In an unregulated market, being honest means that your product/service will appear "crappy" when it is compared to something that it represented dishonestly. The biggest scam artist rises to the top.
Only idiots or suckers get a law degree these days. There are no jobs for lawyers, and they teach you nothing you actually need to do the job in school.
Eliminate all H1b visa's and that so called demand results increases in pay, other compensation and scheduling flexibility until more people have the incentive to move into those positions. Who would guess that high demand might increase the price of a scarce supply of goods(labor)?
As the amount of ammunition you fire in a given time frame goes up, you become a better shot and effectively more responsible. A person who shoots a thousand rounds a year is much more likely to hit their target than someone who shot one box of ammo 5 years ago then tucked it away in a drawer.
When shooting in defense, you shoot until the threat ends. One bullet may be enough to kill anyone, but one bullet is often not enough to end the immediate threat an attacker poses to you. Depending on a large number of factors, most of them beyond your control, 10 rounds may only be enough to end the threat of 1 or 2 attackers even if all your shots are hits.
Ballistic tests are not unique and reliable enough to work as a decryption key. Guns wear over time, different bullets have different physical qualities that may affect how they are marked, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect match.
I would see your point if the majority of the gun control proposals were aimed at promoting responsible gun use/storage or providing disincentives for irresponsible gun use/storage.
But most of what I see is people trying to ban black rifles and external magazines over 10 rounds, which do absolutely nothing to address those issues.
I would be fine with it if someone had to pass a test demonstrating an understanding of gun safety and local self defense laws before buying a firearm, with the option to apply for a license so that he does not have to retake the test every time he buys a gun.
I would be fine with it if background checks were required for personal firearms sales, provided a simple and affordable means of doing so were made publicly available.
I would also be fine with it if they made it a crime (negligence of some kind) if you claimed that a gun was stolen, but did not file a report, and your gun was used in a violent crime.
I would even be fine with a national digital firearms registry, if there was not such a push to ban guns of various types.
Not really. You don't need a license to own a gun. Most jurisdictions require you to have a license to carry a gun in public (concealed or occasionally open carry). Almost all the regulations in the US surrounding guns concern the sale or public carry/use of guns.
In the UK, if you built your own car and never drove it off your own property, would you still need to pay that road tax?
You can make a gun with a set of simple metal working tools.
Under current law, you can make a gun yourself, and use it (varies by state). But to sell it, you must apply for a serial number and affix it permanently to the weapon. There are a crap ton of regulations that make that process of making a manufactured gun legal to sell a rather fiddly and complex process.
A lot of smart people like guns. And owning a gun only really increases my chances of getting killed if I were suicidal. Because eating a bullet is more reliable than a painkiller od, or cutting ones wrists, or jumping out a window.
The neurological effects of lead are known and reproducible. Translating individual effects to society effects is an exercise in statistics because you can not create isolated control groups in society without adding extraneous and often unmeasurable effects.
There is almost no such thing as an absolute scientific proof in sociology. The best you can do is lower the error bars of your statistical model of highly correlated qualities.
That does sound kinda sexist, probably because it is.
I too was a lazy screwup that passed with 'b's in every class while sleeping through it and doing no homework. That was because I was a genius and everything came naturally. I've only ever met 1 person that I can unquestionably say was my intellectual superior, and she was a chick.
And all of that has nothing to do with which side has the higher average intelligence.
Girls are not smarter because the smartest person I know is a chick.
Guys are not smarter because most of the geniuses I know, myself included, are guys.
Even if there are more male smart people in my male dominated field of CS/Math, that does not mean that men are smarter either, it is biased by the rarity of women in this field. It would be like going to a construction crew and trying to figure out if men are dumber than women because there are more of them there.
Women on average do better at education and common intellectual jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
In an unregulated market, being honest means that your product/service will appear "crappy" when it is compared to something that it represented dishonestly. The biggest scam artist rises to the top.
Pfft. I can simulate supersonic jet noise just by overclocking my Radeon 7970.
Only idiots or suckers get a law degree these days. There are no jobs for lawyers, and they teach you nothing you actually need to do the job in school.
Locals would be more willing to take a position if a competitive wage, benefits and scheduling flexibility option was actually offered.
Eliminate all H1b visa's and that so called demand results increases in pay, other compensation and scheduling flexibility until more people have the incentive to move into those positions. Who would guess that high demand might increase the price of a scarce supply of goods(labor)?
Good to know she merely the "fountain of youth" not the "fountain of immortality".
