The easy solution to fix many problems. All government spending must be localised, no tax payer dollars, not one cent to be spent on imported products or services, directly or indirectly. This maintains and protects a production base to build on. This is a fair and reasonable demand by tax payers, you take the money from tax payers, than it is only fair that the money you take is spent on tax payers. To many international corporations are cheating all over the place.
Interestingly, one area that has a significant market for "made in the US" is gun-related stuff, not just because of the government preference but because that crowd tends to be very conscious of this stuff. There are many domestic small businesses making various accessories from slings to sight adjustment tools. Maybe there's something to be learned from this industry on creating demand for domestic made. Or maybe everyone just needs to become gun nuts?
Type 2 failures can be addressed with better training and safe practices, type 1 relies primarily on the technology. So we can optimize the technology for type 1 and address type 2 by other means.
I also want to point out that most handguns cannot go off when they are dropped. Modern guns tend to have firing pin blocks so they won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Those articles you linked are very vague about what actually happened.
I've seen this mentioned, but there are even more basic problems.
Let's say someone wants to make "smart scissors". You have a very basic device with 2 pieces of metal that slide against each other when the handles move. But now we have to stick a chip in the middle of this somehow. Do you need to worry about it breaking when you cut something really hard or moving the handles too fast? Electronics tend to be more delicate than pieces of steel. What if the battery dies while it's sitting in a drawer because I haven't checked it in a while? Do the electronics damage if you drop it? Guns are jolted every time they are fired. Not to mention the heat, fouling, and cleaning/lubricating supplies. And obviously you need to validate somehow. How reliable is that mechanism? Keep in mind guns typically have textured grips that the owners like to replace so I don't see fingerprint scanners working. RFID like the Armatix smart gun? So I need to worry about jammers?
States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available
NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a.22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers.380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.
30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k.22.
I'm not sure if you're speaking hypothetically but as mentioned in the summary Armatix has already made a smart gun. And yes, it was a.22 that costed over $1800. Nobody wanted it. I have seen the question raised on other forums about how it affects the NJ law but no real information.
I've always honestly wondered, you really want to be a guy shooting a gun when the cops show up to an active shooter situation. I think at this point, you are what 50 - 100 times more likely to be shot by the police then "crazy people" as it stands, and thats without even actually being armed.
Now assuming you don't die by hand of the shooter or the cops, what happens when you mistake an innocent as a shooter, or shoot them accidently, because its dark, or things are a little hectic when you are in the middle of the firefight. You go to jail for assault? Manslaughter? Maybe you get off for your attempts at heroism, but I can gaurentee you that the victim, or theirfamily, are going to sue the sh*t out of you, and you are probably going to lose.
I don't want to come off as an ass, but I have never heard this arugments fully explained. It just seems less then fully though out.
I'm sure anyone with a CCW is well aware of these types of risks. If you have a gun you will most likely put it away before the police arrive. The CCW is just for the time before the police arrive. I don't think this image of a bunch of CCW holders running in rambo style is realistic. More likely it would be a crowded room where as soon as the shooting starts everyone looks for cover. If you have a gun and see an opportunity you take it. You have the advantage because the shooter doesn't know you have a gun.
So in short the explanation is "you follow common sense and common gun safety practices". There are still risks but they are a bit overblown by gun control advocates.
I don't know that it's necessarily because of some specific incident happening so much as to affect the upcoming elections. But yes, it is definitely political. You notice how long it was drawn out? Days of headlines announcing that something is going to be announced. And when the announcement comes they still don't have all of the details.
If simply having a tool in your home is enough to drive you crazy, I hate to break it to you, you were crazy well before that tool showed up.
Unfortunately your counter-argument is utilizing false dichotomy in each case. All the safety items listed are statistically far more effective at what they protect against. Life insurance doesn't get found by a child and cause tragedy. Your airbag might fail, but it doesn't kill someone a block away, ever. Guns are simply not effective at deterring violent crime, considering the large percentage of accidental injuries and deaths, and domestic homicides/suicides. A gun can't even defend you from a knife attacker from within 20 feet. The chances of successfully defending yourself against violent crime using a gun are slim. The chances of accidental injury or death from your gun are precisely the same every minute you own it. The only thing a gun does for you is make you feel secure... it doesn't actually make you any more secure. In fact, it is more a danger to you and those you love than any mind-easing benefit you gain. Unless you're a soldier or a cop, its a liability, like carrying a time-bomb.
