If I remember right, like the F-22 helmet it's actually radar stealthed as well. A 'big' dome is a good target for radar and the canopy is at least somewhat transparent to radar.
How many births outside of China is coal responsible for to make those numbers?
Not sure about the question? What do you mean births? Unless you think the 170k for the global average is a total - it's now, it's the average number of deaths per TkWh. IE if you generate 1T kWh via coal power, on average 170k people are going to die from it. China's record, at least when the statistics were gathered, was so bad it more than doubled the death rate for the global average, so they broke it out as a specific example. I understand that they've improved somewhat since then, but consider the pollution in their cities...
Yep, but the core didn't hit the water table. They located most of it years and years ago. The core is currently a solidified mass through a bunch of pipes, solidified pools, and such through much of the structure under where the reactor core was, the best known formation is the 'elephant's foot' located in a sub-basement.
Taking pictures of it was an interesting affair because the radiation is strong enough to fry even our best shielded robots, not that the Russians had them, so they had to get creative with more primitive tools.
Still, I haven't seen any evidence that it managed to make it to the water table.
Actually, coal is the worst by far. Nuclear is the best. Solar is more dangerous than Nuclear, but not even by an OOM. Forbes article, deaths per Trillion kWh Coal, Global: 170k, Coal, China: 280k, Coal, US: 15k Solar: 440 Nuclear, Global average: 90 Deaths per TWh by energy source(note:1k times less electricity than above) Coal, electricity, world average: 60. 100 if it's for everything. Oil 36 Solar.44 Wind.15 Hydro.10(not including Banqiao, including it raises it to 1.4 because the once incident killed 171k. And we thought rare accidents were dangerous with Nuclear? They have nothing on Dams). Nuclear:.04
So yeah, he will get a visit to get the package back.
They do have to make it very easy for him to return it though. Like him saying 'I'll be there at 1515-1530 to hand it over' and UPS being there at 1515, even if they have to send a supervisor.
I once donated a package to charity after it was delivered to my house with a supremely messed up address and the business didn't want to pick up their phone. 90 days later* when I noticed the package still hanging around I donated it.
The simple answer would be contractors. Contractors can ship however they like. They may be working 'for' the government, but they're not government employees
100 UHF transceiver. Even the cheap ones can do telemetry as well as instructional commands, failsafe detection etc.
Does it do encryption/frequency hopping in order to be able to resist jamming and people attempting to take control?
define this. Is it raining acid up there?
Not the original poster, certainly, but I'm thinking a small amount of hail resistance, not to mention buckshot.
The aforementioned flight controllers have some really idiot proof modes.
You haven't worked with infantry, have you? They tend to redefine 'better idiot'. A lot are great, a number make you wonder...
That's a function of size, battery and engine capacity. For a big hardened one carrying heavy reconnaissance equipment I'd budget $10k
I think you're being optimistic and are forgetting labor for putting it all together. Hobbyists tend to forget/discount the hundreds or even thousands of hours they put into assembling and debugging these systems. Commercial company's can't forget.
Other expenses would be, and this isn't comprehensive: Warranty if/when it breaks, perhaps even if it crashes due to user error*. Training for an initial set of operators. Programming support. When it breaks/they want something new, they'll be coming to you, not online. Generally the government wants at least 3 years of comprehensive on site support for stuff like this.
*Can you prove it was user error to the satisfaction of a government body that can blackball you rather easily?
Just spray the damned water in a wind tunnel, use a baffle filter to catch salt crystals, then re-condense using a venturi.
A form of vacuum distillation?
Question: How are you going to do this using cheap reflectors/solar thermal panels? Because that's what I was responding to, thus examining the possibility of using solar energy for desalination. Using solar electric panels is simple enough as installing the appropriate number of panels for the power consumption of your plant, using thermal requires some examination.
I guess the initial costs might be quite a big higher than just getting a pump and a semi-permeable membrane.
It takes an average of 3kwh to desalinate 1 m^3 of water via reverse osmosis. Per this report it's 4-12 kwh of thermal energy to distill 1 m^3, plus 1.5-3.5 kwh of electricity.
If we figure on 10 kwh of thermal and we're setting stuff up so that we're down near 1.5 kwh of electric*, then consult a solar map, we're looking at needing 2-3 m^2 of collector per m^3 of production a day(at 90% or so efficiency), and it only cuts electric costs in half.
