PCs are cumbersome, heavy and slow. Ophelia provides a computer experience as typical and fast as any other computer -- again, everything depends on the Internet connection -- but at a fraction of the weight. PCs can’t fit in your pocket; Ophelia can. Heck, you could probably stick anywhere between two to five of those computers into a normal pants pocket.
1.) Talk about hyperbole, batman.
2.) I imagine the lag will be horrendous.
3.) Over wireless?
Think of it as your smartphone minus the touchscreen, GPS, cellular radio, speaker, microphone and battery. You can make it pretty damn small.
The best defense value of a gun is deterence. I have been in two situations where a gun was used to scare off a would be assailant. The gun was brought out before the situation escalated. The robbers saw it and moved on.
That's your story and I commend you for sticking to it. His story is that you menaced him with a gun.
I wonder how many people are beaten to death every year with no weapon at all? Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be compelled to purchase a product, I think every man woman and child should be required to own a pair of fitting boxing gloves. It's only a matter of time until the government can compel you to use the things it has compelled you to buy.
Not all facts are available predigested on Google. You have to go to the raw data (FBI crime stats for 2011) because this is not a well-publicized fact from which somebody is trying to make a profit.
Total aggravated assaults: 652169
Aggravated assaults using a gun: 138336
Total homicides: 8583
Homicides with a gun: 12644
My assumption is that a homicide is an aggravated assault in which the victim dies.
Probability that an aggravated assault using any weapon other than a gun will result in death:
approximately (12644 - 8583) / (652169 - 138336) = 0.79%
Probability that an aggravated assault using a gun will result in death:
approximately 8583 / 138336 = 6.2%
Ratio of probabilities: death is 7.85 times more likely if a gun is used in the assault.
Last time I calculated these figures I came up with a slightly lower ratio because I added the number of homicides to the denominators of both figures.
IANAL but I am pretty sure he would need to make an actual threat or statement of intent. For example, he would have to say that he was going to put that bullet there, or that he is encouraging other specific people to put the bullet there, not that the bullet should be there.
Might be a good idea to err on the side of caution when expressing such opinons about the President. The Secret Service is apt to be a trifle techy about such suggestions.
You hit the nail on the head. It's an arms race. Criminals want to rob you, so you buy some pepper spray. The criminal knows you have pepper spray, so they get a knife. You know they have a knife, so you get a handgun. They know you have a handgun, so they get a semiauto rifle. Where does it stop, other than with dead bodies?
That's not how it works. When the criminal thinks you are armed with a gun or even a knife, they shoot you first so they can pick your body clean without interruption.
Most smart gun people that I know don't put NRA stickers on their vehicles. It's a dead giveaway that the person is a gun-owner. That invites break-ins to the vehicle to see if they're possibly keeping a gun in the car, or possibly even following the vehicle home and then robbing the home after its been ID'd and the owner has left.
I'm from LA, too... I can't remember the last Smog Alert we had.... And when I was a kid, most of the summer was First Stage, with a few Second Stage alerts every year.
Outsourcing works both ways I guess. China might get the jobs but they also get stuck with the pollution.
I'm fairly sure it wont be long before they trick us into buying it off them.
The factor you're ignoring is that when a person is assaulted with a gun, they are 7.5 times more likely to die. Banning guns or at least taking steps to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to use them to assault other people is harm reduction.
By the time I'm drunk enough to know to "ease off" it's already too late. It doesn't take a whole lot for me to get drunk and even less now that I've lost about 30 lbs of muscle (former body builder). And once I am drunk, I may not realize how much I'm drinking.
I have a simple method. Add all the beers, glasses of wine and all the shots of liquor that went in the glass. Do not attempt to assess the relative merits of different kinds of liquor. Add all of the above. I subtract one for each hour I've been drinking (based on my metabolism).
If I'm at four or more I am going to call a cab or get a friend to drive me home or I'm sleeping where I am. Depending on your size and metabolism, your numbers might be different, but you should know your number and keep track of it.
Some people profess to be unable to taste alcohol in certain mixed drinks, so I always know if I'm drinking alcohol but not always how strong it is. I prefer to mix my drinks myself or watch them being made so I know how much alcohol is in them.
First of all people are looking at this negatively. Given 3 women roughly all of the same 1-10 scale, you try to pick up the drunk one by finding the one with flashing red alert ice cubes first. Or going the other way, an ugly woman can find a cute guy with the highest intensity beer googles by looking for the ice cubes flashing red alert.
The first one seems plausible. The second one doesn't. The guys with flashing red cubes are least likely to get it up.
They're the most likely to pay for your drinks though, and the easiest to ditch later on.
Seems like a number of things could be done to reduce the likelihood of accidental ingestion. For example, he could have the functional bits encased in a smaller solid piece...
Like a cup?
