Gun Deaths != crime. Allow me to explain. According to the United States FBI and Do Health & Human services, in 1995, there where 13,790 firearm homicides in the US (about 5.51 per 100K). The same year, there where 18,503 gun suicides in the US, or 7.4 per 100K. Why guns? Because they're a very effective way to kill oneself. People who are intent on killing themselves will do so with the quickest means possible.
Don't believe me? Ask your beloved Japan, who had a suicide rate of 16.72 in 1994 International Journal of Epidemiology (1998) Now, our total homicides (a category much clearer than the deceptive gun deaths) of 5.70 is still about 4 times higher than England's 1.41, but not 34 times higher, as your numbers might suggest to the uncritical reader.
So you feel safe in Europe, huh? How about london? Where you're twice as likely to get mugged, robbed, or assaulted then in New York City? Quoting the Weekly Standard: The same pattern can be seen throughout Europe--indeed, in much of the developed world. Crime has recently hit record highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, and a host of other major cities. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office (the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Justice) found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.
Americans, on the other hand, have become much safer. Preliminary 2001 crime statistics from the FBI show America's tenth consecutive year of declines in crime. While our homicide rate is still substantially higher than most in Europe, it has sunk to levels unseen here since the early 1960s. And overall crime rates in this country are now 40 percent below the all-time highs of the early 1970s. In 1973, nearly 60 percent of American households fell victim to property crimes. In 2000 (the most recent data available), only about 20 percent did. Among the economically powerful democracies in the Group of Seven, only the Japanese now have a lower victimization rate than the United States.
Great Britains own Home Office, with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, shows that the US, with it's lax gun control laws, has less crime. And that using categories like 'property crime' and 'violent crime,' which clearly indicate that it's one person commiting a crime against another, contrary to your "Gun Deaths."
Also, none of this has mentioned how often guns are brandished or used to prevent crimes. (A legitimate gun death- where someone acted in self defense- would not be listed as homicide)Defensive gun uses have been estimated anywhere as low as 4.32 (National Crime Victimization survey) per 100K to as high as 103 (Dr. Kleck, Florida State University). If the truth lies in between, as is likely, the presence of guns offers a net benefit to society. Defensive Gun Uses include instances where simply brandishing the fire arm was enough to deter the criminal, and other instances where the criminal was shot)
Now, the article I cite goes on to list other reasons why the US crime rate has fallen, outside of firearm possesion. All things being equal though, I would much rather have the option to defend myself, my family, and my friends with the most effective means available- a firearm. Your gun control clearly doesn't make you any safer.
Also, if you think only cops should have guns- in the US, Police shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. Private citizens do so only 2% of the time.
I think I'll keep the loose United States gun laws, thank you, and you Europeans can laugh until the armed thug knocks on your door. Natural rights exist regardless of how bizzare you think they are, and you're better off exercising them then not.
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine- all in New England (the Northeastern part of the United States) are all basically crime free (47,48, and 49th on the list of violence by state. 50 States, by the way) because the people are good, honest, and hardworking. The fact that these states have loose gun control laws help keep things that way. The same cannot be said for many other areas of the country, where scum can be found on every corner. The United states is a large country, with every kind of metropolitan area you can imagine. It's just a little bit harder to keep everyone in lockstep over here because of that.
Please read my response to the other swiss who posted, as if I typed on, I'd repeat myself.
I care little what the world thinks, because it's always popular to pick on the biggest kid on the block. Nor should the derision of other countries make any lick of difference to our core principles. If they care to piss away their natural rights in the name of being progressive, and laugh at us while we preserve them- then so be it.
Call the US gun crazy, if you will- but from what I understand, the Swiss are the most armed people on the face of the earth, per capita, not Americans. Regardless for the reasons you are armed, the fact remains that every household has at least one military firearm, doesn't it? Might this not have the slightest detterent effect on crime?
The reason you'll find loudmouths like me vicously defending our individual right to keep and bear arms is because there are many people in our society and government seek to restrict this basic right- a problem you don't seriously have in Switzerland, from what I understand.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I've never traveled outside the US (Canada doesn't exactly count, because to the casual observer, they just use different money;) )only read some on the subject.