That's 264 gallons of water/day, roughly enough for 2.5 people. Household useage, not commercial or industrial.
Please note that these are using near optimal assumptions, I wouldn't be surprised if you need 2-10 times as much collector as what I've estimated.
we better double down with even more micromanagement by implementing rationing so that everybody will stop using as much of the resource that we forcefully made too inexpensive."
Such as low-flow toilets. Don't get me wrong, my *modern* low flow flushes better than the original high-flow from the '70s(estimated), but it took a while to get there and you need to do your research.
Mercury fulminate used to be used in primers - it's a very sensitive explosive.
It won't work like in the show(as mythbusters showed).
I'll note that in firearms you're hitting the cap with a small pointed hammer or a spring propelled pin, and the spring is fairly stiff. It's all about taking enough force to make your thumb hurt at most, and concentrating it into a small enough area to cause the detonation, which will spread from there.
Of course, I always assume science is wrong in TV shows, from exploding cars to drug production. They just need to make it realistic enough to not break my suspension of disbelief.
You've shown an almost total lack of understanding of the content that you have linked so what is the point of me discussing things at that level?
You're not even at late grade school level. Your argue consists of 'no it's not' without any support. I GET that you think I'm wrong, I don't have a clue as to WHAT, specifically, you think I'm wrong about.
you are willing to lie about one issue (the "problems" that don't exist)?
WHAT PROBLEMS? I've told you multiple times - they aren't PROBLEMS they're CONCERNS. A Concern is an issue you have to address or it MAY become a problem.
Example: Solar panel installs shooting towards 100% of DML is a concern to HECO until they studied the issue more and determine that 120% is still a safe level. Going above 120% is still a concern because they have to examine and upgrade their substations. It's not a PROBLEM unless they keep allowing more solar installs above that level without performing the upgrades. NOTE: I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I'm saying 'If X then Y'.
Other than that you've CONSTANTLY misstated my positions. Even in my first post before you butted in I mentioned that with current installs power transmission beyond the substation isn't an issue, and won't be an issue until you get a lot more of them.
Every post about needing substation upgrades in response to solar power was in the assumption that solar was installed on approximately 20% of homes and rising. Not small installs either, but NET NEUTRAL installs where the installed panels produce, on average, all of the electricity needed by the home. Just not matched with consumption.
Going by your 'answers' 1. You completely avoided this question. As such, until you actually answer it, I conclude you have no clue. 2. Same as #1 3. "The pairing of your edict of when people should not be allowed to have solar" is the closest I can see. Can you please quote where I said people shouldn't be allowed to have solar? I said HECO wasn't allowing people to hook up. I'm not affiliated with Hawaii's power company in any way. In any case I'll state my position on solar clearly: ANYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INSTALL WHATEVER SOLAR SYSTEM THEY DAMN WELL WANT TO. Nitpicks: They have to be able to afford it, it can't be hazardous to others(I don't care if they consider it an eyesore), etc... DISCLAIMER: By the same token, the power company should not be REQUIRED to allow the hookup if it would be hazardous, or to purchase the power if it will be unable to utilize/resell it. 4. You're the one that's kept saying you know me and my positions so well. Apparently you KNOW you're talking out your own ass. 5. You failed to answer this one 6. You failed to answer this one
Conclusion: 0/6 dude. Random chance scores higher.
If you'd actually read and understand some of those links you've been spamming me with then we would not have had such a long and tedious thread where you have been desperately trying to find a way to make your silly fiction real.
And I counter with if you'd actually read the links you'd know that I'm not talking about 'silly fiction'. I know this because for the most part you're only capable of arguing on the grade school level - 'nuhuh' rather than actually constructing valid rebuttals. You've made a couple points, but they were points that I already knew, you just hadn't tickled me the right way for me to present them myself.
Again, it's not a political attack. I mean, if you think it's political, who or what am I targeting, and why?
