CA is too big of a market to lose, so they'll just make 49-state and CA-only SKUs, as they have with cars, motorcycles, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, etc, due to CARB and their fuckstickery. We even have CA-only guns (M&P Shield CA-compliant model comes to mind). Nothing new to see here, comrades.
Since this bill is in the state legislature, I'm not so sure I'd call a four or five hour round trip an easy way to skirt the law for Syracuse residents.
Here in Los Angeles, you can easily spend that much time stuck in traffic driving from one end of the county to the other and back. A single 4-5 hour trip to purchase a phone that is secure from government intrusion isn't completely out of the question. Depends on how much you value your rights, I suppose.
Fuck it. Apple and Google should just accept market share loss and tell NY to go fuck itself. Maybe then the locals would complain and and fight to have the bill abolished.
Good luck with that. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have both done the same thing in California due to the "safe guns roster" horseshit, and nothing has budged. At least NY is small enough that you can just drive over the border into another state and buy your contraband iPhone to skirt the law, which will be the most likely outcome if this bill is passed.
A person who videos INSTEAD of rendering aid, when their aid is needed, is a shithead.
But what do you expect? 100 people to all somehow help?
If you're not helping, get the hell out of the way and go stand on the sidelines. There's no need for a crowd of people to gather around like vultures just to stand there recording it with their phones. We've all seen those videos by now, there's really no reason to keep seeing the same thing over and over. I'm all for the first amendment and the peoples right to be informed and express themselves, but can we at least pretend to have even a shred of compassion and respect for others? Can we not be decent human beings anymore, and perhaps one person can muster the courage to put down the phone and walk away instead of gawking at someones final moments?
Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:
"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."
So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.
ROI on a product that next to nobody actually wants? It seems to me the only people really pushing for smart guns are people who are against guns, don't understand guns, or are smart gun manufacturers/researchers. There are already smart guns on the market, and they are not selling well. So a cop doesn't properly secure his weapon and it's stolen? That has nothing to do with smart guns. Police aren't exactly pounding on the doors of manufacturers demanding they sell them smart guns for duty use, so the odds of that stolen firearm being one even if they were widely available is very small. And yes it is very much a technical problem. Making a gun that fires 100% of the time for only one person is exceptionally difficult. I've seen the development of them over the years, and it's not as simple as you might think. Things like gloves, blood, special rings, a silly watch you have to type a password into.. they all leave massive holes in security and reliability. Nevermind your bit about freedom; it's your choice to not exercise yours, but please don't support the erosion of mine.
Or he could have run her over with a car, truck or steamroller. Or dropped a gun safe on her head when she was sleeping, or drowned her in a toilet.
You're right, the problem is too hard to crack so we shouldn't even try. If we can't come up with a perfect solution that will save everyone, then let's not bother trying to save anyone.
How about we spend more time and energy focused on the root problem instead of the one way some people wind up dead? Why are these women in abusive relationships? Why are these men abusive? Can we not do something to stop the violence, and not just the 'gun violence'? It seems so popular to blame guns as the root of all evil, but there's usually a very long and sad story leading up to the point where someone is killed by someone they know. Can we not stop these things before they get to the point where murder is even in the picture? You can spend all the time you want advocating smart guns, that's your right and more power to you, but how many women (and men) are murdered every year by someone elses gun or another method all together? Time and energy is finite, why don't we spend it somewhere further up the river?
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
My comment was in general terms regarding domestic violence. Because this one woman was killed with her own weapon in no means smart gun technology would have saved her, or anyone else. Perhaps he comes back with his own weapon later, or merely beats her to death with her own smart gun. This woman is dead because a man wanted to kill her. If he had removed a smart gun from her, she would have been murdered just as easily by other means as she was equally as defenseless. This woman's purchase of a weapon, and hesitation to use it, lead to her death by her own firearm. It did not lead to her own death in general, as it appears this man was bent on killing her anyway. The end result was the same, although some choose to convolute the issue by implying that smart gun technology would have prevented her demise.
> Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem.
Can you expand on that? So explain how the abusive spouse would have put a bullet in her short of taking the magazine out and stuffing it down her throat.
He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country. She may have not been shot with her own weapon at that particular point in time, but if he wanted to kill her he's going to kill her. Who is to say he wouldn't have just beaten her to death with it, had it been a smart gun? Class acts like that aren't easily stopped when they see red. She should have shot him when she had the chance; don't pull your weapon unless you're going to immediately use it. It's not there to dissuade someone from doing something, it's your last line of defense when your life is in danger. Pull it and use it, or don't.