Well, you're absolutely right, with the guns people are allowed to purchase now, your average citizen would stand no chance against artillery or light armor. You might want to consider, though, how likely it would be that anyone would order domestic artillery or light armor strikes, no matter how difficult the situation. But it's late at night, and I don't feel like arguing that point right now, so I'll move on.
Firearms are tools, Period. They can be used for self-defense, for crime, or in some historic events, revolution. The history of the US, and the history of Switzerland, and now even Israel, show that honest folk are the majority, and the more of them that go around armed, the less crime there is, or the lesser the impact of it. (armed Israeli citizens where instrumental in stopping a recent machine gun attack at a shopping plaza. Armed El Al employees stopped the July fourth attack at LAX, not any US cops or TSA employees)
So if you think that Concealed Carry Permit holders should be licensed like drivers, I agree with you, provided they are licensed exactly like cars.
1. There are no restrictions on the possession or use of an automobile on private property. You can let your twelve year old son drive your F-350 across the family farm if you care to. The F-350 need not be registered or insured, though you'd have to pay taxes on it. The same should be true for guns- no restrictions on the possesion or storage of any reasonable firearm on one's own private property. (I happen to think reasonable is anything short of Anti Aircraft Batteries. Think it's crazy? The swiss allow their citizens to own anti aircraft guns. Your line may be different.)
2. Licenses are issued without question to all who qualify.
3. Associated costs are not so high as to prevent those who may need to defend themselves the most- poor inner city folk, for example.
4. A Concealed Carry Permit in one state is valid in any other.
5. There are no waiting periods associated with purchasing guns, nor any limit to the amount of guns one may purchase.
6. Operating or brandishing a firearm while intoxicated would definatly be illegal.
As for the brady bill saving lives- the Journal of the American Medical Association seems to think they haven't done a thing: "Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states." Full text here
Based on that, I would have to say that the Brady Bill hasn't stopped any domestic disputes from turning into murder, Unless you find the AMA to be less than authoritative in matters of public health.
I personally think that waiting periods are actually more dangerous to women, as if they know they are in imminent danger from an estranged husband or boyfriend, they are unable to arm themselves. A woman with a gun can stop an attacking man. A woman without a gun stands much less of a chance, as most men are physically stronger and larger than most women.
Quoting Jacob Sullum from reason online (only because he says it well)Supporters say a waiting period allows potential murderers time to "cool off." But anyone who leaves the scene of an argument, drives to a gun shop, buys a weapon, loads it with ammunition, and returns to kill his interlocutor can hardly be said to be acting in the heat of the moment.
I was going to post alot more, then I realized you're in support of handguns for self defense, so if I prattled on, it would be pointless.
Blame the puffy, middle aged guys named Chuck who think that the right to own firearms is the only civil libery that matters, since it's the only civil liberty you can use to make an exciting loud noise and put holes in cans.
For the most part, I agree with you, but not with this crack about firearms. If you where trolling, or being sarcastic, I'll bite regardless.
It may be the only civil liberty that matters, because as armed citizens, it allows us to preserve all the other civil liberties. The world, or our nation, is not so utopian, so full of people looking out only for their brethen, so lacking in criminals, as to allow us to disarm ourselves. Criminals prowl our streets. But they do so with far less frequency in areas where even a 20th of the population is likely to be armed (florida-they still go after tourists- Vermont, New Hampshire, or, for the Europeans out there, switzerland.) The police have no obligation to protect you (see Riss vs. New York City)so you must protect yourself. The surest way to do that is to own a firearm, and know how to use it.
Our government is infringing on our rights more each day- being a low user number slashdotter, I'm sure you've been reading about the DMCA and it's ilk for quite some time. How long before our own government becomes as oppressive as Great Brittain was originally? Betcha it'll be a lot longer- if ever- as long as the populace is well armed. Incidentally, the United Kingdom now has the strictest gun control laws in Europe- and the highest violent, confrontational crime rate. (Google cache of Boston Globe)
Gun Restricting laws protect no one but criminals, because only honest people obey them. If someone is willing to ignore laws about theft, rape, and murder, what makes you think they'll obey gun laws?
The right to live includes the right to defend one's life effectively. This was once best done with a spear, then a sword, then a musket, now a handgun. The right to defend our lives against the lawless, and ourselves against tyranny, ensures all other rights. Without the natural right (listed, not given by the 2nd Amendment) to arms, all your other rights are disposable at the conveinance of criminals or the ruling class. Karma to Burn, do your worst moderators
Basically, it seems that congress has been using the patent office as a source of income, draining off millions of dollars that would be spend reviewing applications- seems like a good 15-20% of the fees that companies pay aren't used for reviewing applications at all.