Let's see, I'll post some questions that I'm sure you'll argue are beneath you or some such rather than posting reasoned arguments. Just to let you know, if you don't answer them I'll assume it's because you can't or won't because you have political goals and can't actually construct an answer for them that meet your goals. 1. What actions do you think that a power company would need to take if 100% of homes, 80% of commercial buildings(retail/office) and 50% of industry installed solar systems? 2. What actions would/should the company take as installs rose to those levels? 3. State what you assume my political goal in regards to solar power is. 4. State three of my political positions, other than guns. Please try to avoid being so vague that it's like a fortune teller trick. 5. Identify what, specifically, you keep harping on my 'lying' about. Keep in mind that thus far you have failed to address that Hawaii is busting the levels you said 'were impossible'. 6. What do you think I don't understand?
The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.
It's a bit different when the relationship is terminated because the government is threatening the corporation though.
I get the feeling that a number of justices aren't going to like that, and at least to me quite a few businesses on that list are perfectly legitimate, even specifically constitutionally protected.
There are a number of competing systems. I don't know. I guess the point is that if we set a low target like 1:1000 (99.9%) its amost surely a net positive.
If you're using it as a design consideration, that's fine. I was thinking about real-world systems. Another thought I just had is the question of how fast the authorization takes place. If I grab the gun out of my holster, will it be ready to fire by the time I have it raised/aimed?
But the anti-smart-gun crowd tends to frame their objection around how its automatically going lead to more innocent deaths.
My main fear on this is the reliability issue. As far as I'm concerned, my carry weapon* needs to be able to work through gloves, primary and off hand, at -50 and over 140F. It needs to be able to last, with routine maintenance, over 20 years(military), 40 for private. It also needs to be easy enough that I don't end up not using it, and cheap enough that I feel it's worth it.
50 million year divided over how many police officers? Google is suggesting that its around 780,000. That's $64 per year per officer to save at least 5-10 lives year.*
It's too expensive for me. I value the 'average' human life at $2-3M at this point. Of course, I'll also state that if any officer or department wishes to switch that I'll support them. It might run a touch more than $1k though - the mechanism will probably have to be beefed up in order to survive the shock of a.40S&W round as opposed to a.22lr. It might also increase maintenance costs.
Vests are normally around $2k and have about a five year lifespan in use, but an officer is a lot more likely to be shot than shot&killed with their own weapon.
* That only considers officer deaths. How many civilians are shot with stolen police weapons? How many of those would be eliminated with a smart system? In some cases the thief would and could defeat the system... but surely in some cases not.
First, I assume that any stolen smart weapon will either have the system disabled or reprogrammed. Second, I think the numbers shot with police weapons are very low - they aren't going to increase the numbers by much. Not many weapons are stolen, and not many of those are subsequently used in a murder.
I'd also like to wind out by saying one concern i have about this particular smart gun tech highlighted in the TFA is that it appears to be a wireless link between wristband and weapon -- and I'm concerned about the ability for it to be jammed.
Unlikely short of highly organized crime, but I understand the point. On the other hand, how do you propose having the gun authenticate if the officer is wearing gloves?
I should probably state my views a bit better: I believe that until the technology is good enough that the police are voluntarily embracing it that it's not ready to be mandated to civilians. If a civilian wants to buy an unreliable weapon, that is his choice. But it should not be forced on him.
As is, the police will lobby incredibly in order to exempt themselves from any such requirements, which tells me it's not ready yet.
*I carry non-routinely both as a member of the USAF and as a private citizen.
On the other hand, I challenge you to find a 3 year old that can open my safe.
Reaching the dial would be challenge #1...
I'll agree with dyslexicbunny, they shouldn't be marketed as a 'safe'. At most it should be marketed as a 'residential security container', and one that, depending on how it failed* should leave the company open for some liability.
Even a RSC should provide sufficient protection to keep a pre-teen out of it. It just that it would provide minimal fire and theft protection.
*Setting a password of 1,2,3,4 doesn't count as a failure if the kid actually pushed the buttons.
Lets look at some actual numbers. According to the Washington Post
I looked at something very similar, but slightly newer using FBI statistics. 2002-2012. 535 officers, 25 killed with their own weapons. One downside is that it didn't mention officers killed by another officer's weapon. Balancing that would be that there are multiple cases of cops shooting each other. But I figure that 5-10% is a good percentage, and it's not that big of a range.
That's how reliable the system has to be to be an improvement, even under the most RIDICULOUS assumption that every single failure would lead to a cop being killed. But even 99.975% reliable is a very low bar to reach.