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with that. More technological solutions for a societal problem.
I do. If you sell me unlimited data it had better be unlimited, not "Unlimited (tm)", In the same way I'd expect that if I purchased airfare from LAX to ATL, you wouldn't dump me off in DFW and call it squaresies. If you take 100% of my money, you had damn well better deliver 100% of what you sold me. If you didn't really mean unlimited, find someone with a more comprehensive vocabulary that can more accurately describe the product you're actually selling.
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.
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past).
The 2nd amendment exists to ensure that the people can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially after our experiences under English rule. Where in that amendment, or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, does it mention that the government has any place sticking it's dick in the works? The whole idea was to state the people had certain rights the government absolutely could not touch, as they were God-given and as part of human existence as eating and shitting. Where in the 2nd amendment do you see it granting us the right to bear arms, pending federal regulation, training requirements, background checks, specific makes and models of firearms, magazine capacity limits, gun free safe zones, etc? Nowhere. Because as soon as you let them take an inch, they take a mile, and that Right becomes a "right", and then is gutted completely. The 2nd amendment is what truly keeps us free. As soon as it goes, there is nothing keeping the government from throwing the rest right out the window with it.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
I'm fairly certain Walgreens is going to be taking a pretty hard look at the whole situation, with lawyers in tow. The company I work for is privately held, but we have partners/clients in here weekly walking the plant, doing audits, pretty much being pains in the asses but ensuring their products and investments are protected. Just because they don't have public shareholders to answer to doesn't mean nobody is going to be poking and prodding. Sure, they could just tell them to F off, but Walgreens could just as easily turn around and do the same and they'd have no current outlet to sell their services.
Most of these claims come from ex-employees. It's like having my ex-wife write my biography.
I'd trust ex-employees over current employees to tell the truth. They no longer have that axe hanging over their heads and are free to say what needs to be said. If they all came back and said "yeah those guys are cheating dicks, i hope they burn", that's one thing, but to come back with specific details about who did what and when, it's a lot easier to track it down and verify.
Wrong. He's accused of manipulating the "random" number generator. If he knew what the winning numbers were going to be, that implies that the pick is no longer random. If you put money on numbers 1 2 3 4 5 and 6, and he knew the winning numbers would be 7 8 9 10 and 11, that means you had a 0% chance of ever winning on that draw, by way of his actions. It's not as if he just played the numbers that were picked truly at random, he somehow steered the outcome of that game to a fixed result.
Not everyone can drive, but most people think they can.
With cars that only drive themselves, you could make the driving test much stricter and only allow people to drive cars that really can do it well.
I believe most people can drive adequately, in a driving test situation. What the tests can't account for is what they do in their every day travels, including drinking, eating, texting, being drunk/high, and just generally not being attentive. You don't have to have racing skills to operate a car, you just have to operate the damn thing above all else.
Sure, a car that drives itself would be very handy for lots of people. I'm not saying that we don't make cars that can drive themselves, I'm questioning the reasoning behind cars that can ONLY drive themselves.
Who really wants a car that you can't manually control yourself, ever? Seems like a real pain in the ass for doing things like moving it a few feet so you can get something out of the garage, or putting it up on ramps so you can change your oil. Plus, I always thought part of the American experience was just going out for a drive for fun. Maybe going a little too fast, taking a corner a little too hot..a bit of adventure. Getting into a car that drives itself sounds about as exciting as riding the old Disneyland People Mover, everywhere you went.
I believe the only proper response to this threat is to introduce common sense bomb control legislation.
We cannot allow emailed bomb threats to become the "new normal", so we need to go one step further and introduce common sense email control legislation. For the children. God bless America.
Why? The Los Angeles area was mostly desert-ish before the metro sprawl paved over it, and we had a massive (and very successful) aerospace industry here for decades. Cheap land and low precipitation/humidity is perfect for manufacturing and storage. There's quite a bit of rail that runs out that way too, which makes transportation easier than trucking it all in.
Pay who? The Mauna Kea Science Reserve is held in trust by the state. It's not being sold by a private party; it's already being managed by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
CA is too big of a market to lose, so they'll just make 49-state and CA-only SKUs, as they have with cars, motorcycles, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, etc, due to CARB and their fuckstickery. We even have CA-only guns (M&P Shield CA-compliant model comes to mind). Nothing new to see here, comrades.
Since this bill is in the state legislature, I'm not so sure I'd call a four or five hour round trip an easy way to skirt the law for Syracuse residents.