I'm not completely relieving the PO of blame, but it's something to think about anyway.
I think they're full of crap about the shell. The reason that Depleted Uranium in tank shells, A-10 bullets, and Tank armor is not because it's particularly strong (it might be, but it's not terribly relevant).
It's because it's the most dense material known to man. Shells made of DU have ridiculous amounts of kinetic energy, and armor made of DU have an unprecidented ability to stop it. Hence, stories like this happen. (link contains general information about the use of DU in M1A1 tanks)
Yeah, see the thing is, I don't want to be reached all the time. Right now, there is no reason any one would need to contact me urgently. Whatever it is, it can wait. If it's that much of an emergency that you have to get in touch with me, maybe you should call 911 first.
Thats why my cell phone sits in a drawer, and is only pulled out and activated when I move someplace where I can't get a land line. (I'm a college student, the moving every 9/3 months thing is getting old fast...)
I understand that there are certain careers where you do need to be in touch all the time, but if I'm not in one, the cell phone stays in the drawer.
And -- would the average person fly in a radically new, untested airframe?
Boeing has a solid method of both ensuring an plane's good design and ensuring the public that their plane is airworthy.
The send the design engineers out with pretty much all the first flights. As a budding mechanical engineer, that's damn good motivation for me to make sure my plane is designed well.
Lay off MSNBC
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If you read the article, the slashdot headline is crap.
If you read MSNBC alot, like I do, you'll find: 1. It's a hell of a lot more responsible, journalism wise, then abcnews. 2. They are not shy about printing articles that put MS in a bad light.
Sections like letters to the editor (where they frequently publish letters from people who sharply disagree with them) and their Ombudsman (currently the position is unfilled, the last guy moved on after a year) used to publically evaluate their journalistic practices and comment or criticize them, by their own employee, has caused me to respect them a great deal.
Say what you like about MS, but MSNBC is a great news site.
You'll notice how Sega is no longer in the console business, and is now making games for Sony and Nintendo.
Sega tried that method, and it blew up in their face. Microsoft is having a hard time with it, but they have so much cash they can take it for a while. Not that they'll ever make money on it though.
There's no reason they need to make N templates for N CD's. That would be a huge waste of resources. all they gotta do is put all the alphanumeric characters they use on a series of wheel-presses (think of it as an odometer, with letters on it)that spin to the right Key each time a new CD comes along.
Though the mechanism would have to be very precise and very fast, it's well within the manufacturing capabilities of any company that makes CD's ( A high precision exercise anyway.)
Actually, they do go after the small guys- just not maliciously- I have a friend who runs a small computer company and he's told me hows he's gone to some Microsoft conferences, and they loaded him and other small companies up with goodies (including 10 or so free XP licenses, he can do as he wishes with them), and gave them the tools to do automated setups (He still had to program a lot of it himself, but he's a frickin' genius anyway). We've talked about this stuff alot, and he never said anything about restrictive licenses-he does sell other OS's.
Incidentally, check them out if you need parts- they don't pull any creative bullshit with shipping charges, test everything in house, and have a good return policy. Plus the prices are good. Yeah, he's my best friend. So call me biased.
Yeah, we think highly of foreigners here.
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2, Troll
"foreigners have a hard time differenciating between the bills"
does the phonecian numbering system still present a problem for some corners of the earth? I wasn't aware that the roman or summerian numerals where still in use.
Or is the next 'new math' going to be based on adding colors, instead of numbers? Yeah, you gave me two blues ($5) and a yellow ($10), so thats a blue-green ($20.)
They say that we couldn't see this one because it came from the direction of the sun- but it also wasn't big enough to cause any global damage, just to mess up about 2000 square km.
See, I figure, anything big enough to do some real hurt coming from the direction of the sun, we should be able to notice by the eclipse...
"Gee, I didn't hear anything in the news about an eclipse- and since when did the moon get that shape?"
Run for your lives if you ever see an unscheduled eclipse, folks. Though I don't know where you'd run to, only that running would surely get your mind off of your impending doom.
I've worked with a number of PC's that have chassis intrusion detection. Admittedly, it's a simple switch connected to a register that can only be reset in passworded BIOS.