Not only will the system clearly be more reliable than that, and even when it does fail most of the time it won't get anyone killed.
Do you have some citation on the reliability figure? I thought the false-negative* was higher.
Personally, I looked at the cost - the system seems to cost $1k over a non-smart gun. The USA has ~900k officers, presumably the vast majority of them armed. Round up to 1M guns**, you're looking at $1B to transition them all to 'smart guns' if you do it as firearms wear out. If you accellerate the replacement you're looking at $2B.
If you figure the average police firearm lasts 20 years, that's $50M/year to save 5-10 lives.
*Authorized user/gun doesn't unlock **Average NYPD officer might go through 1 firearm in their career, but the average rural deputy has at least 2-3(handgun, rifle, shotgun), and the SWAT types go through them like candy.
This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.
A flash suppressor is mutually exclusive of a noise suppressor aka 'silencer'. As such, you'll still have the full report of the rifle, as stated, all it does is cut down the flash a bit so it's less likely to blind the shooter.
As for 'completely changes the weapon's intended use', it's a small metal part that does more than just suppress flash. It also protects the end of the barrel('crown') from damage, which is critical to accuracy.
Today use is shifting towards 'compensators' that use a different hole pattern - besides suppressing flash and protecting the crown, it also helps fight muzzle rise and reduce kick-up if you're shooting over loose sand/gravel.
Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all.223, but a mix of.223,.308, 30-06 and other calibers.
The original Milita act specified 24 rounds* and an eventual standard of a caliber of 18 lead balls per pound.
My modern take on that would be a.223 rifle that uses with 2 loaded 30 round AR-type magazines and an ammo pouch for them. Requiring additional rounds is a minor point. 60 rounds is about $15 of ammo, 250 would be $62.50.
"Designated Marksman" types would have to qualify for that in order to report with a different caliber such as.308.
*Even if a 'round' back then was a paper package of powder and ball that was disassembled in the process of loading the rifle. Tear the ball off, pour powder into firearm, stuff paper into rifle, insert ball, ram home.
Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.
I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?
1. It doesn't force the bar to allow carry, the bar can still ban it under their own rules. 2. Bars are not necessarily violence free 3. Georgia has laws against having a firearm while drunk. Designated drivers are also a thing.
My take on it: Don't bother banning locations that serve alcohol for carrying. Ban being drunk while carrying.
Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.
This reminded me of a 'freak' statistic - More women attempt suicide than men, but more men actually committ suicide, precisely because of this. Though it's evening out. Women are using more effective methods.:(
Again, this technology was not meant to stop most "gun deaths". It addresses a very specific set of circumstances.
I posted earlier that it turns out this feature runs around $1k. It replaces a $300-600 firearm with a $1200 one and you have to buy a $400 watch along with it.
When you say 'very specific', it's a very true statement. It won't stop authorized users from committing suicide. It won't stop an authorized user from committing murder. What it WOULD stop is an attacker tacking the firearm away from the owner and using it on the owner.
However, how often does this occur? very rarely. Turns out it's tough to take a gun off of somebody willing to shoot you with it rather than give it to you. The highest rate I can think of would be the police, who actually have to handle dangerous people while armed(higher risk than standing off and waiting for police to arrive). In the last decade, 25 police officers were killed by their own weapons, out of 535 killed. That's 5% of murdered officers, yet police departments will conduct intense campaigns to be exempted from the requirements.
After Sandy Hook, there was talk about limiting magazine sizes. Suddenly Obama was coming to take every one's guns according to them.
They did get a little overheated, didn't they? Still, it's not like limited magazine sizes are likely to have saved anybody in that case.
I'll note that given the firing rates that come out in a lot of spree killings many gunnies can match the shooting speed using revolvers. I remember one incident where a very talented invidual managed to meet the firing rate with a black powder weapon(at a range, done safely).
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember right, like the F-22 helmet it's actually radar stealthed as well. A 'big' dome is a good target for radar and the canopy is at least somewhat transparent to radar.
How many births outside of China is coal responsible for to make those numbers?
