Old but cool mechanic's trick: use a screwdriver. Place the metal against a running engine, put the ( plastic or wood ) handle against your ear. Hear amazing things inside of the running engine.
You can augment that by stuffing the end of the screwdriver into a length of rubber hose; you get the same effect, without having to stick your face 4 inches from the reciprocating assembly.
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to.
"Sorry, citizen, but according the the Department of Love, you don't have the proper clearance to travel on this stretch of highway."
"Our facial recognition software has identified you as one of the suspected bank robbers 3 states away. Come with us for questioning."
"On 4/18/2020 at 3:20P, our surveillance network captured your image outside the local porno theater, when you were scheduled to be at work. Care to explain yourself, Mr. Anderson?"
"Check it out: I hacked into the government citizen tracking database! Now we will know exactly who has what that's worth stealing, and when they won't be home to defend their property!"
"Tango 1-9, this is Echo base; our surveillance drones captured the citizen suspect entering the Home Depot on Blagablarg Drive... Deploying armed Dredd model to 'apprehend.'"
Alright, maybe I'm grasping, but I will say this - if government officials think it's necessary and proper to put citizens on constant surveillance and place our information into a monolithic database, then would it not stand to reason that they should be subject to the same? After all, they are public officials, and if a person has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, correct?
In this case, non-detectable by metal detectors, you would use granite projectiles and since these are 1 shots, you could even go with a plastic cartridge or none at all.
Indeed. The issue can be further resolved by redesigning the device to operate as a breech- or muzzle-loader does, with no cartridge whatsoever.
Incidentally, the original "gun" was nothing more than a hollow shoot of bamboo, filled partway with powder and partway with rocks.
Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies.
Yea, cuz, you know, the last thing the federal government would want is some American spreading around information to foreigners that would help them defend themselves against our government.
The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.
For now. 3D printers themselves were thousands of Dollars a few years ago.
Doesn't matter - people have been able to build a zip gun, at least equivalent in capability and reliability as the 3D printed gun (moreso in many cases), for less than $50 in parts since at least the 1960's.
US Army manual TM 31-210, which can be had for free with no more effort than a Google search, has instructions on several different versions.
Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?
Well, that's a general problem with virtually every area of policy. Perhaps one approach is to also push back strongly against idiots like the NRA leadership, who oppose even the most *sensible* solutions (that even an overwhelming majority of NRA members support). Gun advocates need to step up and prove the NRA does not represent them --- support useful regulations like training and basic criminal background checks, instead of rallying behind extremist paranoid nutbags.
Yea, here's the issue with that: not everything that's been put out and referred to as "common sense measures" bear even the slightest resemblance to common sense. Look at the recently failed background check/ban bill - If you took the time to read it, you'd see that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent a massacre from occuring, and several onerous amendments were added at the last minute. One clause I found particularly disturbing was the section that stated the USAG office would be given the authority to force gun shops to sell firearms to individuals considered "prohibited persons," in flagrant violation of existing law (and sensibilities). It was an obvious attempt to make the Executive Branch's Mexican gun-running scheme defacto legalized, and that's one major reason I'm glad the bill died on the floor.
The only way to move forward on the gun (and really, any) issue is to A) stop letting extremists of all walks direct the conversation, and B) don't be afraid to take our time and really work out the kinks. Insisting on a "quick fix" that doesn't fix anything at all is not the correct way to both ensure the protections of liberty and life.
It's not the fact that you can print a zip gun that matters. The real story here is a dramatic lowering of the threshold of skill required to make one. Before this, you needed at least $50 and access to a hardware store to produce one.
Indeed, not much, and woefully inadequate. I suppose this varies by state -- when I first got a driver's license, you had to submit a certificate from a certified drivers' ed provider that you had completed ~16 hours of training.
Beats my state - here all you need is to be over the age of 16 and pass a rudimentary driving exam.
That's still ~16 hours more than required to grab a gun, which you're also allowed to carry around and/or operate after/while knocking back a few beers.
Uh, I don't know where you got the idea that it's legal to operate a firearm while under the influence, but where I live that's not only a crime, it's strongly frowned upon by the culture, enough so to discourage the behavior among all but the most anti-social assholes.
You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm
Just because it's in the Constitution (possibly with scope limitations to indicate use within "a well regulated militia") doesn't mean it's a great idea for (today's) society. Slavery was also institutionalized in the Constitution.