Unfortunately your post is ridiculous.
Firearms aren't very high on the list of common causes of death for children. Don't believe me? Check the CDC website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/.... The most common causes of death are drowning in the swimming pool and traffic. So the idea that you shouldn't have firearms around because "think of the children" is absurd. You need to be more safety conscious with children in general and there are plenty of things they could accidentally die from. The idea that a gun is a time bomb is also ridiculous for similar reasons. It all depends on how safety conscious you are. A lot of non gun owners seem to have this irrational fear that a gun is going to jump off the table and shoot them in the face at any minute.
Do you also discourage people from owning table saws so they don't cut their fingers off? I have terrible news: the world is full of dangerous things. You best not go outside. Or inside. In fact, don't get out of bed or use sharp eating utensils.
I looked at your links. The first one seems to not link to anything. The second seems to show the opposite of what you claim, that mass shootings have been increasing. Still, it is an interesting link.
I recently read an article on this, which unfortunately I can't find right now. But here was the summary:
There are 3 "mass shooting" counts. The 353 number from Reddit counts all incidents in which at least 4 people were shot. Whether they died from the gunshot wounds is not considered. An analysis showed that in 46% of these cases nobody died. Another group used different criteria. 4 people other than the shooter must be killed by gunshot wounds. They also excluded anything gang related and anything that happened in a private residence. So basically the type of scenario that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". They came up with 4 mass shootings per year. The FBI decided not to ignore the "private residence" criteria and came up with 21 or 22. This just shows how important context is and the dangers of throwing around these numbers without understanding them.
I believe the article said that these high profile mass shootings are becoming more common but overall gun violence is still declining.
Dec 2nd, 2 baddies kill 14 people in CA = CNN says "assault weapons" for 12 straight hours.
Oct 3rd, An AC-130 gunship and crew of 13 rain 211 shells on a hospital in for nearly an hour killing 63 patients and international volunteer doctors = CNN barely mentioned it, and somehow failed to categorize the gunship loaded with 211 shells an "assault weapon"
Why didn't the pres address the nation over this one?
It's not an assault weapon unless it has a pistol grip, vertical front grip, or collapsible stock. At least according to California. Maybe when those launchers become more ergonomic and get painted "AR15 Black" they will reach the status of "assault weapon".
Judging from across the pond, I'd say that both parties are experts in making political debates irrational in order to distract from the real issues. One of them is the gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the population. If you look at the statistics, this gap has become ridiculously huge during the past 60 years. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be Americas biggest problem in the long run.
------ free analysis of Republican meeting following
However, I watched part of a replay of the last debate of Republican candidates last evening and realized with some relief that not all of them are totally irrational. If you disregard misogynic egomaniacs like Trump, fanatics like Huckabee and this moron who was talking about Iran all the time (who the fuck is this guy?--Ah, looked him up, John Dummett, what a dumbass), the rest was not necessarily worse than Clinton, if you know what I mean. Bush, Carson, Paul, and Fiorina weren't that bad, the most reasonable of them was Paul (within Rep. limits), but even Bush appeared to be far more reasonable than any other Bush I've heard before. (Bush can't make it, though, because he has the wry smile of a loser and it's all about showbiz.)
Unfortunately they are all bad. Most of them have come out saying they would end net neutrality. Paul is a libertarian like his father and their philosophy is basically in line with Ayn Rand (who was a sociopath). Fiorina is best known for laying off thousands from HP and destroying the company. She is also a big fan of H1B visas. The only candidate that isn't completely awful is Bernie Sanders. Some of his ideas are out there but Congress will restrict what he can accomplish anyway. He's the only candidate I know of that's opposed to the TPP and given the Trade Promotion Authority that was granted to negotiate these treaties in the first place is for 6 years it would be good to have him in the white house to stop the next one from happening.
Exactly. One of the first things I do when setting up my text editor is turn on displaying leading whitespace. And many IDEs even have an option to convert one to the other.
Solution: vital sign / location detectors so the overlords can watch their little dots walking around a map of the warehouse. I also suggest making them all wear clown masks.