Not sure about the question? What do you mean births? Unless you think the 170k for the global average is a total - it's now, it's the average number of deaths per TkWh. IE if you generate 1T kWh via coal power, on average 170k people are going to die from it. China's record, at least when the statistics were gathered, was so bad it more than doubled the death rate for the global average, so they broke it out as a specific example. I understand that they've improved somewhat since then, but consider the pollution in their cities...
Yep, but the core didn't hit the water table. They located most of it years and years ago. The core is currently a solidified mass through a bunch of pipes, solidified pools, and such through much of the structure under where the reactor core was, the best known formation is the 'elephant's foot' located in a sub-basement.
Taking pictures of it was an interesting affair because the radiation is strong enough to fry even our best shielded robots, not that the Russians had them, so they had to get creative with more primitive tools.
Still, I haven't seen any evidence that it managed to make it to the water table.
Actually, coal is the worst by far. Nuclear is the best. Solar is more dangerous than Nuclear, but not even by an OOM. .44 .15 .10(not including Banqiao, including it raises it to 1.4 because the once incident killed 171k. And we thought rare accidents were dangerous with Nuclear? They have nothing on Dams). .04
Forbes article, deaths per Trillion kWh
Coal, Global: 170k, Coal, China: 280k, Coal, US: 15k
Solar: 440
Nuclear, Global average: 90
Deaths per TWh by energy source(note:1k times less electricity than above)
Coal, electricity, world average: 60. 100 if it's for everything.
Oil 36
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear:
So yeah, he will get a visit to get the package back.
They do have to make it very easy for him to return it though. Like him saying 'I'll be there at 1515-1530 to hand it over' and UPS being there at 1515, even if they have to send a supervisor.
I once donated a package to charity after it was delivered to my house with a supremely messed up address and the business didn't want to pick up their phone. 90 days later* when I noticed the package still hanging around I donated it.
The simple answer would be contractors. Contractors can ship however they like. They may be working 'for' the government, but they're not government employees
100 UHF transceiver. Even the cheap ones can do telemetry as well as instructional commands, failsafe detection etc.
Does it do encryption/frequency hopping in order to be able to resist jamming and people attempting to take control?
define this. Is it raining acid up there?
Not the original poster, certainly, but I'm thinking a small amount of hail resistance, not to mention buckshot.
The aforementioned flight controllers have some really idiot proof modes.
You haven't worked with infantry, have you? They tend to redefine 'better idiot'. A lot are great, a number make you wonder...
That's a function of size, battery and engine capacity. For a big hardened one carrying heavy reconnaissance equipment I'd budget $10k
I think you're being optimistic and are forgetting labor for putting it all together. Hobbyists tend to forget/discount the hundreds or even thousands of hours they put into assembling and debugging these systems. Commercial company's can't forget.
Other expenses would be, and this isn't comprehensive:
Warranty if/when it breaks, perhaps even if it crashes due to user error*. Training for an initial set of operators. Programming support. When it breaks/they want something new, they'll be coming to you, not online. Generally the government wants at least 3 years of comprehensive on site support for stuff like this.
*Can you prove it was user error to the satisfaction of a government body that can blackball you rather easily?
Just spray the damned water in a wind tunnel, use a baffle filter to catch salt crystals, then re-condense using a venturi.
A form of vacuum distillation?
Question: How are you going to do this using cheap reflectors/solar thermal panels? Because that's what I was responding to, thus examining the possibility of using solar energy for desalination. Using solar electric panels is simple enough as installing the appropriate number of panels for the power consumption of your plant, using thermal requires some examination.
I guess the initial costs might be quite a big higher than just getting a pump and a semi-permeable membrane.
It takes an average of 3kwh to desalinate 1 m^3 of water via reverse osmosis. Per this report it's 4-12 kwh of thermal energy to distill 1 m^3, plus 1.5-3.5 kwh of electricity.
If we figure on 10 kwh of thermal and we're setting stuff up so that we're down near 1.5 kwh of electric*, then consult a solar map, we're looking at needing 2-3 m^2 of collector per m^3 of production a day(at 90% or so efficiency), and it only cuts electric costs in half.
That's 264 gallons of water/day, roughly enough for 2.5 people. Household useage, not commercial or industrial.
Please note that these are using near optimal assumptions, I wouldn't be surprised if you need 2-10 times as much collector as what I've estimated.