I won't necessarily disagree with the idea that there should be at least a minimum training requirement (personally, I believe firearms instruction should be part of the basic educational curriculum, starting early). What I disagree with is the fact that nobody in government seems interested in education on this matter, but rather are putting forward nothing but a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit that will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from being criminals, and only serves to create more criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens (like drug laws).
Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.
Sayeth the guy trying to defend the claim that the US has a "high suicide rate" purely due to the prevalence of firearms. I presume you'll be closing your own account, then?
The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.
Which does jack-shit to change the fact that, in spite of the complete absence of private firearms ownership, Japanese people kill themselves at a rate far higher than Americans.
The only thing you've managed to prove with this post is that you're an egocentric asshole. Congrats, I suppose...
The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.
For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.
... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.
Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.
Interestingly, we as a society permit a huge amount of inconvenience to regulate car use. You've got to be licensed, trained, registered, tracked, and taxed to operate a car.
Licensed, registered, and taxed, yes.
Training, not so much. Personally I think there should be a training requirement to get a driver's license, similar to the process they use in Germany; 'twould greatly reduce the number of fatal accidents, IMO.
Tracking, again, no evidence in law that I'm aware of.
Oh and a side note: You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car. You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Guns make sure no such option is available. And that's why even when the number of suicide attempts may be equal, the availability of guns in one country and not in the other, ensures a noticeable difference in lethality of said suicide attempts.
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing where the sound comes from is quite handy, but often that's only half the battle - knowing what kind of sound it is is equally important.
A 'ping' coming from your engine block has an entirely different mechanical connotation than a knock or whine from the same region.
Still cool, can't wait to see what lies ahead.
Old but cool mechanic's trick: use a screwdriver. Place the metal against a running engine, put the ( plastic or wood ) handle against your ear. Hear amazing things inside of the running engine.
You can augment that by stuffing the end of the screwdriver into a length of rubber hose; you get the same effect, without having to stick your face 4 inches from the reciprocating assembly.
Same here, except the shop didn't have a fax machine, so they had to call in and read off everything I had written on the form.
It may not be by law, but those folks already want to see id. I am 99% sure the gun one is a law.
100% - it's part of the BATFE check process.
What's wrong with this? I know it's all George Orwell and stuff, but really. We've moved so far past having any real privacy anymore, who cares? I like the idea of people not being able to pretend to be me, not that anyone would really want to.
"Sorry, citizen, but according the the Department of Love, you don't have the proper clearance to travel on this stretch of highway."
"Our facial recognition software has identified you as one of the suspected bank robbers 3 states away. Come with us for questioning."
"On 4/18/2020 at 3:20P, our surveillance network captured your image outside the local porno theater, when you were scheduled to be at work. Care to explain yourself, Mr. Anderson?"
"Check it out: I hacked into the government citizen tracking database! Now we will know exactly who has what that's worth stealing, and when they won't be home to defend their property!"
"Tango 1-9, this is Echo base; our surveillance drones captured the citizen suspect entering the Home Depot on Blagablarg Drive... Deploying armed Dredd model to 'apprehend.'"
Alright, maybe I'm grasping, but I will say this - if government officials think it's necessary and proper to put citizens on constant surveillance and place our information into a monolithic database, then would it not stand to reason that they should be subject to the same? After all, they are public officials, and if a person has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, correct?
In this case, non-detectable by metal detectors, you would use granite projectiles and since these are 1 shots, you could even go with a plastic cartridge or none at all.
Indeed. The issue can be further resolved by redesigning the device to operate as a breech- or muzzle-loader does, with no cartridge whatsoever.
Incidentally, the original "gun" was nothing more than a hollow shoot of bamboo, filled partway with powder and partway with rocks.
Never heard of plastic bullets have you?
Never heard of plastic casings, or gunpowder free guns...
C'mon, man. Don't let your biases cloud your judgement.
Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies.
Yea, cuz, you know, the last thing the federal government would want is some American spreading around information to foreigners that would help them defend themselves against our government.
No sarc.
Crunchbang Shill!
Fess up. How much free software are they giving you to get you to post this stuff?
If I hadn't let my mod points expire, you'd get them for this.
Hilarious.
A Slashdot article with the term "redshirt" in the title, and absolutely no references to Star Trek?
Man, maybe the pessimists are right, perhaps /. really is on the decline...
The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.
For now. 3D printers themselves were thousands of Dollars a few years ago.
Doesn't matter - people have been able to build a zip gun, at least equivalent in capability and reliability as the 3D printed gun (moreso in many cases), for less than $50 in parts since at least the 1960's.
US Army manual TM 31-210, which can be had for free with no more effort than a Google search, has instructions on several different versions.
Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?
Well, that's a general problem with virtually every area of policy. Perhaps one approach is to also push back strongly against idiots like the NRA leadership, who oppose even the most *sensible* solutions (that even an overwhelming majority of NRA members support). Gun advocates need to step up and prove the NRA does not represent them --- support useful regulations like training and basic criminal background checks, instead of rallying behind extremist paranoid nutbags.
Yea, here's the issue with that: not everything that's been put out and referred to as "common sense measures" bear even the slightest resemblance to common sense. Look at the recently failed background check/ban bill - If you took the time to read it, you'd see that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent a massacre from occuring, and several onerous amendments were added at the last minute. One clause I found particularly disturbing was the section that stated the USAG office would be given the authority to force gun shops to sell firearms to individuals considered "prohibited persons," in flagrant violation of existing law (and sensibilities). It was an obvious attempt to make the Executive Branch's Mexican gun-running scheme defacto legalized, and that's one major reason I'm glad the bill died on the floor.
The only way to move forward on the gun (and really, any) issue is to A) stop letting extremists of all walks direct the conversation, and B) don't be afraid to take our time and really work out the kinks. Insisting on a "quick fix" that doesn't fix anything at all is not the correct way to both ensure the protections of liberty and life.
It's not the fact that you can print a zip gun that matters. The real story here is a dramatic lowering of the threshold of skill required to make one. Before this, you needed at least $50 and access to a hardware store to produce one.
FTFY.
Nothing but FUD.
Man, remember when people cared about Eric S. Raymond?
Pepperidge Farm remembers!
"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"
"Jeez, take a chill pill. And a bath."
I think you've failed to take into account Linus' propensity for profane speech...
"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"
"Fuck off and take a chill pill, you ancient bastard. And a bath; you fucking reek, old man."
Ah, much better.
Same here. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help the less fortunate, so long as our civil liberties are not fucked with.
As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),
Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.
Yet they have more violent crime per-capita than we do in the US.
Training, not so much.
Indeed, not much, and woefully inadequate. I suppose this varies by state -- when I first got a driver's license, you had to submit a certificate from a certified drivers' ed provider that you had completed ~16 hours of training.
Beats my state - here all you need is to be over the age of 16 and pass a rudimentary driving exam.
That's still ~16 hours more than required to grab a gun, which you're also allowed to carry around and/or operate after/while knocking back a few beers.
Uh, I don't know where you got the idea that it's legal to operate a firearm while under the influence, but where I live that's not only a crime, it's strongly frowned upon by the culture, enough so to discourage the behavior among all but the most anti-social assholes.
You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm
Just because it's in the Constitution (possibly with scope limitations to indicate use within "a well regulated militia") doesn't mean it's a great idea for (today's) society. Slavery was also institutionalized in the Constitution.
I won't necessarily disagree with the idea that there should be at least a minimum training requirement (personally, I believe firearms instruction should be part of the basic educational curriculum, starting early). What I disagree with is the fact that nobody in government seems interested in education on this matter, but rather are putting forward nothing but a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit that will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from being criminals, and only serves to create more criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens (like drug laws).
Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?
Isn't there a bridge somewhere you're supposed to be guarding?
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.
Sayeth the guy trying to defend the claim that the US has a "high suicide rate" purely due to the prevalence of firearms. I presume you'll be closing your own account, then?
The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.
Which does jack-shit to change the fact that, in spite of the complete absence of private firearms ownership, Japanese people kill themselves at a rate far higher than Americans.
The only thing you've managed to prove with this post is that you're an egocentric asshole. Congrats, I suppose...
The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.
For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.
... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.
Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.
you live in a democracy
Common misconception; we actually live in a republic, not a pure democracy.
If this were a democracy, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.
Interestingly, we as a society permit a huge amount of inconvenience to regulate car use. You've got to be licensed, trained, registered, tracked, and taxed to operate a car.
Licensed, registered, and taxed, yes.
Training, not so much. Personally I think there should be a training requirement to get a driver's license, similar to the process they use in Germany; 'twould greatly reduce the number of fatal accidents, IMO.
Tracking, again, no evidence in law that I'm aware of.
Oh and a side note: You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car. You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm, whether or not you choose to exercise it.
Guns make sure no such option is available. And that's why even when the number of suicide attempts may be equal, the availability of guns in one country and not in the other, ensures a noticeable difference in lethality of said suicide attempts.
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes.
So? Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world, and virtually zero guns in private hands.
What you've posted is the definition of a non sequitur.