Most of the issue I have with this is that instead of looking at the symptoms (youth deciding to kill people, with firearms), we should be looking at the cause (why the fuck do they even want to do that?) which I believe fails. I believe there are plenty of ways to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people, which is what I was trying to show.
Now, a good question would be why Switzerland, who used to (and I think it still does, but I remember there being a call to change it) train most of their population in the art of being a soldier (and thus know how to use firearms effectively) and has the policy to keep the military equipment at home (for those in service) has not hit the headlines with this kind of events.
And here is the thing: maybe, just maybe, those countries with strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres because their population doesn't want to shoot people at a school. Maybe, just maybe, gun control only defines how severe the outburst are, instead of how often (always remembering that you can buy guns illegally).
Another good question to ask is: how many outburst are there in which there was violence (a kid gets fed up and punches somebody else)? Would they have ended in a massacre if there had been a gun involved? What about other tools, such a chemicals, a knife? Why are these outburst happening (if at all)? Why does a youth feel the desire to just kill who is supposed to be their community, their pillars? It's kind of like: why would a child have the desire/need to shoot their parents?
I feel that we get lost in the talk about "gun control" and never make the step towards asking "why". Then again, I don't even think most people care anyway.
I don't think the united states even tries. Or maybe they haven't been willing to increase the funding for mental health care. Or maybe it never reaches the news. Either way, I don't think you can say that USA has been trying hard at it, specially after these kind of events. It always seems to be the guns fault. And I always seem to think: there are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people without needing to fire a bullet (some include projectiles, some don't; some require time, some are more immediate).
Did you know that with some kind of explosive (preferably one that you can remotely detonate) and some coins (easily available) you probably can kill or severely injure a lot more people than you can with a firearm? The ensuring explosion is like a frag grenade, except you can make it a lot bigger and lethal. Bonus points for triggering it in a cafeteria o some other kind of eating place with lots of people.
OTOH I wonder what would the effects be if somebody grabbed some Uranium (apparently you can order some from Amazon for testing and calibrating devices) and slipped it into the food. Or some other kind of chemical.
But hey, you are right. Imposing more restrictions on firearms will surely reduce casualties. Unless you happen to stumble on somebody with a lot of determination and nothing to lose.
IIRC the library function is a plug-in. At least, that's what I remember from setting it up. Besides that, it has worked pretty well for me (I'm a new user, though).
For the trained eye? Sure. For the masses? No. The difference we'll see will be mostly in the little details (hair/fur, clothing [maybe we'll finally get clothing that actually behaves like clothing instead of a mesh on all characters], reflections and just generally better lighting, non-shitty water [it's coming, it's coming!], and just maybe we'll stop using sprites for beams and related) , and the amount of things in the scene (and their detail).
Sure. Now, I'm not saying that Teslas can't be improved (everything can always be improved). In all this, I'm wondering if a battery fire isn't along the least dangerous results in such an accident under realistic security measures (cost vs effectiveness using current technology), considering that in none of the cases observed have the drivers lost control of the car. For example, I think I'd be fine with a fire that doesn't burn me vs no fire but I lose control of the car, if we were talking about certain odds, which is way too far from the unpredictable reality. Then again, humans can't judge the probability of something rare happening that well anyway.
OTOH, comparing the safety of a car is really hard since different design choices will lead to different damage caused by the same situation. After all, just as you said, different cars do react differently.
Question: what would have been the possible consequence of a car running over the same debris, and not having the battery (would you have a sheet of metal the same thickness in the same place if there wasn't a battery there?) in that spot? Please be clear in your answer, I want to understand your position better.
Okay. Questions to you: a) where would you put the battery? I know you are not the one who is supposed to fix it, but it usually helps to think about these things at least a bit to understand better the point of view of others AND to let others understand just how much thought you have given this and just how solid are your arguments. b) assuming there as no battery there, what would have been the consequences of the same crash? I think that, if the battery was not there (and for the sake of argument, we'll say that it's somewhere that wouldn't get hit), there wouldn't be that much of a reason to have such a thick place in the same place (below the driver and passengers). What would have happened then?; c) and assuming there was indeed such metal sheet protecting the underside of the car, what would be the costs of placing the battery somewhere else and protecting it sufficiently (both in monetary cost and in performance cost, the risks a battery on a different place, etc.)?