*Pumping and such.
we better double down with even more micromanagement by implementing rationing so that everybody will stop using as much of the resource that we forcefully made too inexpensive."
Such as low-flow toilets. Don't get me wrong, my *modern* low flow flushes better than the original high-flow from the '70s(estimated), but it took a while to get there and you need to do your research.
Modern desalination normally doesn't work via distillation. It usually works by forcing seawater through a semi-permeable membrane.
It's cheaper on energy consumption, but you need to run pumps to do it.
That being said, solar powered distillation processes would probably work best on small scales.
Mercury fulminate used to be used in primers - it's a very sensitive explosive.
It won't work like in the show(as mythbusters showed).
I'll note that in firearms you're hitting the cap with a small pointed hammer or a spring propelled pin, and the spring is fairly stiff. It's all about taking enough force to make your thumb hurt at most, and concentrating it into a small enough area to cause the detonation, which will spread from there.
Of course, I always assume science is wrong in TV shows, from exploding cars to drug production. They just need to make it realistic enough to not break my suspension of disbelief.
You've shown an almost total lack of understanding of the content that you have linked so what is the point of me discussing things at that level?
You're not even at late grade school level. Your argue consists of 'no it's not' without any support. I GET that you think I'm wrong, I don't have a clue as to WHAT, specifically, you think I'm wrong about.
you are willing to lie about one issue (the "problems" that don't exist)?
WHAT PROBLEMS? I've told you multiple times - they aren't PROBLEMS they're CONCERNS. A Concern is an issue you have to address or it MAY become a problem.
Example: Solar panel installs shooting towards 100% of DML is a concern to HECO until they studied the issue more and determine that 120% is still a safe level. Going above 120% is still a concern because they have to examine and upgrade their substations. It's not a PROBLEM unless they keep allowing more solar installs above that level without performing the upgrades. NOTE: I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I'm saying 'If X then Y'.
Other than that you've CONSTANTLY misstated my positions. Even in my first post before you butted in I mentioned that with current installs power transmission beyond the substation isn't an issue, and won't be an issue until you get a lot more of them.
Every post about needing substation upgrades in response to solar power was in the assumption that solar was installed on approximately 20% of homes and rising. Not small installs either, but NET NEUTRAL installs where the installed panels produce, on average, all of the electricity needed by the home. Just not matched with consumption.
Going by your 'answers'
1. You completely avoided this question. As such, until you actually answer it, I conclude you have no clue.
2. Same as #1
3. "The pairing of your edict of when people should not be allowed to have solar" is the closest I can see. Can you please quote where I said people shouldn't be allowed to have solar? I said HECO wasn't allowing people to hook up. I'm not affiliated with Hawaii's power company in any way. In any case I'll state my position on solar clearly: ANYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INSTALL WHATEVER SOLAR SYSTEM THEY DAMN WELL WANT TO. Nitpicks: They have to be able to afford it, it can't be hazardous to others(I don't care if they consider it an eyesore), etc... DISCLAIMER: By the same token, the power company should not be REQUIRED to allow the hookup if it would be hazardous, or to purchase the power if it will be unable to utilize/resell it.
4. You're the one that's kept saying you know me and my positions so well. Apparently you KNOW you're talking out your own ass.
5. You failed to answer this one
6. You failed to answer this one
Conclusion: 0/6 dude. Random chance scores higher.
If you'd actually read and understand some of those links you've been spamming me with then we would not have had such a long and tedious thread where you have been desperately trying to find a way to make your silly fiction real.
And I counter with if you'd actually read the links you'd know that I'm not talking about 'silly fiction'. I know this because for the most part you're only capable of arguing on the grade school level - 'nuhuh' rather than actually constructing valid rebuttals. You've made a couple points, but they were points that I already knew, you just hadn't tickled me the right way for me to present them myself.
Again, it's not a political attack. I mean, if you think it's political, who or what am I targeting, and why?
Let's see, I'll post some questions that I'm sure you'll argue are beneath you or some such rather than posting reasoned arguments. Just to let you know, if you don't answer them I'll assume it's because you can't or won't because you have political goals and can't actually construct an answer for them that meet your goals.
1. What actions do you think that a power company would need to take if 100% of homes, 80% of commercial buildings(retail/office) and 50% of industry installed solar systems?