Here in Los Angeles, you can easily spend that much time stuck in traffic driving from one end of the county to the other and back. A single 4-5 hour trip to purchase a phone that is secure from government intrusion isn't completely out of the question. Depends on how much you value your rights, I suppose.
Fuck it. Apple and Google should just accept market share loss and tell NY to go fuck itself. Maybe then the locals would complain and and fight to have the bill abolished.
Good luck with that. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have both done the same thing in California due to the "safe guns roster" horseshit, and nothing has budged. At least NY is small enough that you can just drive over the border into another state and buy your contraband iPhone to skirt the law, which will be the most likely outcome if this bill is passed.
Yeah, Norwegians are atypical. They jump out of saunas into frozen lakes... nothing fazes them!
Only when they hear the words "The lutefisk is ready!". It's a purely defensive measure.
A person who videos INSTEAD of rendering aid, when their aid is needed, is a shithead.
But what do you expect? 100 people to all somehow help?
If you're not helping, get the hell out of the way and go stand on the sidelines. There's no need for a crowd of people to gather around like vultures just to stand there recording it with their phones. We've all seen those videos by now, there's really no reason to keep seeing the same thing over and over. I'm all for the first amendment and the peoples right to be informed and express themselves, but can we at least pretend to have even a shred of compassion and respect for others? Can we not be decent human beings anymore, and perhaps one person can muster the courage to put down the phone and walk away instead of gawking at someones final moments?
Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:
"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."
So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.
ROI on a product that next to nobody actually wants? It seems to me the only people really pushing for smart guns are people who are against guns, don't understand guns, or are smart gun manufacturers/researchers. There are already smart guns on the market, and they are not selling well. So a cop doesn't properly secure his weapon and it's stolen? That has nothing to do with smart guns. Police aren't exactly pounding on the doors of manufacturers demanding they sell them smart guns for duty use, so the odds of that stolen firearm being one even if they were widely available is very small. And yes it is very much a technical problem. Making a gun that fires 100% of the time for only one person is exceptionally difficult. I've seen the development of them over the years, and it's not as simple as you might think. Things like gloves, blood, special rings, a silly watch you have to type a password into.. they all leave massive holes in security and reliability. Nevermind your bit about freedom; it's your choice to not exercise yours, but please don't support the erosion of mine.
Or he could have run her over with a car, truck or steamroller. Or dropped a gun safe on her head when she was sleeping, or drowned her in a toilet.
You're right, the problem is too hard to crack so we shouldn't even try. If we can't come up with a perfect solution that will save everyone, then let's not bother trying to save anyone.
How about we spend more time and energy focused on the root problem instead of the one way some people wind up dead? Why are these women in abusive relationships? Why are these men abusive? Can we not do something to stop the violence, and not just the 'gun violence'? It seems so popular to blame guns as the root of all evil, but there's usually a very long and sad story leading up to the point where someone is killed by someone they know. Can we not stop these things before they get to the point where murder is even in the picture? You can spend all the time you want advocating smart guns, that's your right and more power to you, but how many women (and men) are murdered every year by someone elses gun or another method all together? Time and energy is finite, why don't we spend it somewhere further up the river?
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
My comment was in general terms regarding domestic violence. Because this one woman was killed with her own weapon in no means smart gun technology would have saved her, or anyone else. Perhaps he comes back with his own weapon later, or merely beats her to death with her own smart gun. This woman is dead because a man wanted to kill her. If he had removed a smart gun from her, she would have been murdered just as easily by other means as she was equally as defenseless. This woman's purchase of a weapon, and hesitation to use it, lead to her death by her own firearm. It did not lead to her own death in general, as it appears this man was bent on killing her anyway. The end result was the same, although some choose to convolute the issue by implying that smart gun technology would have prevented her demise.
I should clarify. You stated:
> Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem.
Can you expand on that? So explain how the abusive spouse would have put a bullet in her short of taking the magazine out and stuffing it down her throat.
He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country. She may have not been shot with her own weapon at that particular point in time, but if he wanted to kill her he's going to kill her. Who is to say he wouldn't have just beaten her to death with it, had it been a smart gun? Class acts like that aren't easily stopped when they see red. She should have shot him when she had the chance; don't pull your weapon unless you're going to immediately use it. It's not there to dissuade someone from doing something, it's your last line of defense when your life is in danger. Pull it and use it, or don't.
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Or the abusive spouse problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
Smart guns would prevent that.
So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with that. More technological solutions for a societal problem.