The more important question... what happens when he can't get his law passed? It would never get through Congress. Even if he found some miraculous way to get it through Congress that would probably take an entire term. What else is he going to do in that time? It seems like it would be a better move for him to work as an advisor to someone like Sanders instead, who also wants to address the problem of money in politics.
I've always said that if a guy's talents are worth importing, then it's worth importing that guy as an EQUAL.
The H1B program is not for hiring equals. It is for hiring people that are BETTER, because even when you offered infinity billion dollars as a salary, you were unable to find an American to do the job. It was never meant to hire people to do a job that any of 100,000 unemployed tech workers could easily do.
That's how it was sold, but not what it was meant for.
You obviously don't read the comments section at arstechnica. Tons of Microsoft fanboys over there. Though I think many of them are actually Microsoft employees so I don't know if that counts as "customers" if it's all bought from the company store.
So your logic is that transporting the water from a place where water is more abundant is "taking the water from others" and you're proposing those people should just move to said location where the water is? If the same people are going to be using the water one way or another why does it matter how far they are from the water source? Should we have more farms in LA so we don't have to "take" beef from other people? Build a power plant in each city so we don't have to "take" power from other people?
I'm kind of disappointed sites like bandcamp aren't more popular. Most of the money goes directly to the artist (not sure how much they take) and I get to download the music in FLAC, mp3, or a number of other formats. And the artist can set a minimum price and let the customer pay more if they want. I only found a couple of artists on there I was interested and they each only had 1 album available.
So the link in the summary: https://farm4.staticflickr.com... has a line that says "Jobs-students gap = $500b over 10 years". What exactly do they mean by this? That the increased wages over 10 years will cost them $500b unless they find a way to suppress them? Or are they claiming it is some sort of lost productivity cost?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to think of the children and all of the loopholes they're going to get stuck in if we don't close them.
The easy solution to fix many problems. All government spending must be localised, no tax payer dollars, not one cent to be spent on imported products or services, directly or indirectly. This maintains and protects a production base to build on. This is a fair and reasonable demand by tax payers, you take the money from tax payers, than it is only fair that the money you take is spent on tax payers. To many international corporations are cheating all over the place.
Not exactly what you're talking about, but the same basic idea is sort of in place for the DoD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Interestingly, one area that has a significant market for "made in the US" is gun-related stuff, not just because of the government preference but because that crowd tends to be very conscious of this stuff. There are many domestic small businesses making various accessories from slings to sight adjustment tools. Maybe there's something to be learned from this industry on creating demand for domestic made. Or maybe everyone just needs to become gun nuts?
Type 2 failures can be addressed with better training and safe practices, type 1 relies primarily on the technology. So we can optimize the technology for type 1 and address type 2 by other means.
I also want to point out that most handguns cannot go off when they are dropped. Modern guns tend to have firing pin blocks so they won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Those articles you linked are very vague about what actually happened.
I've seen this mentioned, but there are even more basic problems.
Let's say someone wants to make "smart scissors". You have a very basic device with 2 pieces of metal that slide against each other when the handles move. But now we have to stick a chip in the middle of this somehow. Do you need to worry about it breaking when you cut something really hard or moving the handles too fast? Electronics tend to be more delicate than pieces of steel. What if the battery dies while it's sitting in a drawer because I haven't checked it in a while? Do the electronics damage if you drop it? Guns are jolted every time they are fired. Not to mention the heat, fouling, and cleaning/lubricating supplies. And obviously you need to validate somehow. How reliable is that mechanism? Keep in mind guns typically have textured grips that the owners like to replace so I don't see fingerprint scanners working. RFID like the Armatix smart gun? So I need to worry about jammers?
Nothing about smart guns sounds like a good idea.
This is because in California the police union is very powerful politically.
States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available
NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a .22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers .380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.
30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k .22.
I'm not sure if you're speaking hypothetically but as mentioned in the summary Armatix has already made a smart gun. And yes, it was a .22 that costed over $1800. Nobody wanted it. I have seen the question raised on other forums about how it affects the NJ law but no real information.
I've always honestly wondered, you really want to be a guy shooting a gun when the cops show up to an active shooter situation. I think at this point, you are what 50 - 100 times more likely to be shot by the police then "crazy people" as it stands, and thats without even actually being armed.