I ask because you claim very very strongly that Teslas are not safe and that Tesla doesn't try to fix the issue, yet you only provide statistics (that I don't even know if they are significant enough to allow anybody to draw conclusions from them) and the claim that the battery is "in a stupid fucking spot", which I can't really tell if it's a stupid spot or not since I don't posses the knowledge to know why it's such a bad idea to place it there while protecting it, nor where else could it go while being safer, nor why the decisions were made (costs vs safety? Maybe putting it somewhere else would have made the car too inefficient or too costly vs too little added safety). If you plan on swaying people to believe what you believe, I think you need to expose your arguments more than so far.
Ah, but then... here is the very important part: it's open for abuse. The system you mention is a very good system as long as the one doing the checking is wise enough to not push it too far. But it can be very easy to think people should be doing more (the stereotypical boss who wants more productivity and doesn't care about how it works in practice, or looks at the wrong productivity signals [tickets solved vs difficulty/importance of tickets solved]), and/or sanction things that you normally wouldn't even if you knew them.
That aside, it seems silly to enact the law because anybody who would get a weapon inside a high security area without authorization to do so probably doesn't care about any kind of law...
If I were an employer, beyond criminal record, I don't think I should care what my employees did or do or will do in their free time. It doesn't make much sense to me to try to use that information when hiring. Not even because "culture", because that should be something you see during what should be your interview.
Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive positions where the person may have access to sensitive information, but whoever is doing that will probably employ more sophisticate methods to profiling. I hope.
I'd like to hear what the reasons are for those that agree with using social networks and information found on the internet when hiring. I might be wrong or missing something.
The question then would be: what could slashdotters do to lower that threshold you mention? To me, it seems that the discussion is mostly stuck inside the people already past that threshold and is of no interest to most other people (right now). It's kind of like... It seems that the slashdot group (and similar groups that also care about this) is having a serious case of... let me call it inbreeding for lack of a better word.
I was thinking very much this. You don't even need to use a septic tank: all you need is that it never reaches the sewer system. Just get it into some kind of barrel or tank, bury it if you so desire (at your house or somewhere else) and continue as planned. If it leaks or somebody manages to see it, it'll too late or they were already suspecting you were making a bomb and were actively looking at you.
It does rise the question, imo, of whether or not a society can be a society without that invasion of privacy. But, of course, we would be going beyond the scope of this story.
They are not new, and most people think that forging and related practices by people are no longer happening, with most of the trade being done by computer from an encrypted file nobody has access to. O wait.
Really, it's all a matter of perception. Most people don't have in their minds that you can use a plasma cutter/etc. (or well, if you are so inclined maybe you can forge one yourself by hand, if you are so inclined) to produce a firearm (or other potentially lethal weapons), while there has been a lot of media attention to the fact that people are trying (and succeeded, but recently) to produce most of a firearm (but not all) with plastic (instead of metal).
This is where I see it going, to be honest. I would not expect to see a world rid of human-driven cars (just as we still see people use arrow and bow to hunt), but the majority of the cars will be autonomous. The upside: less cars, more people share the cost of maintaining the car, no need to "buy" it, shift of the responsibility of maintaining the good conditions of the car shift towards a company dedicated to that instead of average Joe that has a life besides the car. The obvious changes these upsides would have in our daily lives are surely easy to see.
All I would like is the ability to still drive around on my own, regardless of the dominance of autonomous cars.
Sure, let's build various cities with different architectures and long roads surrounded by nothing but desert, a road through the woods (that gets all orange from the leaves during autumn), long stretches of highways and side roads that lead you through some fields.
I'd like to drive one day and just drive around, having the experience of driving, and experience going around with me and my car and the scenery going by. Cities, farms, going up the mountain, through the woods, or just a long drive through the equivalent of a desert.
Now, where would exactly we fit all this, in your "race tracks"?
I do understand the desire for safety. I do understand the desire for efficiency. I lived in Venezuela, Caracas, and I know what a long wait inside the car is (although I've heard it's gotten worse nowadays. Glad I don't live there anymore). It's boring, annoying and a waste of resources. And I didn't want to be "there". But I do want to drive around. Me, myself. Not a computer. No. Me, the car and the road.