This guy is writing like it's news or something. I read the brief file, and it looks like he just figured out what I first saw years ago.
And also, the classic phrase: if you don't have physical security, you have no security at all.
You have ever right to lend the latest Britney Spears album to a friend. It falls well under fair use, and they can't take that away by simply putting in an EULA for a freakin CD.
For movies, last time I read the FBI warning, it mentioned things like 'public viewings' and 'commercial displays'. It never says anything about lending. Go read it again.
The thing that sould most interest you, however, is how good of a friend you lend it to. If they never give it back, they have your best interests in mind, and have shown there trueness.
Now, a Satriani, Mudhens, or Beethoven album, they damn well better give back.
Yes, but not in any observable time frame. IE, glass from a century or two ago wouldn't have distorted a measurable amount. The original poster is correct, they couldn't make an even sheet of glass.
Actually, in a case a few years ago in New York City, the courts ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you against an obvious threat.
The matter arose when a woman had a stalker she knew of, and after a couple of non-fatal attacks, was begging the police for protection. They didn't provide it, and the lady was eventually killed. Her relatives sued NYPD claiming they should have protected her against such an obvious danger.
The courts said no.
It is your obligation to protect yourself. It is the obligation of the police to clean up after crimes have been commited.
Which is why he posted the story- to punish him for thinking he's creative when he's not. What better way to get the point across than to initiate a core melt down of his ipaq?
International folks- and your communications with them- are offered no protection under our constitution. So it's perfectly legal.
I have no clue how they would store it- some discussion has postulated that it would be analyzed on-site, and only relevant parts stored for later retrieval. They'd periodically have to update it's rules, but that wouldn't be hard with it in place.
Slashdot Mirror
Gun Deaths != crime.
:
Allow me to explain.
According to the United States FBI and Do Health & Human services, in 1995, there where 13,790 firearm homicides in the US (about 5.51 per 100K). The same year, there where 18,503 gun suicides in the US, or 7.4 per 100K. Why guns? Because they're a very effective way to kill oneself. People who are intent on killing themselves will do so with the quickest means possible.
Don't believe me? Ask your beloved Japan, who had a suicide rate of 16.72 in 1994 International Journal of Epidemiology (1998)
Now, our total homicides (a category much clearer than the deceptive gun deaths) of 5.70 is still about 4 times higher than England's 1.41, but not 34 times higher, as your numbers might suggest to the uncritical reader.
So you feel safe in Europe, huh? How about london? Where you're twice as likely to get mugged, robbed, or assaulted then in New York City?
Quoting the Weekly Standard
The same pattern can be seen throughout Europe--indeed, in much of the developed world. Crime has recently hit record highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, and a host of other major cities. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office (the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Justice) found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.
Americans, on the other hand, have become much safer. Preliminary 2001 crime statistics from the FBI show America's tenth consecutive year of declines in crime. While our homicide rate is still substantially higher than most in Europe, it has sunk to levels unseen here since the early 1960s. And overall crime rates in this country are now 40 percent below the all-time highs of the early 1970s. In 1973, nearly 60 percent of American households fell victim to property crimes. In 2000 (the most recent data available), only about 20 percent did. Among the economically powerful democracies in the Group of Seven, only the Japanese now have a lower victimization rate than the United States.
Great Britains own Home Office, with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, shows that the US, with it's lax gun control laws, has less crime. And that using categories like 'property crime' and 'violent crime,' which clearly indicate that it's one person commiting a crime against another, contrary to your "Gun Deaths."
Also, none of this has mentioned how often guns are brandished or used to prevent crimes. (A legitimate gun death- where someone acted in self defense- would not be listed as homicide)Defensive gun uses have been estimated anywhere as low as 4.32 (National Crime Victimization survey) per 100K to as high as 103 (Dr. Kleck, Florida State University). If the truth lies in between, as is likely, the presence of guns offers a net benefit to society. Defensive Gun Uses include instances where simply brandishing the fire arm was enough to deter the criminal, and other instances where the criminal was shot)
Now, the article I cite goes on to list other reasons why the US crime rate has fallen, outside of firearm possesion. All things being equal though, I would much rather have the option to defend myself, my family, and my friends with the most effective means available- a firearm. Your gun control clearly doesn't make you any safer.
