA owning guns.
I don't like the idea of laws requiring people to lock up their guns. Just make the gun owner criminally and civilly liable for anything that a gun that they own does. Then they can decide how much effort they want to put into keeping them safe.
I believe that the biggest problem that we need to fix in this country to prevent mass shootings is to fix our mental health program. I don't think gun control would really fix the problem. And I think that we Americans should have the right to own guns. But, then I heard the NRA talk about why they believe we need to be able to own guns, and I realize that the major gun lobby in this country is full of crazy people who seriously think that they need the ability to overthrow the government. And I start to wonder whether it is really the mental health system in this country that is the problem, or an organization that feeds upon paranoia and fantasies of violence. I don't want to take guns away from regular Americans. I want to take them away from the NRA, because they are the type of people that I don't trust with guns.
Of course, it will never be possible to prohibit large clips entirely. It was clearly just a matter of time before somebody started printing them. But that is not an argument against restricting their sale or possession.
I can also, right now (and could probably also do it 10 years ago), go to a machine shop and rent some time on a mill and mill out my own designed high capacity magazine. Printing makes it a little easier, but it was not anywhere near impossible before.
But, if they are illegal, then if the police were to be tipped off to some crazy person planning on shooting up some public place, they could search his house and arrest him if he had a bunch of high-capacity clips printed out. (or if his car got stopped and searched for some reason while driving to his shooting site) Then, if this turns out to be a felony, he would not be able to buy or possess guns in the future. We cannot make it impossible for bad things to happen, but we can make it hard for them to happen without seriously inconveniencing the rest of the population.
When does an individual need to storm a building to take out armed gunmen? That is a situation that a civilian should not have to handle while law enforcement is EXPECTED to handle it. I have provided an example to refute your assertion that individuals need the same weapons as law enforcement. Now you name a reasonable situation where a civilian would need an assault rifle to defend themselves where a shotgun, rifle, and/or handgun (with regular capacity clips) would not be sufficient.
Okay... I will bite. You say that the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to a high-capacity magazine. I do not see high-capacity magazines (or magazines in general) mentioned in the second amendment, so I will assume that you are claiming that right under the term "arms" (as in bearing them). Please define what arms are (and the limitations of the term). Is an RPG an "arm"? How about a grenade launcher? Mortar? Nuclear weapon? (Nuclear weapon fired like a mortar?) And, if a Nuclear weapon is an "arm", then do I have a constitutional right to own one?
Now, we can have an intelligent conversation about whether it is an acceptable tradeoff as a society to limit high capacity clips in exchange for possibly limiting the destructiveness of a future event. I am leaning towards yes just because I cannot think of a case where a person NEEDS a high-capacity magazine, and I don't think it will significantly reduce someone's enjoyment of shooting a gun. But I am open to having that conversation. But that conversation will go nowhere if you think you have a constitutional right to a high-capacity magazine.
The purpose of patents (or at least the original purpose) was to put information in the public domain. No one (human) knew about these special lenses before, so it was not in the public domain. Since these scientists did the work (and spent the money) necessary to get this into the public domain, they deserve a patent.
Heat is the biggest hurdle to overcome in using LEDs for regular lighting. If you look at some of the current 60W - 100W LED lights, the heat sink is a pretty big part of the design.
I do not know what you are talking about on just about all levels. California, Florida, Illinois, and New York have a population of ~88.5 million out of ~309 million which is 28.6%. They have 125 of the 435 house seats which is 28.7%. So, even if they elected all of their representatives out of one party (which they don't, 27 of 98 delegates from the liberal bastions of California, New York, and Illinois are Republicans) they would still not have a majority in the house. So, no one would get "dragged along" by four states. And regardless, while the House of Representatives is supposed to be proportional, the Senate is supposed to balance it out by giving the states equal voices. So lets look deeper...
In the House race in Pennsylvania Democratic candidates got 2.7 million votes while Republicans candidates got 2.63 million (50.7% of the vote). But, Democrats only won 5 of 18 seats (27.8% of the seats). So, for every one voter Republicans had to provide to win a seat in the House (in Pennsylvania), Democrats had to provide 2.67 voters to win a seat. Now thats what I call a Representative Democracy!