Now, people don't expect truly "UNLIMITED" data.
I do. If you sell me unlimited data it had better be unlimited, not "Unlimited (tm)", In the same way I'd expect that if I purchased airfare from LAX to ATL, you wouldn't dump me off in DFW and call it squaresies. If you take 100% of my money, you had damn well better deliver 100% of what you sold me. If you didn't really mean unlimited, find someone with a more comprehensive vocabulary that can more accurately describe the product you're actually selling.
Apparently you can take guns away from convicted criminals.
No you can't. They find convicts with firearms all the time :)
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past).
The 2nd amendment exists to ensure that the people can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially after our experiences under English rule. Where in that amendment, or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, does it mention that the government has any place sticking it's dick in the works? The whole idea was to state the people had certain rights the government absolutely could not touch, as they were God-given and as part of human existence as eating and shitting. Where in the 2nd amendment do you see it granting us the right to bear arms, pending federal regulation, training requirements, background checks, specific makes and models of firearms, magazine capacity limits, gun free safe zones, etc? Nowhere. Because as soon as you let them take an inch, they take a mile, and that Right becomes a "right", and then is gutted completely. The 2nd amendment is what truly keeps us free. As soon as it goes, there is nothing keeping the government from throwing the rest right out the window with it.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
I'm fairly certain Walgreens is going to be taking a pretty hard look at the whole situation, with lawyers in tow. The company I work for is privately held, but we have partners/clients in here weekly walking the plant, doing audits, pretty much being pains in the asses but ensuring their products and investments are protected. Just because they don't have public shareholders to answer to doesn't mean nobody is going to be poking and prodding. Sure, they could just tell them to F off, but Walgreens could just as easily turn around and do the same and they'd have no current outlet to sell their services.
Most of these claims come from ex-employees. It's like having my ex-wife write my biography.
I'd trust ex-employees over current employees to tell the truth. They no longer have that axe hanging over their heads and are free to say what needs to be said. If they all came back and said "yeah those guys are cheating dicks, i hope they burn", that's one thing, but to come back with specific details about who did what and when, it's a lot easier to track it down and verify.
Their odds of winning were identical.
Wrong. He's accused of manipulating the "random" number generator. If he knew what the winning numbers were going to be, that implies that the pick is no longer random. If you put money on numbers 1 2 3 4 5 and 6, and he knew the winning numbers would be 7 8 9 10 and 11, that means you had a 0% chance of ever winning on that draw, by way of his actions. It's not as if he just played the numbers that were picked truly at random, he somehow steered the outcome of that game to a fixed result.
Not everyone can drive, but most people think they can.
With cars that only drive themselves, you could make the driving test much stricter and only allow people to drive cars that really can do it well.
I believe most people can drive adequately, in a driving test situation. What the tests can't account for is what they do in their every day travels, including drinking, eating, texting, being drunk/high, and just generally not being attentive. You don't have to have racing skills to operate a car, you just have to operate the damn thing above all else.
Sure, a car that drives itself would be very handy for lots of people. I'm not saying that we don't make cars that can drive themselves, I'm questioning the reasoning behind cars that can ONLY drive themselves.
Who really wants a car that you can't manually control yourself, ever? Seems like a real pain in the ass for doing things like moving it a few feet so you can get something out of the garage, or putting it up on ramps so you can change your oil. Plus, I always thought part of the American experience was just going out for a drive for fun. Maybe going a little too fast, taking a corner a little too hot..a bit of adventure. Getting into a car that drives itself sounds about as exciting as riding the old Disneyland People Mover, everywhere you went.
I believe the only proper response to this threat is to introduce common sense bomb control legislation.
We cannot allow emailed bomb threats to become the "new normal", so we need to go one step further and introduce common sense email control legislation. For the children. God bless America.
Why? The Los Angeles area was mostly desert-ish before the metro sprawl paved over it, and we had a massive (and very successful) aerospace industry here for decades. Cheap land and low precipitation/humidity is perfect for manufacturing and storage. There's quite a bit of rail that runs out that way too, which makes transportation easier than trucking it all in.
Pay who? The Mauna Kea Science Reserve is held in trust by the state. It's not being sold by a private party; it's already being managed by the government.
Since when is the government actually succeeded in taking American's guns away?
Google "California SKS confiscation".
And who is going to crew and service those 16,000 ships? People cost money too, you know. Not to mention dock/mooring space...
The way Amex generates replacement card numbers is utterly trivial, the hardest part of it's calculating the new check digit.
Not too hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...