Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."
Using a term incorrectly but frequently does not make it correct.
Similarly, using an incorrect term with an authoritative tone while citing additional instances of the term being incorrectly used does not make you an expert on the any subject other than trolling.
A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?
Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.
If you believe governments register guns to help solve crime, you are sadly mistaken. That is the talking point, and some of your friendly government agents might even believe that. The point of gun registration is to subsequently remove guns from citizens' hands. History indicates this is often followed by those citizens losing far more of their rights, if not their lives.
Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?
The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs. The First Amendment was included specifically to prevent the government from squelching the people from saying unfavorable things about the government. The Second Amendment was and is for when the government ignores the rest of the Constitution.
Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry.
Facebook pulls out of Germany and suspends all German accounts. Johannes Caspar is removed from office when the Facebook-deprived masses start rioting in the streets.
So the clipboard absorbs all the energy? Hint: not unless you are holding it very firmly completely perpendicular to the path of the bullet. The clipboard and/or bullet will go somewhere.
The "knock you on your ass" phenomena is a TV/movie taught thing that has actually come to pass in many cases because people learned that is what is supposed to happen. It will not feel good, but it will not knock you down. As far as the pain/knockdown goes, it is probably more with body armor than without. A full metal jacket bullet will pass through soft tissue unless it hits bone -- it is not uncommon for someone to not know they have been shot and the wound often bleeds little or not at all. The body armor will stop the bullet and transfer the energy to the wearer's body similar to being hit with the end of a baton -- it will be hard to miss, but it won't knock you down like you see in the movies.
The difference between soft body armor and the armor with plates is that the plates are designed to stop higher velocity (rifle) rounds. They both have limits, and neither of them is "bullet proof".
Except that the majority of rifle bullets will pass right through the clipboard. You may have a chance against a handgun bullet.
This is a ridiculous idea anyway. Folks killed wearing body armor are often struck at an angle where the armor does not offer protection - along the sides and/or the armpit area. Do you really anticipate a cop that decides not to wear body armor that day will walk around with a few clipboards positioned appropriately around their body to offer protection?
Clever marketing gimmick? Yes. Real protection when someone decides to shoot at you? No.
If you find a device like this on your car, have fun with it. Ship it across country - the government will know where the UPS guy is. Smash it open to see what is inside. Sell it on eBay. Report it to your local Sheriff as a suspicious device.
Seriously though...
Having cops follow you around to make their presence known is one hell of a way to use a covert surveillance device. The story isn't quite adding up.
The.30-06 is a specific type of ammunition, not a rifle. A more comparable comparison for the 7.62x54r is a.308 Winchester -- still a decent performing round in wide use today. The Mosin Nagant mentioned from Big 5 is a perfectly serviceable rifle provided the one you get is in good condition -- inspect for rust and gauge the chamber before you fire.
such as rifles and grenades and the like, which the Russians and Chinese do very well (some would argue better than the Americans).
Depends on your metric. If you wish to use a rifle as a rifle and strike a target from a distance, you are better off with an M16 variant than an AK-47 variant. If you wish to treat a rifle as a brick and then expect it to fire in the general vicinity of an adversary, then the AS-47 is your platform of choice. The functionality of the AK-47 in harsh conditions is a bit of engineering with a lot of loose tolerances.
Both will do the job. It comes down to a preference for accurate fire or spray-and-pray.
My heart does not bleed for anyone committing any of the crimes you list.
I am not in favor of ever giving a prisoner cable TV or a game console for any reason whatsoever. There is no reason to further turn their brains to mush.
If you want to help them, good behavior gets you into the library, or into the classroom offering anywhere from basic life skills through a high school diploma, or into a work program, or a host of other things that can help a prisoner better themselves and have a hope of integrating into society as a useful member. I might be swayed on the TV argument if the only channels available were PBS and the History Channel.
If you are only looking to "drug them", then just drug them. You will need fewer guards than with the artificial TV and XBox "drugs" you propose.
Staying current on Judge Judy or Grand Theft Auto will not help the prisoners. It will condition them that being a sloth is acceptable. They will continue the sloth behavior after release, only turning to crime when they need/want money or goods.
Plus, it's an incentive - act like a civilized human being, get some of the benefits of being one. Don't act like a civilized being, and your game station is taken away(along with everything else in your cell), or you don't get one in the first place.
So, doing something bad gets your incentive taken away. Say for instance, you kill someone. Then you go to prison. Then you get an XBox. Yeah, I see it now.
That's great. While we are singing kyumbaya, can you explain to me how an Xbox 360, presumably playing a first person shooter game versus something educational, will rehabilitate an inmate?