Before I get into it, I want to point out that I googled "healthy young people collecting social security" and got no results indicating healthy young people collecting social security. So, unless you want to provide a cite I call bullshit.
Now, maybe you are confusing the increase in people claiming disability benefits from social security for these "healthy young people". I actually see that as proof that we are not in the entitlement society that you want to see. Disability requirements have not changed. What has changed is that unemployment is higher. So, what I see is that people prefer to contribute and NOT collect disability, but when they can't find a job they take advantage of the safety nets set up for them.
You also complain about the "entitlement" of food stamps. Food stamps give you ~$200 per month (per person). Maybe you feel you can live the high life on $200 per month, but I feel that is a measly amount of money. And I don't know why you think it is a luxury to be able to buy chips and soda. Eating fresh, healthy, unprocessed food is expensive and a luxury. A most poor people eat crappy food (like chips and soda) because it is all they can afford.
As to your "free cell phone program". I assume what you are talking about is the "Lifeline" program, which subsidizes a phone by up to $10 per month. I don't know what type of deal you get on cell phone plans, but $10 per month for a cell phone would not get me much.
The problems that I see are that labor is not appreciated in the US any more. Productivity in the US has steadily increased over the past 40 years, but real wages have been stagnant. If the workers aren't getting the benefits of increased productivity, then who is? EARNED income (ie income that you work for) is taxed at a MINIMUM rate of 15% for everyone for social security and medicare (actually, by everyone I just mean middle class or lower, the upper middle class and upper class have to pay less taxes) plus whatever income taxes they pay. But, on UNEARNED income (ie income that you get from not working or doing anything productive) they have a MAXIMUM tax rate of 20% (15% below $400,000).
So yes, I agree with you that the system is being abused. But, I think we disagree on who is abusing it.
Yes, you could have your mechanic come to the car and see the problem as it is occurring, and that would probably be a good idea, but that is not what the OP said. And, it would still be stupid for them to tow the car back (they should just drive it).
When I have had my car towed, the person driving the tow truck has not been there to diagnose problems with my car. He only want to move my car from where it was to where I wanted it to be.
And honestly, if I worked at a dealership and someone had a car towed in for a malfunctioning key fob when the car could easily have been driven then I would go ahead and open the 'idiot who...' filing drawer and then figure out where to file it. Because it is going in there somewhere.
I don't know about you, but if my keyless entry is not working correctly but I could still get in and start the car manually, I think that I would DRIVE my car to the dealership instead of getting it towed.
Doing drugs is a choice. Being black is not. If I were black I might think your comparisons were insulting. Since I am not, I just think that they are inane. I do not want every drug to be legal in this country. I will support politicians who oppose making heroine, meth, and cocaine legal. Apparently that makes me evil and a scumbag in your eyes. I can live with that.
We live in a democracy. We, the people, have a right to use our government to discourage behavior that we deem detrimental to our society. The effort to build a better society is not "evil". In that effort we may sometimes do some things that turn out to actually make society worse (which you apparently label as "evil"), but that is part of the grand experiment. If you are never willing to chance making a mistake, then you will never be taking a chance to do anything good. I would only call it evil if we make no moves to rectify it when we realize our mistakes.
Now, I may agree with you that the efforts to prevent marijuana use are much more detrimental to society than the actual use itself. So, I believe that we should legalize it. But, I do not think we should legalize because of some weird theory that humans have an inalienable right to consume whatever they want. I do not believe that drug use is necessary to lead a fulfilling life. If you do believe that, then you should probably move to a country that agrees with you because I think that popular opinion is against you in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Drive device costs down... yes. But, drive prices down, no. Push service upgrades? Why would they invest time and money in that if you have to buy their product anyway? Same goes for keeping up with styles. And even with the device costs, should they actually spend the money to find out how to be more efficient, or just use cheaper/lower quality products (and get the device costs down without having to invest any resources).