Now assuming you don't die by hand of the shooter or the cops, what happens when you mistake an innocent as a shooter, or shoot them accidently, because its dark, or things are a little hectic when you are in the middle of the firefight. You go to jail for assault? Manslaughter? Maybe you get off for your attempts at heroism, but I can gaurentee you that the victim, or theirfamily, are going to sue the sh*t out of you, and you are probably going to lose.
I don't want to come off as an ass, but I have never heard this arugments fully explained. It just seems less then fully though out.
I'm sure anyone with a CCW is well aware of these types of risks. If you have a gun you will most likely put it away before the police arrive. The CCW is just for the time before the police arrive. I don't think this image of a bunch of CCW holders running in rambo style is realistic. More likely it would be a crowded room where as soon as the shooting starts everyone looks for cover. If you have a gun and see an opportunity you take it. You have the advantage because the shooter doesn't know you have a gun.
So in short the explanation is "you follow common sense and common gun safety practices". There are still risks but they are a bit overblown by gun control advocates.
I don't know that it's necessarily because of some specific incident happening so much as to affect the upcoming elections. But yes, it is definitely political. You notice how long it was drawn out? Days of headlines announcing that something is going to be announced. And when the announcement comes they still don't have all of the details.
I've never used my fire extinguisher.
I've never used my airbag.
I've never used my life insurance.
Boy, I'm still glad I have them :)
If simply having a tool in your home is enough to drive you crazy, I hate to break it to you, you were crazy well before that tool showed up.
Unfortunately your counter-argument is utilizing false dichotomy in each case. All the safety items listed are statistically far more effective at what they protect against. Life insurance doesn't get found by a child and cause tragedy. Your airbag might fail, but it doesn't kill someone a block away, ever. Guns are simply not effective at deterring violent crime, considering the large percentage of accidental injuries and deaths, and domestic homicides/suicides. A gun can't even defend you from a knife attacker from within 20 feet. The chances of successfully defending yourself against violent crime using a gun are slim. The chances of accidental injury or death from your gun are precisely the same every minute you own it. The only thing a gun does for you is make you feel secure... it doesn't actually make you any more secure. In fact, it is more a danger to you and those you love than any mind-easing benefit you gain. Unless you're a soldier or a cop, its a liability, like carrying a time-bomb.
Unfortunately your post is ridiculous.
Firearms aren't very high on the list of common causes of death for children. Don't believe me? Check the CDC website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/.... The most common causes of death are drowning in the swimming pool and traffic. So the idea that you shouldn't have firearms around because "think of the children" is absurd. You need to be more safety conscious with children in general and there are plenty of things they could accidentally die from. The idea that a gun is a time bomb is also ridiculous for similar reasons. It all depends on how safety conscious you are. A lot of non gun owners seem to have this irrational fear that a gun is going to jump off the table and shoot them in the face at any minute.
Do you also discourage people from owning table saws so they don't cut their fingers off? I have terrible news: the world is full of dangerous things. You best not go outside. Or inside. In fact, don't get out of bed or use sharp eating utensils.
See here. The amount of effort that went into this is crazy amazing.
I would like to point out that this site encourages you to go out and buy an HD-DVD player. I would not trust it.
I looked at your links. The first one seems to not link to anything. The second seems to show the opposite of what you claim, that mass shootings have been increasing. Still, it is an interesting link.
I recently read an article on this, which unfortunately I can't find right now. But here was the summary:
There are 3 "mass shooting" counts. The 353 number from Reddit counts all incidents in which at least 4 people were shot. Whether they died from the gunshot wounds is not considered. An analysis showed that in 46% of these cases nobody died. Another group used different criteria. 4 people other than the shooter must be killed by gunshot wounds. They also excluded anything gang related and anything that happened in a private residence. So basically the type of scenario that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". They came up with 4 mass shootings per year. The FBI decided not to ignore the "private residence" criteria and came up with 21 or 22. This just shows how important context is and the dangers of throwing around these numbers without understanding them.
I believe the article said that these high profile mass shootings are becoming more common but overall gun violence is still declining.
Dec 2nd, 2 baddies kill 14 people in CA = CNN says "assault weapons" for 12 straight hours.