Also, if you think only cops should have guns- in the US, Police shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. Private citizens do so only 2% of the time.
I think I'll keep the loose United States gun laws, thank you, and you Europeans can laugh until the armed thug knocks on your door. Natural rights exist regardless of how bizzare you think they are, and you're better off exercising them then not.
Set. Bump. Spike. Thank you, come again.
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine- all in New England (the Northeastern part of the United States) are all basically crime free (47,48, and 49th on the list of violence by state. 50 States, by the way) because the people are good, honest, and hardworking. The fact that these states have loose gun control laws help keep things that way.
The same cannot be said for many other areas of the country, where scum can be found on every corner. The United states is a large country, with every kind of metropolitan area you can imagine. It's just a little bit harder to keep everyone in lockstep over here because of that.
Please read my response to the other swiss who posted, as if I typed on, I'd repeat myself.
I care little what the world thinks, because it's always popular to pick on the biggest kid on the block. Nor should the derision of other countries make any lick of difference to our core principles. If they care to piss away their natural rights in the name of being progressive, and laugh at us while we preserve them- then so be it.
;) )only read some on the subject.
Call the US gun crazy, if you will- but from what I understand, the Swiss are the most armed people on the face of the earth, per capita, not Americans. Regardless for the reasons you are armed, the fact remains that every household has at least one military firearm, doesn't it? Might this not have the slightest detterent effect on crime?
The reason you'll find loudmouths like me vicously defending our individual right to keep and bear arms is because there are many people in our society and government seek to restrict this basic right- a problem you don't seriously have in Switzerland, from what I understand.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I've never traveled outside the US (Canada doesn't exactly count, because to the casual observer, they just use different money
Well, you're absolutely right, with the guns people are allowed to purchase now, your average citizen would stand no chance against artillery or light armor. You might want to consider, though, how likely it would be that anyone would order domestic artillery or light armor strikes, no matter how difficult the situation. But it's late at night, and I don't feel like arguing that point right now, so I'll move on.
Firearms are tools, Period. They can be used for self-defense, for crime, or in some historic events, revolution. The history of the US, and the history of Switzerland, and now even Israel, show that honest folk are the majority, and the more of them that go around armed, the less crime there is, or the lesser the impact of it. (armed Israeli citizens where instrumental in stopping a recent machine gun attack at a shopping plaza. Armed El Al employees stopped the July fourth attack at LAX, not any US cops or TSA employees)
So if you think that Concealed Carry Permit holders should be licensed like drivers, I agree with you, provided they are licensed exactly like cars.
1. There are no restrictions on the possession or use of an automobile on private property. You can let your twelve year old son drive your F-350 across the family farm if you care to. The F-350 need not be registered or insured, though you'd have to pay taxes on it. The same should be true for guns- no restrictions on the possesion or storage of any reasonable firearm on one's own private property. (I happen to think reasonable is anything short of Anti Aircraft Batteries. Think it's crazy? The swiss allow their citizens to own anti aircraft guns. Your line may be different.)
2. Licenses are issued without question to all who qualify.
3. Associated costs are not so high as to prevent those who may need to defend themselves the most- poor inner city folk, for example.
4. A Concealed Carry Permit in one state is valid in any other.
5. There are no waiting periods associated with purchasing guns, nor any limit to the amount of guns one may purchase.
6. Operating or brandishing a firearm while intoxicated would definatly be illegal.
As for the brady bill saving lives- the Journal of the American Medical Association seems to think they haven't done a thing: "Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."
Full text here
Based on that, I would have to say that the Brady Bill hasn't stopped any domestic disputes from turning into murder, Unless you find the AMA to be less than authoritative in matters of public health.
I personally think that waiting periods are actually more dangerous to women, as if they know they are in imminent danger from an estranged husband or boyfriend, they are unable to arm themselves. A woman with a gun can stop an attacking man. A woman without a gun stands much less of a chance, as most men are physically stronger and larger than most women.
Quoting Jacob Sullum from reason online (only because he says it well)Supporters say a waiting period allows potential murderers time to "cool off." But anyone who leaves the scene of an argument, drives to a gun shop, buys a weapon, loads it with ammunition, and returns to kill his interlocutor can hardly be said to be acting in the heat of the moment.
I was going to post alot more, then I realized you're in support of handguns for self defense, so if I prattled on, it would be pointless.