He is trying to make a faithful reproduction. In actuality, he is going to use another organism's DNA as a base and splice genes from the passenger pidgeon onto it. So, it will be a mixture of the two creature's DNA. Might be 99% passenger pidgeon, but that is still a mixture. So, it will be a GMO. Not trying to judge whether this is "good" or "bad", just trying to be accurate.
GMO stands for "Genetically Modified Organism".
Passenger pidgeons would be easy to eradicate again if needed. They rely on having enormous numbers to survive (like a cicada, or locusts). When a flock moves into the area, there are not enough predators to eat anywhere near a significant portion of the population. If they don't have a big enough flock, then they are easily wiped out by natural predation. And, if they do have a big flock, then humans can kill off a majority of it (as we have demonstrated in the past).
I don't know what sort of Communist society you live in, but in America people create jobs for people because they profit from it, not for charity. Jobs will be created when there is demand for those jobs (or the products that those jobs create). If there is no demand (for example, if there is no middle class to buy the products) then the rich people will not the create jobs. And they shouldn't. But, if all the rich people decide to stop creating jobs ("going Galt"), then there will still be demand and middle class or poor people will create the jobs themselves (because there is potential to make money - this is how small businesses are created).
It boggles my mind that all these Republicans think they have to worship rich people as gods or they will take all the jobs away. I don't thank my boss for giving me a job. My boss thanks me for being hardworking and productive by giving me bonuses and raises. My boss (who is a conservative) made a joke right after the election that he is going to have to fire people because his taxes were going to go up. I told him (lightheartedly of course) that if I did not already make him more money than I cost, then he should go ahead and fire me because I don't work for charity. Guess what? I am still working (he did not fire me).
To help GP understand why he is being ridiculed, the phrase you are looking for is "for all intents and purposes".
Almost all electric cars on the road can accept 120V AC, so to be 30 miles from "the point of no return", you would have to be 30 miles from any electrical outlet.
What objection would they have.... Copyright infringement?
I do not see a need for a high capacity clip in an assault rifle for anything other than enjoyment (shooting at targets), mass killings, or military actions. Since military actions and mass killings are not things that I believe a civilian needs to be prepared to do, I figure that a high capacity magazine is only needed for enjoyment. If you disagree please explain to me in what other situations it is needed by civilians.
You want a conversion by me to your deluded way of thinking that objects are responsible for the havoc their operators cause.
A nuclear bomb is just an object. It is not responsible for the havoc its operator causes. But, for some reason you refused to answer my question as to whether a nuclear bomb should be protected under the second amendment. You seem to think it is obvious why a high capacity magazine is protected under the statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." while a nuclear weapon is not. The nuclear weapon is an extreme case that tries to make the point that the statement is not black and white so you have to draw the line somewhere. I am asking where you draw the line and it is not clear from your response. Maybe you like to see the world in black and white and just refuse to answer questions that fall in the grey in between.
You describe "offensive arms" and "defensive arms". Are "defensive arms" the only ones protected by the constitution? Since there is no mention of "defensive arms" (just "arms") in the constitution, then can you point me to the court case that made this distinction? I am not just trying to trip you up. If there is a court case that made that distinction then I want to know about it.
And, how do you justify characterizing a high-capacity magazine as a "defensive arm"? It seems like in almost all defensive situations that a civilian would encounter you should need a maximum of maybe 10 rounds. More than that and you are probably using it as an offensive weapon.
I was not a big fan of gun control. I figure that people kill people, not guns and that humans naturally do not want to go on shooting sprees. So, I thought our biggest problem was that we don't have effective systems to provide the help to people with mental health problems. That was until a few days after the shooting when I heard what the NRA and people like you have to say. Then I realized that the biggest proponent of guns is full of people who are paranoid and possibly delusional. And it seems not very intelligent as well ("You may have drones and smart bombs but I have my assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. BRING IT ON!!!"). Then I began to start thinking that maybe we have the mental health problems in this country BECAUSE of the gun lobby that thrives on and encourages paranoid and delusional thinking. I am not afraid of the average American owning a gun. I am afraid of people in the NRA owning guns.
