Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
That's less than 800/yr total, and less than 260 are under 25, meaning that accidental shooting deaths are one of the least common causes of death in the US, especially for kids.
Conversely, preventable medical errors kill over 200,000 Americans every single year, and in fact is the third leading cause of death in this country, dwarfing gun deaths and car deaths combined.
That said, after you start advocating for stricter control over doctors, drugs, and hospital procedures, I might consider listening to you make crap up about too many gun deaths.
PS: This is what a source citation looks like. A smart-ass link to Let Me Google That For You? Not so much.
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Sure they do, it's just that their idea that the people with the right to not be shot should get a gun and use it to protect themselves doesn't mesh with your idea that nobody should shoot anyone, ever, for any reason. That's not the same thing as opposition.
However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.
Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.
Everything I've seen on the topic, legislation included, always says that LEO guns will default to fire rather than safe, whereas civilian weapons would be required to default to safe.
Which is a big part of the reason why a lot of folks are against the idea of a "smart" gun mandate.
Can't say I disagree; were I, personally, to implement a similar system, I'd much prefer one that incapacitates rather than kills. Partially because, broken as it is, I prefer to let the "justice" system do it's job, and partially because I really don't envy the idea of having to clean up remains after a long day at work.
Fine. Buy a Tesla. Quality has a price. Your car or your money.
Wait until Tesla is building tens of millions of cars a year; they'll have their issues as well, and will likely develop a corporate culture of trying to shove as much as possible under the rug, just like everyone else. Manufacturing consistency is easier for a boutique than an industrial giant.
FWIW, I've owned & driven Chevy trucks for pretty much my entire life, and never had any sort of issue caused by a manufacturer's defect. The closest I ever came was when I was a kid, and my dad got a recall letter for the seatbelts in his 1989 GMC Jimmy.
Unlike Tesla, at least they actually acknowledge their faults these days. Shame that they don't use open language to do so, but modern business is 80% psychology and 20% product.
To be fair, Tesla might not acknowledge their faults, but unlike GM, they act proactively and fix them before somebody gets killed.
Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.
Got bad news for ya - they all practice this type of policy; GM just happens to be in the spotlight right now, and that's why you're hearing about their list of no-no words, rather than Ford's, or Chrysler's, or Toyota's, etc.
"Doesn't matter - in some states, you must have at least a chauffer's license if you use your vehicle commercially, period, no exceptions; for example, here's the requirement straight from MODOT's website:"
That is a legal requirement that appears to apply to anyone that is offering their services via uber. It would not appear to apply in any to uber itself.
... and therein lies the taxi-cab loophole OP was talking about; Do you honestly think a company like Yellow Cab would get away with calling all their drivers "independent contractors" as a method of shirking liability?
> Do you intent to ever actually obey the local laws with your taxi services or just keep trying to find loopholes to hide in?
Uber requires a commercial license for Uber Black and above.
Doesn't matter - in some states, you must have at least a chauffer's license if you use your vehicle commercially, period, no exceptions; for example, here's the requirement straight from MODOT's website:
You must obtain a Class E license if you receive pay for driving a motor vehicle that transports 14 passengers or less, or if you transport items as part of your job. This rule applies to workers such as messengers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, shuttle bus drivers, pizza delivery drivers, and day-care-center employees, to name a few.
Thus, it's a valid question to a real problem with the service.
Personally, I think the best part of the ANTVR is the transmutable controller/processing pack/battery pack - a dedicated "gun" peripheral, that's also a dedicated "steering wheel" peripheral, that's also a traditional controller? Oh, and it houses the system's brain and battery as well? Color me pleasantly surprised!
The WHDI feature sounds pretty cool, too, but I have my reservations about A) how well it will work, and B) how much it adds to the system's overall cost.
I can appreciate the innovations that the ANTVR brings to the field of head-mounted displays, without worrying about "who came up with the general concept of VR first." The ANTVR's 'gun' peripheral, for example, sure seems to be something nobody else thought of, Oculus included.
You don't need the power officially. They have ways of getting what they want.
[Quest's CEO] says he refused to cooperate based on advice from his lawyers that such an action would be illegal, as the NSA would not go through the normal process of asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a subpoena. About this time, he says the company’s ability to win unrelated government contracts - something it did not have trouble with before the NSA meeting - slowed significantly.
In other words, once you start sucking on Satan's cock, you're not allowed to stop. Ever.
Why would Tesla stop making cars? They're doing a great job of it, not to mention challenging the status quo when it comes to how Americans buy their cars; heck, if anything we need more companies doing what Tesla is doing, so they stand a better chance in the fight against the heavily entrenched *ADA organizations.
That said, someone should be working on building better batteries, just not them. Maybe a subsidiary.
If you make your house look a little harder to break into than your neighbors', it probably won't be you that gets robbed.
FTFY.
In my experience, most thieves are lazy opportunists (otherwise, they'd have, you know, jobs), so if your house looks like a fortress, but the house next door does not, they're not even going to bother setting foot on your property.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
Almost every black market ever.
From http://nyagv.org/wp-content/up..., which is one of the first links that comes up:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
That's less than 800/yr total, and less than 260 are under 25, meaning that accidental shooting deaths are one of the least common causes of death in the US, especially for kids.
Conversely, preventable medical errors kill over 200,000 Americans every single year, and in fact is the third leading cause of death in this country, dwarfing gun deaths and car deaths combined.
That said, after you start advocating for stricter control over doctors, drugs, and hospital procedures, I might consider listening to you make crap up about too many gun deaths.
PS: This is what a source citation looks like. A smart-ass link to Let Me Google That For You? Not so much.
Which headline makes for better outrage and FoxNews clickbait?
1. 25 Detroit Citizens Died Because Their "Smart" Gun Wouldn't Fire. Don't Be Next.