Oct 3rd, An AC-130 gunship and crew of 13 rain 211 shells on a hospital in for nearly an hour killing 63 patients and international volunteer doctors = CNN barely mentioned it, and somehow failed to categorize the gunship loaded with 211 shells an "assault weapon"
Why didn't the pres address the nation over this one?
It's not an assault weapon unless it has a pistol grip, vertical front grip, or collapsible stock. At least according to California. Maybe when those launchers become more ergonomic and get painted "AR15 Black" they will reach the status of "assault weapon".
Irrelevant. Straw purchases for firearms happen all the time.
That's terrible! We should ban those!
Judging from across the pond, I'd say that both parties are experts in making political debates irrational in order to distract from the real issues. One of them is the gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the population. If you look at the statistics, this gap has become ridiculously huge during the past 60 years. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be Americas biggest problem in the long run.
------ free analysis of Republican meeting following However, I watched part of a replay of the last debate of Republican candidates last evening and realized with some relief that not all of them are totally irrational. If you disregard misogynic egomaniacs like Trump, fanatics like Huckabee and this moron who was talking about Iran all the time (who the fuck is this guy?--Ah, looked him up, John Dummett, what a dumbass), the rest was not necessarily worse than Clinton, if you know what I mean. Bush, Carson, Paul, and Fiorina weren't that bad, the most reasonable of them was Paul (within Rep. limits), but even Bush appeared to be far more reasonable than any other Bush I've heard before. (Bush can't make it, though, because he has the wry smile of a loser and it's all about showbiz.)
Unfortunately they are all bad. Most of them have come out saying they would end net neutrality. Paul is a libertarian like his father and their philosophy is basically in line with Ayn Rand (who was a sociopath). Fiorina is best known for laying off thousands from HP and destroying the company. She is also a big fan of H1B visas. The only candidate that isn't completely awful is Bernie Sanders. Some of his ideas are out there but Congress will restrict what he can accomplish anyway. He's the only candidate I know of that's opposed to the TPP and given the Trade Promotion Authority that was granted to negotiate these treaties in the first place is for 6 years it would be good to have him in the white house to stop the next one from happening.
Exactly. One of the first things I do when setting up my text editor is turn on displaying leading whitespace. And many IDEs even have an option to convert one to the other.
Solution: vital sign / location detectors so the overlords can watch their little dots walking around a map of the warehouse. I also suggest making them all wear clown masks.
Logged in just to see if I had points to help pull you out of that flamebait mod.
:(
The more important question... what happens when he can't get his law passed? It would never get through Congress. Even if he found some miraculous way to get it through Congress that would probably take an entire term. What else is he going to do in that time? It seems like it would be a better move for him to work as an advisor to someone like Sanders instead, who also wants to address the problem of money in politics.
I've always said that if a guy's talents are worth importing, then it's worth importing that guy as an EQUAL.
The H1B program is not for hiring equals. It is for hiring people that are BETTER, because even when you offered infinity billion dollars as a salary, you were unable to find an American to do the job. It was never meant to hire people to do a job that any of 100,000 unemployed tech workers could easily do.
That's how it was sold, but not what it was meant for.
You obviously don't read the comments section at arstechnica. Tons of Microsoft fanboys over there. Though I think many of them are actually Microsoft employees so I don't know if that counts as "customers" if it's all bought from the company store.
I would assume that is a given. Any time resources are transferred there is going to be money involved.
So your logic is that transporting the water from a place where water is more abundant is "taking the water from others" and you're proposing those people should just move to said location where the water is? If the same people are going to be using the water one way or another why does it matter how far they are from the water source? Should we have more farms in LA so we don't have to "take" beef from other people? Build a power plant in each city so we don't have to "take" power from other people?
He means Judas Priest's first album, Rocka Rolla.
Everyone knows their second album was their best.
I'm kind of disappointed sites like bandcamp aren't more popular. Most of the money goes directly to the artist (not sure how much they take) and I get to download the music in FLAC, mp3, or a number of other formats. And the artist can set a minimum price and let the customer pay more if they want. I only found a couple of artists on there I was interested and they each only had 1 album available.
So the link in the summary: https://farm4.staticflickr.com... has a line that says "Jobs-students gap = $500b over 10 years". What exactly do they mean by this? That the increased wages over 10 years will cost them $500b unless they find a way to suppress them? Or are they claiming it is some sort of lost productivity cost?