I don't like the idea of laws requiring people to lock up their guns. Just make the gun owner criminally and civilly liable for anything that a gun that they own does. Then they can decide how much effort they want to put into keeping them safe.
You do know that the declaration of independence has no legal standing in the US, right?
I believe that the biggest problem that we need to fix in this country to prevent mass shootings is to fix our mental health program. I don't think gun control would really fix the problem. And I think that we Americans should have the right to own guns. But, then I heard the NRA talk about why they believe we need to be able to own guns, and I realize that the major gun lobby in this country is full of crazy people who seriously think that they need the ability to overthrow the government. And I start to wonder whether it is really the mental health system in this country that is the problem, or an organization that feeds upon paranoia and fantasies of violence. I don't want to take guns away from regular Americans. I want to take them away from the NRA, because they are the type of people that I don't trust with guns.
Of course, it will never be possible to prohibit large clips entirely. It was clearly just a matter of time before somebody started printing them. But that is not an argument against restricting their sale or possession.
I can also, right now (and could probably also do it 10 years ago), go to a machine shop and rent some time on a mill and mill out my own designed high capacity magazine. Printing makes it a little easier, but it was not anywhere near impossible before.
But, if they are illegal, then if the police were to be tipped off to some crazy person planning on shooting up some public place, they could search his house and arrest him if he had a bunch of high-capacity clips printed out. (or if his car got stopped and searched for some reason while driving to his shooting site) Then, if this turns out to be a felony, he would not be able to buy or possess guns in the future. We cannot make it impossible for bad things to happen, but we can make it hard for them to happen without seriously inconveniencing the rest of the population.
When does an individual need to storm a building to take out armed gunmen? That is a situation that a civilian should not have to handle while law enforcement is EXPECTED to handle it. I have provided an example to refute your assertion that individuals need the same weapons as law enforcement. Now you name a reasonable situation where a civilian would need an assault rifle to defend themselves where a shotgun, rifle, and/or handgun (with regular capacity clips) would not be sufficient.
Okay... I will bite. You say that the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to a high-capacity magazine. I do not see high-capacity magazines (or magazines in general) mentioned in the second amendment, so I will assume that you are claiming that right under the term "arms" (as in bearing them). Please define what arms are (and the limitations of the term). Is an RPG an "arm"? How about a grenade launcher? Mortar? Nuclear weapon? (Nuclear weapon fired like a mortar?) And, if a Nuclear weapon is an "arm", then do I have a constitutional right to own one?
Now, we can have an intelligent conversation about whether it is an acceptable tradeoff as a society to limit high capacity clips in exchange for possibly limiting the destructiveness of a future event. I am leaning towards yes just because I cannot think of a case where a person NEEDS a high-capacity magazine, and I don't think it will significantly reduce someone's enjoyment of shooting a gun. But I am open to having that conversation. But that conversation will go nowhere if you think you have a constitutional right to a high-capacity magazine.
The purpose of patents (or at least the original purpose) was to put information in the public domain. No one (human) knew about these special lenses before, so it was not in the public domain. Since these scientists did the work (and spent the money) necessary to get this into the public domain, they deserve a patent.
Heat is the biggest hurdle to overcome in using LEDs for regular lighting. If you look at some of the current 60W - 100W LED lights, the heat sink is a pretty big part of the design.
I do not know what you are talking about on just about all levels. California, Florida, Illinois, and New York have a population of ~88.5 million out of ~309 million which is 28.6%. They have 125 of the 435 house seats which is 28.7%. So, even if they elected all of their representatives out of one party (which they don't, 27 of 98 delegates from the liberal bastions of California, New York, and Illinois are Republicans) they would still not have a majority in the house. So, no one would get "dragged along" by four states. And regardless, while the House of Representatives is supposed to be proportional, the Senate is supposed to balance it out by giving the states equal voices. So lets look deeper...