It says its as strong as carbon fiber, which is a high tensile strength material, that can exceed the strength of steel
#1 visiting slashdot
And that is why military snipers are trained to manufacture their own ammunition to precise standards.
As the amount of ammunition you fire in a given time frame goes up, you become a better shot and effectively more responsible. A person who shoots a thousand rounds a year is much more likely to hit their target than someone who shot one box of ammo 5 years ago then tucked it away in a drawer.
When shooting in defense, you shoot until the threat ends. One bullet may be enough to kill anyone, but one bullet is often not enough to end the immediate threat an attacker poses to you. Depending on a large number of factors, most of them beyond your control, 10 rounds may only be enough to end the threat of 1 or 2 attackers even if all your shots are hits.
Ballistic tests are not unique and reliable enough to work as a decryption key. Guns wear over time, different bullets have different physical qualities that may affect how they are marked, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect match.
I would see your point if the majority of the gun control proposals were aimed at promoting responsible gun use/storage or providing disincentives for irresponsible gun use/storage.
But most of what I see is people trying to ban black rifles and external magazines over 10 rounds, which do absolutely nothing to address those issues.
I would be fine with it if someone had to pass a test demonstrating an understanding of gun safety and local self defense laws before buying a firearm, with the option to apply for a license so that he does not have to retake the test every time he buys a gun.
I would be fine with it if background checks were required for personal firearms sales, provided a simple and affordable means of doing so were made publicly available.
I would also be fine with it if they made it a crime (negligence of some kind) if you claimed that a gun was stolen, but did not file a report, and your gun was used in a violent crime.
I would even be fine with a national digital firearms registry, if there was not such a push to ban guns of various types.
Not really. You don't need a license to own a gun. Most jurisdictions require you to have a license to carry a gun in public (concealed or occasionally open carry). Almost all the regulations in the US surrounding guns concern the sale or public carry/use of guns.
In the UK, if you built your own car and never drove it off your own property, would you still need to pay that road tax?
You can make a gun with a set of simple metal working tools.
Under current law, you can make a gun yourself, and use it (varies by state). But to sell it, you must apply for a serial number and affix it permanently to the weapon. There are a crap ton of regulations that make that process of making a manufactured gun legal to sell a rather fiddly and complex process.
Its more like penises are ruined because they were used in a blowjob.
Guns are not bad things, even if they are something you are not comfortable with.
Killing someone is the most certain means of stopping someone. And when the life of an innocent is on the line, it is no time to take half measures.
And there is no such thing as a non-lethal attack capable of reliably disabling a person.
Everything that is capable of disabling a person is also capable of killing them.
A lot of smart people like guns. And owning a gun only really increases my chances of getting killed if I were suicidal. Because eating a bullet is more reliable than a painkiller od, or cutting ones wrists, or jumping out a window.
There are a number of pink guns out there.
A lot of them are custom, but I know at least one .22 carbine that comes from that factory in pink for introducing young girls to shooting.
I've read dumber, but this is pretty close.
A gun needs to work reliably every time.
LD50 does not account for long term damage caused by persistent exposure.
The neurological effects of lead are known and reproducible. Translating individual effects to society effects is an exercise in statistics because you can not create isolated control groups in society without adding extraneous and often unmeasurable effects.
There is almost no such thing as an absolute scientific proof in sociology. The best you can do is lower the error bars of your statistical model of highly correlated qualities.
Surface contaminants are possible to wash off, GMO infused contaminants can not.
Congratulations, that doesn't mean GMO is always good.
It is a bad thing to breed pesticides into our food supply without absolute certainty of they are safe.
It is not a bad thing to have to label GMO foods for what they are.
What if his son is running a business by selling his services as an ingame assassin?
Yes, a 'B' because they take of 10 points for not giving a fuck.
That does sound kinda sexist, probably because it is.
I too was a lazy screwup that passed with 'b's in every class while sleeping through it and doing no homework. That was because I was a genius and everything came naturally. I've only ever met 1 person that I can unquestionably say was my intellectual superior, and she was a chick.
And all of that has nothing to do with which side has the higher average intelligence.
Girls are not smarter because the smartest person I know is a chick.
Guys are not smarter because most of the geniuses I know, myself included, are guys.
Even if there are more male smart people in my male dominated field of CS/Math, that does not mean that men are smarter either, it is biased by the rarity of women in this field. It would be like going to a construction crew and trying to figure out if men are dumber than women because there are more of them there.
Women on average do better at education and common intellectual jobs.