Before you claim I loaded the question about the game content, consider the prisoners already have access to educational material from the library and are apparently unhappy with that option.
Apple gets $99 for each product in the store, if I remember correctly. But I may be wrong--it's possible. So let's say it $99 for each developer. If Apple has 100,000 developers, that's 9.9 million dollars. Each year.
So your problem is not that Apple delivers something which is of reasonable value at $99, but because they are delivering it to multiple parties for the same price, thus enabling themselves to profit in the process, they are bad? Do you believe that organizations should price their goods at cost rather than on the value they deliver?
You also fail to consider that Apple's infrastructure cost is not fixed and requires expenditure to maintain as well as additional investment to scale as content delivers increases.
But don't stop. Carry your thought forward to the developers. If it only costs them $x to develop their app, once they reach sales of of some percentage over $x they should give their app away for free? The knife cuts both ways.
With respect to the apps store, there may indeed be better ways to deliver apps to users from a technical standpoint, but that is unlikely true from a user standpoint, given that most users are far less technical than folks here. Apple has been good about making things easy for the user, which has, in large part, led to their success. I wouldn't count on them changing that anytime soon.
Options:
1. become a better developer and make something someone wants to buy
2. learn to pour concrete - there is no satisfaction like seeing people use the sidewalk you made
Do you realize there are thousands of people marketing consumer goods that are chasing that exact same question for their entire career? Even those that are wildly successful once have little chance of doing it again, and every success has hundreds of failures around it. If anyone had the magic answer boiled down to a cheap talking point they damn sure wouldn't tell you here.
Slashdot Mirror
Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."
Using a term incorrectly but frequently does not make it correct.
Similarly, using an incorrect term with an authoritative tone while citing additional instances of the term being incorrectly used does not make you an expert on the any subject other than trolling.
A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?
Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.
If you believe governments register guns to help solve crime, you are sadly mistaken. That is the talking point, and some of your friendly government agents might even believe that. The point of gun registration is to subsequently remove guns from citizens' hands. History indicates this is often followed by those citizens losing far more of their rights, if not their lives.
Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?
The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs. The First Amendment was included specifically to prevent the government from squelching the people from saying unfavorable things about the government. The Second Amendment was and is for when the government ignores the rest of the Constitution.
Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry.
Put your helmet back on before you hurt yourself.
If your chosen method of communication is to write things on the wall of the only room you ever talk to anyone in, then yes.
Facebook pulls out of Germany and suspends all German accounts. Johannes Caspar is removed from office when the Facebook-deprived masses start rioting in the streets.
So the clipboard absorbs all the energy? Hint: not unless you are holding it very firmly completely perpendicular to the path of the bullet. The clipboard and/or bullet will go somewhere.
The "knock you on your ass" phenomena is a TV/movie taught thing that has actually come to pass in many cases because people learned that is what is supposed to happen. It will not feel good, but it will not knock you down. As far as the pain/knockdown goes, it is probably more with body armor than without. A full metal jacket bullet will pass through soft tissue unless it hits bone -- it is not uncommon for someone to not know they have been shot and the wound often bleeds little or not at all. The body armor will stop the bullet and transfer the energy to the wearer's body similar to being hit with the end of a baton -- it will be hard to miss, but it won't knock you down like you see in the movies.
The difference between soft body armor and the armor with plates is that the plates are designed to stop higher velocity (rifle) rounds. They both have limits, and neither of them is "bullet proof".
Except that the majority of rifle bullets will pass right through the clipboard. You may have a chance against a handgun bullet.
This is a ridiculous idea anyway. Folks killed wearing body armor are often struck at an angle where the armor does not offer protection - along the sides and/or the armpit area. Do you really anticipate a cop that decides not to wear body armor that day will walk around with a few clipboards positioned appropriately around their body to offer protection?
Clever marketing gimmick? Yes. Real protection when someone decides to shoot at you? No.
Why not? That's how it got on your car.
If you find a device like this on your car, have fun with it. Ship it across country - the government will know where the UPS guy is. Smash it open to see what is inside. Sell it on eBay. Report it to your local Sheriff as a suspicious device.
Seriously though...
Having cops follow you around to make their presence known is one hell of a way to use a covert surveillance device. The story isn't quite adding up.
Not so much forward thinking as trying to do whatever it takes to catch up in the market.
I doubt Microsoft would take such an action if their phone and apps store commanded the same market share as Apple's.
That's how we explain it to the people on the short bus.
Put your helmet back on and sit down.