In the House race in Pennsylvania Democratic candidates got 2.7 million votes while Republicans candidates got 2.63 million (50.7% of the vote). But, Democrats only won 5 of 18 seats (27.8% of the seats). So, for every one voter Republicans had to provide to win a seat in the House (in Pennsylvania), Democrats had to provide 2.67 voters to win a seat. Now thats what I call a Representative Democracy!
Before I get into it, I want to point out that I googled "healthy young people collecting social security" and got no results indicating healthy young people collecting social security. So, unless you want to provide a cite I call bullshit.
Now, maybe you are confusing the increase in people claiming disability benefits from social security for these "healthy young people". I actually see that as proof that we are not in the entitlement society that you want to see. Disability requirements have not changed. What has changed is that unemployment is higher. So, what I see is that people prefer to contribute and NOT collect disability, but when they can't find a job they take advantage of the safety nets set up for them.
You also complain about the "entitlement" of food stamps. Food stamps give you ~$200 per month (per person). Maybe you feel you can live the high life on $200 per month, but I feel that is a measly amount of money. And I don't know why you think it is a luxury to be able to buy chips and soda. Eating fresh, healthy, unprocessed food is expensive and a luxury. A most poor people eat crappy food (like chips and soda) because it is all they can afford.
As to your "free cell phone program". I assume what you are talking about is the "Lifeline" program, which subsidizes a phone by up to $10 per month. I don't know what type of deal you get on cell phone plans, but $10 per month for a cell phone would not get me much.
The problems that I see are that labor is not appreciated in the US any more. Productivity in the US has steadily increased over the past 40 years, but real wages have been stagnant. If the workers aren't getting the benefits of increased productivity, then who is? EARNED income (ie income that you work for) is taxed at a MINIMUM rate of 15% for everyone for social security and medicare (actually, by everyone I just mean middle class or lower, the upper middle class and upper class have to pay less taxes) plus whatever income taxes they pay. But, on UNEARNED income (ie income that you get from not working or doing anything productive) they have a MAXIMUM tax rate of 20% (15% below $400,000).
So yes, I agree with you that the system is being abused. But, I think we disagree on who is abusing it.
Passing a law is not the same as having it followed
Exactly. Like the spending bills that Congress has passed that cannot be implemented if the debt limit is not raised.
More American voted for Democrats than for Republicans in the house. The only reason the kept the house is because of gerrymandering.
Yes, you could have your mechanic come to the car and see the problem as it is occurring, and that would probably be a good idea, but that is not what the OP said. And, it would still be stupid for them to tow the car back (they should just drive it).
When I have had my car towed, the person driving the tow truck has not been there to diagnose problems with my car. He only want to move my car from where it was to where I wanted it to be.
And honestly, if I worked at a dealership and someone had a car towed in for a malfunctioning key fob when the car could easily have been driven then I would go ahead and open the 'idiot who ...' filing drawer and then figure out where to file it. Because it is going in there somewhere.
I don't know about you, but if my keyless entry is not working correctly but I could still get in and start the car manually, I think that I would DRIVE my car to the dealership instead of getting it towed.
Doing drugs is a choice. Being black is not. If I were black I might think your comparisons were insulting. Since I am not, I just think that they are inane. I do not want every drug to be legal in this country. I will support politicians who oppose making heroine, meth, and cocaine legal. Apparently that makes me evil and a scumbag in your eyes. I can live with that.
We live in a democracy. We, the people, have a right to use our government to discourage behavior that we deem detrimental to our society. The effort to build a better society is not "evil". In that effort we may sometimes do some things that turn out to actually make society worse (which you apparently label as "evil"), but that is part of the grand experiment. If you are never willing to chance making a mistake, then you will never be taking a chance to do anything good. I would only call it evil if we make no moves to rectify it when we realize our mistakes.
Now, I may agree with you that the efforts to prevent marijuana use are much more detrimental to society than the actual use itself. So, I believe that we should legalize it. But, I do not think we should legalize because of some weird theory that humans have an inalienable right to consume whatever they want. I do not believe that drug use is necessary to lead a fulfilling life. If you do believe that, then you should probably move to a country that agrees with you because I think that popular opinion is against you in the US.