2. Shootings in Detroit Decrease 50% After Smart Guns Go On Sale.
To be fair, they're both total clickbait headlines that don't tell the whole story, albeit each is geared to appeal to opposite groups of extremists.
So, I take it you don't think much of the London Police?
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Sure they do, it's just that their idea that the people with the right to not be shot should get a gun and use it to protect themselves doesn't mesh with your idea that nobody should shoot anyone, ever, for any reason. That's not the same thing as opposition.
No, what's scary is people who think other people should be disarmed and "culled from the herd."
At the risk of Godwinning...
However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.
Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.
Everything I've seen on the topic, legislation included, always says that LEO guns will default to fire rather than safe, whereas civilian weapons would be required to default to safe.
Which is a big part of the reason why a lot of folks are against the idea of a "smart" gun mandate.
Can't say I disagree; were I, personally, to implement a similar system, I'd much prefer one that incapacitates rather than kills. Partially because, broken as it is, I prefer to let the "justice" system do it's job, and partially because I really don't envy the idea of having to clean up remains after a long day at work.
Meh, I'll stick to guard dogs.
Fine. Buy a Tesla. Quality has a price. Your car or your money.
Wait until Tesla is building tens of millions of cars a year; they'll have their issues as well, and will likely develop a corporate culture of trying to shove as much as possible under the rug, just like everyone else. Manufacturing consistency is easier for a boutique than an industrial giant.
FWIW, I've owned & driven Chevy trucks for pretty much my entire life, and never had any sort of issue caused by a manufacturer's defect. The closest I ever came was when I was a kid, and my dad got a recall letter for the seatbelts in his 1989 GMC Jimmy.
Unlike Tesla, at least they actually acknowledge their faults these days. Shame that they don't use open language to do so, but modern business is 80% psychology and 20% product.
To be fair, Tesla might not acknowledge their faults, but unlike GM, they act proactively and fix them before somebody gets killed.
Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.
Got bad news for ya - they all practice this type of policy; GM just happens to be in the spotlight right now, and that's why you're hearing about their list of no-no words, rather than Ford's, or Chrysler's, or Toyota's, etc.
I volunteer for the foot-search.
Had they done this with Cayman Islands they could have possible nabbed some real criminals,
Uh, you mean like themselves?
Yea, funny how that never happened... natch.
"Doesn't matter - in some states, you must have at least a chauffer's license if you use your vehicle commercially, period, no exceptions; for example, here's the requirement straight from MODOT's website:"
That is a legal requirement that appears to apply to anyone that is offering their services via uber. It would not appear to apply in any to uber itself.
... and therein lies the taxi-cab loophole OP was talking about; Do you honestly think a company like Yellow Cab would get away with calling all their drivers "independent contractors" as a method of shirking liability?
This data is exactly how the Chinese put most of the US based solar panel makers out of business.
I figured they pulled that one off by not giving a shit about things like the environment or reasonable pay.
Yes, and Uber explicitly states that it is up to the driver to remain compliant. Drivers aren't Uber employees, they're independent contractors.
Well, what a convenient workaround to legal liability.
Doesn't change the fact your original response to OP's valid question was a non sequitur.
> Do you intent to ever actually obey the local laws with your taxi services or just keep trying to find loopholes to hide in?
Uber requires a commercial license for Uber Black and above.
Doesn't matter - in some states, you must have at least a chauffer's license if you use your vehicle commercially, period, no exceptions; for example, here's the requirement straight from MODOT's website:
You must obtain a Class E license if you receive pay for driving a motor vehicle that transports 14 passengers or less, or if you transport items as part of your job. This rule applies to workers such as messengers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, shuttle bus drivers, pizza delivery drivers, and day-care-center employees, to name a few.
Thus, it's a valid question to a real problem with the service.
Personally, I think the best part of the ANTVR is the transmutable controller/processing pack/battery pack - a dedicated "gun" peripheral, that's also a dedicated "steering wheel" peripheral, that's also a traditional controller? Oh, and it houses the system's brain and battery as well? Color me pleasantly surprised!
The WHDI feature sounds pretty cool, too, but I have my reservations about A) how well it will work, and B) how much it adds to the system's overall cost.
You said you "prefer to support the original innovators." Nintendo was there before Ocululs, thus, Oculus can't be the 'originals.'
Heck, if you really want to go back to basics, we can't talk about VR without giving proper credit to the pioneers who brought stereoscopic vision to movie-goers almost 100 years ago.
I can appreciate the innovations that the ANTVR brings to the field of head-mounted displays, without worrying about "who came up with the general concept of VR first." The ANTVR's 'gun' peripheral, for example, sure seems to be something nobody else thought of, Oculus included.
Storm's a'comin'...
What in the patriot act gives them this power?
You don't need the power officially. They have ways of getting what they want.
In other words, once you start sucking on Satan's cock, you're not allowed to stop. Ever.
There's a lesson to be learned there...
I prefer to support the original innovators in this case.
Sooo... Nintendo?
Why would Tesla stop making cars? They're doing a great job of it, not to mention challenging the status quo when it comes to how Americans buy their cars; heck, if anything we need more companies doing what Tesla is doing, so they stand a better chance in the fight against the heavily entrenched *ADA organizations.
That said, someone should be working on building better batteries, just not them. Maybe a subsidiary.
Exactly - it's security through obviousness (as opposed to obscurity), and it works 9 times out of 10.
The 10th time usually being an inside job.
If you make your house look a little harder to break into than your neighbors', it probably won't be you that gets robbed.
FTFY.
In my experience, most thieves are lazy opportunists (otherwise, they'd have, you know, jobs), so if your house looks like a fortress, but the house next door does not, they're not even going to bother setting foot on your property.