That is assuming most people will use those extra 30 minutes to sleep. I don't think they will. I think it will translate in going to bed a little later because now can leave your house 30 minutes later, so don't need to wake up as early, so don't need to go to bed as early (or can go to bed later).
Man, that seems like a sensible thing to do. It's not good, suggesting sensible things. Why don't you please come by to our brain-washi-- I mean, educational center? You clearly need it.
This is my perception of it, too. Anybody willing to disprove/confirm/comment on this? Maybe whether or not Canonical might be right with mir? Or with anything else they have done for that matter?
AFAIK, one of the things that Canonical has done is do what it's best for them without caring about what others need (they have needs different from the rest of the developers/projects, from the looks of their projects) and that has not been well received by others since they see it as ^. And it very much looks like that too from here.
That sounds like a fireteam and the squad leader (if we go by ShackTack's organization, which seems like a pretty good idea on paper and it seems to work). If I recall correctly in America's Army 3 you are basically a single squad with various 3 fireteams and a squad leader (I might be wrong about this, but it IS a squad). A squad in Operation Flashpoint was maximum 12 people (which gives you yourself, a medic, and 2 groups of 5 people, or 3 groups of 4 people).
It really depends on what you consider a squad (to me 4 or 5 is too small) and what you are going to do with it.
But then shouldn't we have geo-blocking according to the different laws? Some things are illegal in some countries while others are illegal in others. AFAIK in the USA there is this law that says that as long as your art work has artistic merit, it can contain obscene and/or illegal content.
My "issue" (it isn't really one) is that the companies are deciding to not sell it at all (was already a policy to begin with) instead of trying to get them a protected section (which is what people complain about: that there is no age check whatsoever when looking for this content). It just tells me that if I want to sell something like that, I'm better off trying to sell it on my own instead of using a big store*.
*And big stores are big exactly because they make sure to not carry offensive content at all in any section. AFAIK there isn't even a adult section on most big store chains and the like.
However, parent has a good point: why isn't there a store dedicated to this? I'd certainly go there, even if only to see what kind of things people write about.
Actually, is anybody willing to share information about such store?
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the issue I have with this is that instead of looking at the symptoms (youth deciding to kill people, with firearms), we should be looking at the cause (why the fuck do they even want to do that?) which I believe fails. I believe there are plenty of ways to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people, which is what I was trying to show.
Now, a good question would be why Switzerland, who used to (and I think it still does, but I remember there being a call to change it) train most of their population in the art of being a soldier (and thus know how to use firearms effectively) and has the policy to keep the military equipment at home (for those in service) has not hit the headlines with this kind of events.
And here is the thing: maybe, just maybe, those countries with strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres because their population doesn't want to shoot people at a school. Maybe, just maybe, gun control only defines how severe the outburst are, instead of how often (always remembering that you can buy guns illegally).
Another good question to ask is: how many outburst are there in which there was violence (a kid gets fed up and punches somebody else)? Would they have ended in a massacre if there had been a gun involved? What about other tools, such a chemicals, a knife? Why are these outburst happening (if at all)? Why does a youth feel the desire to just kill who is supposed to be their community, their pillars? It's kind of like: why would a child have the desire/need to shoot their parents?
I feel that we get lost in the talk about "gun control" and never make the step towards asking "why". Then again, I don't even think most people care anyway.
Yes. This is the thing nobody seems to care about. The thing nobody focuses on.
That doesn't mean you should stop trying,
I don't think the united states even tries. Or maybe they haven't been willing to increase the funding for mental health care. Or maybe it never reaches the news. Either way, I don't think you can say that USA has been trying hard at it, specially after these kind of events. It always seems to be the guns fault. And I always seem to think: there are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people without needing to fire a bullet (some include projectiles, some don't; some require time, some are more immediate).
Did you know that with some kind of explosive (preferably one that you can remotely detonate) and some coins (easily available) you probably can kill or severely injure a lot more people than you can with a firearm? The ensuring explosion is like a frag grenade, except you can make it a lot bigger and lethal. Bonus points for triggering it in a cafeteria o some other kind of eating place with lots of people.
OTOH I wonder what would the effects be if somebody grabbed some Uranium (apparently you can order some from Amazon for testing and calibrating devices) and slipped it into the food. Or some other kind of chemical.
But hey, you are right. Imposing more restrictions on firearms will surely reduce casualties. Unless you happen to stumble on somebody with a lot of determination and nothing to lose.