Blame the puffy, middle aged guys named Chuck who think that the right to own firearms is the only civil libery that matters, since it's the only civil liberty you can use to make an exciting loud noise and put holes in cans.
For the most part, I agree with you, but not with this crack about firearms. If you where trolling, or being sarcastic, I'll bite regardless.
It may be the only civil liberty that matters, because as armed citizens, it allows us to preserve all the other civil liberties. The world, or our nation, is not so utopian, so full of people looking out only for their brethen, so lacking in criminals, as to allow us to disarm ourselves.
Criminals prowl our streets. But they do so with far less frequency in areas where even a 20th of the population is likely to be armed (florida-they still go after tourists- Vermont, New Hampshire, or, for the Europeans out there, switzerland.) The police have no obligation to protect you (see Riss vs. New York City)so you must protect yourself. The surest way to do that is to own a firearm, and know how to use it.
Our government is infringing on our rights more each day- being a low user number slashdotter, I'm sure you've been reading about the DMCA and it's ilk for quite some time. How long before our own government becomes as oppressive as Great Brittain was originally? Betcha it'll be a lot longer- if ever- as long as the populace is well armed. Incidentally, the United Kingdom now has the strictest gun control laws in Europe- and the highest violent, confrontational crime rate. (Google cache of Boston Globe)
Gun Restricting laws protect no one but criminals, because only honest people obey them. If someone is willing to ignore laws about theft, rape, and murder, what makes you think they'll obey gun laws?
The right to live includes the right to defend one's life effectively. This was once best done with a spear, then a sword, then a musket, now a handgun. The right to defend our lives against the lawless, and ourselves against tyranny, ensures all other rights. Without the natural right (listed, not given by the 2nd Amendment) to arms, all your other rights are disposable at the conveinance of criminals or the ruling class.
Karma to Burn, do your worst moderators
Their problems aren't entirely their own fault. Read all about it here
Basically, it seems that congress has been using the patent office as a source of income, draining off millions of dollars that would be spend reviewing applications- seems like a good 15-20% of the fees that companies pay aren't used for reviewing applications at all.
I'm not completely relieving the PO of blame, but it's something to think about anyway.
I think they're full of crap about the shell. The reason that Depleted Uranium in tank shells, A-10 bullets, and Tank armor is not because it's particularly strong (it might be, but it's not terribly relevant).
It's because it's the most dense material known to man. Shells made of DU have ridiculous amounts of kinetic energy, and armor made of DU have an unprecidented ability to stop it. Hence, stories like this happen. (link contains general information about the use of DU in M1A1 tanks)
1. 99.99 percent of the time, it can wait.
Yeah, see the thing is, I don't want to be reached all the time. Right now, there is no reason any one would need to contact me urgently. Whatever it is, it can wait. If it's that much of an emergency that you have to get in touch with me, maybe you should call 911 first.
Thats why my cell phone sits in a drawer, and is only pulled out and activated when I move someplace where I can't get a land line. (I'm a college student, the moving every 9/3 months thing is getting old fast...)
I understand that there are certain careers where you do need to be in touch all the time, but if I'm not in one, the cell phone stays in the drawer.
And -- would the average person fly in a radically new, untested airframe?
Boeing has a solid method of both ensuring an plane's good design and ensuring the public that their plane is airworthy.
The send the design engineers out with pretty much all the first flights. As a budding mechanical engineer, that's damn good motivation for me to make sure my plane is designed well.
If you read the article, the slashdot headline is crap.
If you read MSNBC alot, like I do, you'll find:
1. It's a hell of a lot more responsible, journalism wise, then abcnews.
2. They are not shy about printing articles that put MS in a bad light.
Sections like letters to the editor (where they frequently publish letters from people who sharply disagree with them) and their Ombudsman (currently the position is unfilled, the last guy moved on after a year) used to publically evaluate their journalistic practices and comment or criticize them, by their own employee, has caused me to respect them a great deal.
Say what you like about MS, but MSNBC is a great news site.
You'll notice how Sega is no longer in the console business, and is now making games for Sony and Nintendo.
Sega tried that method, and it blew up in their face. Microsoft is having a hard time with it, but they have so much cash they can take it for a while. Not that they'll ever make money on it though.