2. What actions would/should the company take as installs rose to those levels?
3. State what you assume my political goal in regards to solar power is.
4. State three of my political positions, other than guns. Please try to avoid being so vague that it's like a fortune teller trick.
5. Identify what, specifically, you keep harping on my 'lying' about. Keep in mind that thus far you have failed to address that Hawaii is busting the levels you said 'were impossible'.
6. What do you think I don't understand?
The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.
It's a bit different when the relationship is terminated because the government is threatening the corporation though.
I get the feeling that a number of justices aren't going to like that, and at least to me quite a few businesses on that list are perfectly legitimate, even specifically constitutionally protected.
When it comes to dictatorship, WHO has the guns is important, and 'military/police' isn't the only criteria.
With a 10% private ownership rate, that could be something like 'the rich/mid-high level party members'.
In a society that's tribally fixated like much of the middle east, I'd work to ensure that my tribe has the firearms, nobody else.
There are a number of competing systems. I don't know. I guess the point is that if we set a low target like 1:1000 (99.9%) its amost surely a net positive.
If you're using it as a design consideration, that's fine. I was thinking about real-world systems. Another thought I just had is the question of how fast the authorization takes place. If I grab the gun out of my holster, will it be ready to fire by the time I have it raised/aimed?
But the anti-smart-gun crowd tends to frame their objection around how its automatically going lead to more innocent deaths.
My main fear on this is the reliability issue. As far as I'm concerned, my carry weapon* needs to be able to work through gloves, primary and off hand, at -50 and over 140F. It needs to be able to last, with routine maintenance, over 20 years(military), 40 for private. It also needs to be easy enough that I don't end up not using it, and cheap enough that I feel it's worth it.
50 million year divided over how many police officers? Google is suggesting that its around 780,000. That's $64 per year per officer to save at least 5-10 lives year.*
It's too expensive for me. I value the 'average' human life at $2-3M at this point. Of course, I'll also state that if any officer or department wishes to switch that I'll support them. It might run a touch more than $1k though - the mechanism will probably have to be beefed up in order to survive the shock of a .40S&W round as opposed to a .22lr. It might also increase maintenance costs.
Vests are normally around $2k and have about a five year lifespan in use, but an officer is a lot more likely to be shot than shot&killed with their own weapon.
* That only considers officer deaths. How many civilians are shot with stolen police weapons? How many of those would be eliminated with a smart system? In some cases the thief would and could defeat the system... but surely in some cases not.
First, I assume that any stolen smart weapon will either have the system disabled or reprogrammed.
Second, I think the numbers shot with police weapons are very low - they aren't going to increase the numbers by much. Not many weapons are stolen, and not many of those are subsequently used in a murder.
I'd also like to wind out by saying one concern i have about this particular smart gun tech highlighted in the TFA is that it appears to be a wireless link between wristband and weapon -- and I'm concerned about the ability for it to be jammed.
Unlikely short of highly organized crime, but I understand the point. On the other hand, how do you propose having the gun authenticate if the officer is wearing gloves?
I should probably state my views a bit better: I believe that until the technology is good enough that the police are voluntarily embracing it that it's not ready to be mandated to civilians. If a civilian wants to buy an unreliable weapon, that is his choice. But it should not be forced on him.
As is, the police will lobby incredibly in order to exempt themselves from any such requirements, which tells me it's not ready yet.
*I carry non-routinely both as a member of the USAF and as a private citizen.
On the other hand, I challenge you to find a 3 year old that can open my safe.
Reaching the dial would be challenge #1...
I'll agree with dyslexicbunny, they shouldn't be marketed as a 'safe'. At most it should be marketed as a 'residential security container', and one that, depending on how it failed* should leave the company open for some liability.
Even a RSC should provide sufficient protection to keep a pre-teen out of it. It just that it would provide minimal fire and theft protection.
*Setting a password of 1,2,3,4 doesn't count as a failure if the kid actually pushed the buttons.
80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.
Hint: Cars don't explode like that. Action movie depections of guns are generally WORSE then the pyrotechnics they engage in with vehicles.
Seeing stuff blow up like that is still cool though...