IIRC the library function is a plug-in. At least, that's what I remember from setting it up. Besides that, it has worked pretty well for me (I'm a new user, though).
Other than that, it is a fine audio player.
For the trained eye? Sure. For the masses? No. The difference we'll see will be mostly in the little details (hair/fur, clothing [maybe we'll finally get clothing that actually behaves like clothing instead of a mesh on all characters], reflections and just generally better lighting, non-shitty water [it's coming, it's coming!], and just maybe we'll stop using sprites for beams and related) , and the amount of things in the scene (and their detail).
Sure. Now, I'm not saying that Teslas can't be improved (everything can always be improved). In all this, I'm wondering if a battery fire isn't along the least dangerous results in such an accident under realistic security measures (cost vs effectiveness using current technology), considering that in none of the cases observed have the drivers lost control of the car. For example, I think I'd be fine with a fire that doesn't burn me vs no fire but I lose control of the car, if we were talking about certain odds, which is way too far from the unpredictable reality. Then again, humans can't judge the probability of something rare happening that well anyway.
OTOH, comparing the safety of a car is really hard since different design choices will lead to different damage caused by the same situation. After all, just as you said, different cars do react differently.
Thanks for answering!
Question: what would have been the possible consequence of a car running over the same debris, and not having the battery (would you have a sheet of metal the same thickness in the same place if there wasn't a battery there?) in that spot? Please be clear in your answer, I want to understand your position better.
Okay. Questions to you: a) where would you put the battery? I know you are not the one who is supposed to fix it, but it usually helps to think about these things at least a bit to understand better the point of view of others AND to let others understand just how much thought you have given this and just how solid are your arguments. b) assuming there as no battery there, what would have been the consequences of the same crash? I think that, if the battery was not there (and for the sake of argument, we'll say that it's somewhere that wouldn't get hit), there wouldn't be that much of a reason to have such a thick place in the same place (below the driver and passengers). What would have happened then?; c) and assuming there was indeed such metal sheet protecting the underside of the car, what would be the costs of placing the battery somewhere else and protecting it sufficiently (both in monetary cost and in performance cost, the risks a battery on a different place, etc.)?
I ask because you claim very very strongly that Teslas are not safe and that Tesla doesn't try to fix the issue, yet you only provide statistics (that I don't even know if they are significant enough to allow anybody to draw conclusions from them) and the claim that the battery is "in a stupid fucking spot", which I can't really tell if it's a stupid spot or not since I don't posses the knowledge to know why it's such a bad idea to place it there while protecting it, nor where else could it go while being safer, nor why the decisions were made (costs vs safety? Maybe putting it somewhere else would have made the car too inefficient or too costly vs too little added safety). If you plan on swaying people to believe what you believe, I think you need to expose your arguments more than so far.
Ah, but then... here is the very important part: it's open for abuse. The system you mention is a very good system as long as the one doing the checking is wise enough to not push it too far. But it can be very easy to think people should be doing more (the stereotypical boss who wants more productivity and doesn't care about how it works in practice, or looks at the wrong productivity signals [tickets solved vs difficulty/importance of tickets solved]), and/or sanction things that you normally wouldn't even if you knew them.
That aside, it seems silly to enact the law because anybody who would get a weapon inside a high security area without authorization to do so probably doesn't care about any kind of law...
Yes, this and child comments are exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for sharing.
If I were an employer, beyond criminal record, I don't think I should care what my employees did or do or will do in their free time. It doesn't make much sense to me to try to use that information when hiring. Not even because "culture", because that should be something you see during what should be your interview.
Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive positions where the person may have access to sensitive information, but whoever is doing that will probably employ more sophisticate methods to profiling. I hope.
I'd like to hear what the reasons are for those that agree with using social networks and information found on the internet when hiring. I might be wrong or missing something.
The question then would be: what could slashdotters do to lower that threshold you mention? To me, it seems that the discussion is mostly stuck inside the people already past that threshold and is of no interest to most other people (right now). It's kind of like... It seems that the slashdot group (and similar groups that also care about this) is having a serious case of... let me call it inbreeding for lack of a better word.
... Right?...