There's no reason they need to make N templates for N CD's. That would be a huge waste of resources. all they gotta do is put all the alphanumeric characters they use on a series of wheel-presses (think of it as an odometer, with letters on it)that spin to the right Key each time a new CD comes along.
Though the mechanism would have to be very precise and very fast, it's well within the manufacturing capabilities of any company that makes CD's ( A high precision exercise anyway.)
Actually, they do go after the small guys- just not maliciously- I have a friend who runs a small computer company and he's told me hows he's gone to some Microsoft conferences, and they loaded him and other small companies up with goodies (including 10 or so free XP licenses, he can do as he wishes with them), and gave them the tools to do automated setups (He still had to program a lot of it himself, but he's a frickin' genius anyway). We've talked about this stuff alot, and he never said anything about restrictive licenses-he does sell other OS's.
Incidentally, check them out if you need parts- they don't pull any creative bullshit with shipping charges, test everything in house, and have a good return policy. Plus the prices are good.
Yeah, he's my best friend. So call me biased.
"foreigners have a hard time differenciating between the bills"
does the phonecian numbering system still present a problem for some corners of the earth? I wasn't aware that the roman or summerian numerals where still in use.
Or is the next 'new math' going to be based on adding colors, instead of numbers? Yeah, you gave me two blues ($5) and a yellow ($10), so thats a blue-green ($20.)
Right. There are better reasons that this.
They say that we couldn't see this one because it came from the direction of the sun- but it also wasn't big enough to cause any global damage, just to mess up about 2000 square km.
See, I figure, anything big enough to do some real hurt coming from the direction of the sun, we should be able to notice by the eclipse...
"Gee, I didn't hear anything in the news about an eclipse- and since when did the moon get that shape?"
Run for your lives if you ever see an unscheduled eclipse, folks. Though I don't know where you'd run to, only that running would surely get your mind off of your impending doom.
Have a nice day!
I've worked with a number of PC's that have chassis intrusion detection. Admittedly, it's a simple switch connected to a register that can only be reset in passworded BIOS.
This guy is writing like it's news or something. I read the brief file, and it looks like he just figured out what I first saw years ago.
And also, the classic phrase:
if you don't have physical security, you have no security at all.
You have ever right to lend the latest Britney Spears album to a friend. It falls well under fair use, and they can't take that away by simply putting in an EULA for a freakin CD.
For movies, last time I read the FBI warning, it mentioned things like 'public viewings' and 'commercial displays'. It never says anything about lending. Go read it again.
The thing that sould most interest you, however, is how good of a friend you lend it to. If they never give it back, they have your best interests in mind, and have shown there trueness.
Now, a Satriani, Mudhens, or Beethoven album, they damn well better give back.
For those interested, the case is Riss vs. City of New York:
http://www.heartland.org/perspectives/911.htm
hehe silly, over taxed canadians. I'm buying here in New Hampshire for USD$69.99, collectors addition- no tax.
Of course, thats probably CD$200...
Yes, but not in any observable time frame. IE, glass from a century or two ago wouldn't have distorted a measurable amount. The original poster is correct, they couldn't make an even sheet of glass.
Haven't used it, because I haven't used a P2P network in a year or two, but it's worth a look:
hksfv32
As a side note, AIM+ is a great program for fellow AIM addicts.
Actually, in a case a few years ago in New York City, the courts ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you against an obvious threat.
The matter arose when a woman had a stalker she knew of, and after a couple of non-fatal attacks, was begging the police for protection. They didn't provide it, and the lady was eventually killed. Her relatives sued NYPD claiming they should have protected her against such an obvious danger.
The courts said no.
It is your obligation to protect yourself. It is the obligation of the police to clean up after crimes have been commited.
Which is why he posted the story- to punish him for thinking he's creative when he's not. What better way to get the point across than to initiate a core melt down of his ipaq?
International folks- and your communications with them- are offered no protection under our constitution. So it's perfectly legal.
I have no clue how they would store it- some discussion has postulated that it would be analyzed on-site, and only relevant parts stored for later retrieval. They'd periodically have to update it's rules, but that wouldn't be hard with it in place.
The Mudhens. My favorite band lately. kind of folk-rock-latin-alternative stuff. give it a shot, you'll probably like it.
They're not really like anyone else out there, so I can't give an analogy. Or maybe I'm no good at analogizing bands.
Either way, check them out.