Lets look at some actual numbers. According to the Washington Post
I looked at something very similar, but slightly newer using FBI statistics. 2002-2012. 535 officers, 25 killed with their own weapons. One downside is that it didn't mention officers killed by another officer's weapon. Balancing that would be that there are multiple cases of cops shooting each other. But I figure that 5-10% is a good percentage, and it's not that big of a range.
That's how reliable the system has to be to be an improvement, even under the most RIDICULOUS assumption that every single failure would lead to a cop being killed. But even 99.975% reliable is a very low bar to reach.
Not only will the system clearly be more reliable than that, and even when it does fail most of the time it won't get anyone killed.
Do you have some citation on the reliability figure? I thought the false-negative* was higher.
Personally, I looked at the cost - the system seems to cost $1k over a non-smart gun. The USA has ~900k officers, presumably the vast majority of them armed. Round up to 1M guns**, you're looking at $1B to transition them all to 'smart guns' if you do it as firearms wear out. If you accellerate the replacement you're looking at $2B.
If you figure the average police firearm lasts 20 years, that's $50M/year to save 5-10 lives.
*Authorized user/gun doesn't unlock
**Average NYPD officer might go through 1 firearm in their career, but the average rural deputy has at least 2-3(handgun, rifle, shotgun), and the SWAT types go through them like candy.
This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.
A flash suppressor is mutually exclusive of a noise suppressor aka 'silencer'. As such, you'll still have the full report of the rifle, as stated, all it does is cut down the flash a bit so it's less likely to blind the shooter.
As for 'completely changes the weapon's intended use', it's a small metal part that does more than just suppress flash. It also protects the end of the barrel('crown') from damage, which is critical to accuracy.
Today use is shifting towards 'compensators' that use a different hole pattern - besides suppressing flash and protecting the crown, it also helps fight muzzle rise and reduce kick-up if you're shooting over loose sand/gravel.
Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all .223, but a mix of .223, .308, 30-06 and other calibers.
The original Milita act specified 24 rounds* and an eventual standard of a caliber of 18 lead balls per pound.
My modern take on that would be a .223 rifle that uses with 2 loaded 30 round AR-type magazines and an ammo pouch for them. Requiring additional rounds is a minor point. 60 rounds is about $15 of ammo, 250 would be $62.50.
"Designated Marksman" types would have to qualify for that in order to report with a different caliber such as .308.
*Even if a 'round' back then was a paper package of powder and ball that was disassembled in the process of loading the rifle. Tear the ball off, pour powder into firearm, stuff paper into rifle, insert ball, ram home.
Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.
I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?
1. It doesn't force the bar to allow carry, the bar can still ban it under their own rules.
2. Bars are not necessarily violence free
3. Georgia has laws against having a firearm while drunk. Designated drivers are also a thing.
My take on it: Don't bother banning locations that serve alcohol for carrying. Ban being drunk while carrying.
Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.
This reminded me of a 'freak' statistic - More women attempt suicide than men, but more men actually committ suicide, precisely because of this. Though it's evening out. Women are using more effective methods. :(
Again, this technology was not meant to stop most "gun deaths". It addresses a very specific set of circumstances.
I posted earlier that it turns out this feature runs around $1k. It replaces a $300-600 firearm with a $1200 one and you have to buy a $400 watch along with it.
When you say 'very specific', it's a very true statement. It won't stop authorized users from committing suicide. It won't stop an authorized user from committing murder. What it WOULD stop is an attacker tacking the firearm away from the owner and using it on the owner.
However, how often does this occur? very rarely. Turns out it's tough to take a gun off of somebody willing to shoot you with it rather than give it to you. The highest rate I can think of would be the police, who actually have to handle dangerous people while armed(higher risk than standing off and waiting for police to arrive). In the last decade, 25 police officers were killed by their own weapons, out of 535 killed. That's 5% of murdered officers, yet police departments will conduct intense campaigns to be exempted from the requirements.
After Sandy Hook, there was talk about limiting magazine sizes. Suddenly Obama was coming to take every one's guns according to them.
They did get a little overheated, didn't they? Still, it's not like limited magazine sizes are likely to have saved anybody in that case.
I'll note that given the firing rates that come out in a lot of spree killings many gunnies can match the shooting speed using revolvers. I remember one incident where a very talented invidual managed to meet the firing rate with a black powder weapon(at a range, done safely).