The .30-06 is a specific type of ammunition, not a rifle. A more comparable comparison for the 7.62x54r is a .308 Winchester -- still a decent performing round in wide use today. The Mosin Nagant mentioned from Big 5 is a perfectly serviceable rifle provided the one you get is in good condition -- inspect for rust and gauge the chamber before you fire.
such as rifles and grenades and the like, which the Russians and Chinese do very well (some would argue better than the Americans).
Depends on your metric. If you wish to use a rifle as a rifle and strike a target from a distance, you are better off with an M16 variant than an AK-47 variant. If you wish to treat a rifle as a brick and then expect it to fire in the general vicinity of an adversary, then the AS-47 is your platform of choice. The functionality of the AK-47 in harsh conditions is a bit of engineering with a lot of loose tolerances.
Both will do the job. It comes down to a preference for accurate fire or spray-and-pray.
My heart does not bleed for anyone committing any of the crimes you list.
I am not in favor of ever giving a prisoner cable TV or a game console for any reason whatsoever. There is no reason to further turn their brains to mush.
If you want to help them, good behavior gets you into the library, or into the classroom offering anywhere from basic life skills through a high school diploma, or into a work program, or a host of other things that can help a prisoner better themselves and have a hope of integrating into society as a useful member. I might be swayed on the TV argument if the only channels available were PBS and the History Channel.
If you are only looking to "drug them", then just drug them. You will need fewer guards than with the artificial TV and XBox "drugs" you propose.
Staying current on Judge Judy or Grand Theft Auto will not help the prisoners. It will condition them that being a sloth is acceptable. They will continue the sloth behavior after release, only turning to crime when they need/want money or goods.
Touche. +1000 internets to you.
Plus, it's an incentive - act like a civilized human being, get some of the benefits of being one. Don't act like a civilized being, and your game station is taken away(along with everything else in your cell), or you don't get one in the first place.
So, doing something bad gets your incentive taken away. Say for instance, you kill someone. Then you go to prison. Then you get an XBox. Yeah, I see it now.
What makes the lack of punishment "civilized"?
That's great. While we are singing kyumbaya, can you explain to me how an Xbox 360, presumably playing a first person shooter game versus something educational, will rehabilitate an inmate?
Before you claim I loaded the question about the game content, consider the prisoners already have access to educational material from the library and are apparently unhappy with that option.
Apple gets $99 for each product in the store, if I remember correctly. But I may be wrong--it's possible. So let's say it $99 for each developer. If Apple has 100,000 developers, that's 9.9 million dollars. Each year.
So your problem is not that Apple delivers something which is of reasonable value at $99, but because they are delivering it to multiple parties for the same price, thus enabling themselves to profit in the process, they are bad? Do you believe that organizations should price their goods at cost rather than on the value they deliver?
You also fail to consider that Apple's infrastructure cost is not fixed and requires expenditure to maintain as well as additional investment to scale as content delivers increases.
But don't stop. Carry your thought forward to the developers. If it only costs them $x to develop their app, once they reach sales of of some percentage over $x they should give their app away for free? The knife cuts both ways.
With respect to the apps store, there may indeed be better ways to deliver apps to users from a technical standpoint, but that is unlikely true from a user standpoint, given that most users are far less technical than folks here. Apple has been good about making things easy for the user, which has, in large part, led to their success. I wouldn't count on them changing that anytime soon.
If prisoners get to sit around playing games, the punishment of prison could easily be less than their punishment outside of prison?
Prisoners should be making big rocks into little rocks.
Does Facebook have any recourse if Google explicitly ignores the robots.txt for their site as well as the site scraping TOS, http://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos_terms.php?
Yes. Facebook suspended Google's account.
I'd certainly be upset if somebody decided to make every conversation I've ever had in public places available to anybody who types in my name.
dom
Including a public place where you knew you were being recorded and published?
Seriously, getting mad at Facebook because your public posts are public is like getting mad at the pool because you got wet swimming.
This is more like having a discussion in a coffee shop and having 1000 random people write it down everything you said.
This failed analogy underscores that people do not understand privacy and demonstrates why Facebook thrives.
A search engine is supposed to provide useful results, not fifteen million Facebook comments about the latest funny thing that your cat did.
You seriously underestimate the hilarity of my cat.
Options:
1. become a better developer and make something someone wants to buy
2. learn to pour concrete - there is no satisfaction like seeing people use the sidewalk you made
Do you realize there are thousands of people marketing consumer goods that are chasing that exact same question for their entire career? Even those that are wildly successful once have little chance of doing it again, and every success has hundreds of failures around it. If anyone had the magic answer boiled down to a cheap talking point they damn sure wouldn't tell you here.