I was thinking very much this. You don't even need to use a septic tank: all you need is that it never reaches the sewer system. Just get it into some kind of barrel or tank, bury it if you so desire (at your house or somewhere else) and continue as planned. If it leaks or somebody manages to see it, it'll too late or they were already suspecting you were making a bomb and were actively looking at you.
It does rise the question, imo, of whether or not a society can be a society without that invasion of privacy. But, of course, we would be going beyond the scope of this story.
They are not new, and most people think that forging and related practices by people are no longer happening, with most of the trade being done by computer from an encrypted file nobody has access to. O wait.
Really, it's all a matter of perception. Most people don't have in their minds that you can use a plasma cutter/etc. (or well, if you are so inclined maybe you can forge one yourself by hand, if you are so inclined) to produce a firearm (or other potentially lethal weapons), while there has been a lot of media attention to the fact that people are trying (and succeeded, but recently) to produce most of a firearm (but not all) with plastic (instead of metal).
This is where I see it going, to be honest. I would not expect to see a world rid of human-driven cars (just as we still see people use arrow and bow to hunt), but the majority of the cars will be autonomous. The upside: less cars, more people share the cost of maintaining the car, no need to "buy" it, shift of the responsibility of maintaining the good conditions of the car shift towards a company dedicated to that instead of average Joe that has a life besides the car. The obvious changes these upsides would have in our daily lives are surely easy to see.
All I would like is the ability to still drive around on my own, regardless of the dominance of autonomous cars.
Sure, let's build various cities with different architectures and long roads surrounded by nothing but desert, a road through the woods (that gets all orange from the leaves during autumn), long stretches of highways and side roads that lead you through some fields.
I'd like to drive one day and just drive around, having the experience of driving, and experience going around with me and my car and the scenery going by. Cities, farms, going up the mountain, through the woods, or just a long drive through the equivalent of a desert.
Now, where would exactly we fit all this, in your "race tracks"?
I do understand the desire for safety. I do understand the desire for efficiency. I lived in Venezuela, Caracas, and I know what a long wait inside the car is (although I've heard it's gotten worse nowadays. Glad I don't live there anymore). It's boring, annoying and a waste of resources. And I didn't want to be "there". But I do want to drive around. Me, myself. Not a computer. No. Me, the car and the road.
That is assuming most people will use those extra 30 minutes to sleep. I don't think they will. I think it will translate in going to bed a little later because now can leave your house 30 minutes later, so don't need to wake up as early, so don't need to go to bed as early (or can go to bed later).
Man, that seems like a sensible thing to do. It's not good, suggesting sensible things. Why don't you please come by to our brain-washi-- I mean, educational center? You clearly need it.
This is my perception of it, too. Anybody willing to disprove/confirm/comment on this? Maybe whether or not Canonical might be right with mir? Or with anything else they have done for that matter?
AFAIK, one of the things that Canonical has done is do what it's best for them without caring about what others need (they have needs different from the rest of the developers/projects, from the looks of their projects) and that has not been well received by others since they see it as ^. And it very much looks like that too from here.
That sounds like a fireteam and the squad leader (if we go by ShackTack's organization, which seems like a pretty good idea on paper and it seems to work). If I recall correctly in America's Army 3 you are basically a single squad with various 3 fireteams and a squad leader (I might be wrong about this, but it IS a squad). A squad in Operation Flashpoint was maximum 12 people (which gives you yourself, a medic, and 2 groups of 5 people, or 3 groups of 4 people).
It really depends on what you consider a squad (to me 4 or 5 is too small) and what you are going to do with it.
But then shouldn't we have geo-blocking according to the different laws? Some things are illegal in some countries while others are illegal in others. AFAIK in the USA there is this law that says that as long as your art work has artistic merit, it can contain obscene and/or illegal content.
My "issue" (it isn't really one) is that the companies are deciding to not sell it at all (was already a policy to begin with) instead of trying to get them a protected section (which is what people complain about: that there is no age check whatsoever when looking for this content). It just tells me that if I want to sell something like that, I'm better off trying to sell it on my own instead of using a big store*.
*And big stores are big exactly because they make sure to not carry offensive content at all in any section. AFAIK there isn't even a adult section on most big store chains and the like.
However, parent has a good point: why isn't there a store dedicated to this? I'd certainly go there, even if only to see what kind of things people write about.
Actually, is anybody willing to share information about such store?