There needs to be a point in which you can say you did what you could for safety but there's some inherent danger if the person is negligent enough.
The article mischaracterizes MIT's research. The original paper did not say that entrepreneurs "innovate better." It said that they used more of their brains. To judge whether they "innovate better" you would have to measure OUTCOMES, which the MIT research did not do.
Doesn't he know you can configure the settings so that people who aren't on your friends list can't send you messages or post on your wall.
Meanwhile, the US Post Office only charges 44 cents.
Clearly, they can't be talking about open software the way we know it. If YOU had access to your cash register's software, you could hack it to underreport your transactions so as to evade tax. They only mean open to the government and it seems like there's no way to really accomplish their goal. What's to stop you from unloading the government-monitored software and making a version of it that they can't see and looks the same from their end but does something entirely different from your end?
Slashdot Mirror
PCs are cumbersome, heavy and slow. Ophelia provides a computer experience as typical and fast as any other computer -- again, everything depends on the Internet connection -- but at a fraction of the weight. PCs can’t fit in your pocket; Ophelia can. Heck, you could probably stick anywhere between two to five of those computers into a normal pants pocket.
1.) Talk about hyperbole, batman. 2.) I imagine the lag will be horrendous. 3.) Over wireless?
Think of it as your smartphone minus the touchscreen, GPS, cellular radio, speaker, microphone and battery. You can make it pretty damn small.
The best defense value of a gun is deterence. I have been in two situations where a gun was used to scare off a would be assailant. The gun was brought out before the situation escalated. The robbers saw it and moved on.
That's your story and I commend you for sticking to it. His story is that you menaced him with a gun.
I wonder how many people are beaten to death every year with no weapon at all? Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be compelled to purchase a product, I think every man woman and child should be required to own a pair of fitting boxing gloves. It's only a matter of time until the government can compel you to use the things it has compelled you to buy.
Why WONDER when you can KNOW? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 In 2011, the FBI stats say 728 were killed by such methods and another 853 were killed by methods not specified. If it is assumed that those 853 break down about the way the ones that are fully described broke down, the estimate would be about 775. That is 6.1% of all homicides.
Not all facts are available predigested on Google. You have to go to the raw data (FBI crime stats for 2011) because this is not a well-publicized fact from which somebody is trying to make a profit. Total aggravated assaults: 652169 Aggravated assaults using a gun: 138336 Total homicides: 8583 Homicides with a gun: 12644 My assumption is that a homicide is an aggravated assault in which the victim dies. Probability that an aggravated assault using any weapon other than a gun will result in death: approximately (12644 - 8583) / (652169 - 138336) = 0.79% Probability that an aggravated assault using a gun will result in death: approximately 8583 / 138336 = 6.2% Ratio of probabilities: death is 7.85 times more likely if a gun is used in the assault. Last time I calculated these figures I came up with a slightly lower ratio because I added the number of homicides to the denominators of both figures.
IANAL but I am pretty sure he would need to make an actual threat or statement of intent. For example, he would have to say that he was going to put that bullet there, or that he is encouraging other specific people to put the bullet there, not that the bullet should be there.
Might be a good idea to err on the side of caution when expressing such opinons about the President. The Secret Service is apt to be a trifle techy about such suggestions.
You hit the nail on the head. It's an arms race. Criminals want to rob you, so you buy some pepper spray. The criminal knows you have pepper spray, so they get a knife. You know they have a knife, so you get a handgun. They know you have a handgun, so they get a semiauto rifle. Where does it stop, other than with dead bodies?
That's not how it works. When the criminal thinks you are armed with a gun or even a knife, they shoot you first so they can pick your body clean without interruption.
Most smart gun people that I know don't put NRA stickers on their vehicles. It's a dead giveaway that the person is a gun-owner. That invites break-ins to the vehicle to see if they're possibly keeping a gun in the car, or possibly even following the vehicle home and then robbing the home after its been ID'd and the owner has left.
She's a dead gun person, not a smart gun person.
So what is the procedure for reporting an assassination threat on slashdot anyway?
Only if the previously law abiding people wilfully violate the new law. If so, my sympathy for them is very limited.
I'm from LA, too... I can't remember the last Smog Alert we had.... And when I was a kid, most of the summer was First Stage, with a few Second Stage alerts every year.
Outsourcing works both ways I guess. China might get the jobs but they also get stuck with the pollution.
I'm fairly sure it wont be long before they trick us into buying it off them.
You used to be able to buy LA smog by the can.
Seriously folks.
The factor you're ignoring is that when a person is assaulted with a gun, they are 7.5 times more likely to die. Banning guns or at least taking steps to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to use them to assault other people is harm reduction.
People who shoot up schools/malls/whatever are highly motivated. Making guns harder to get will not stop these people.
All other methods of attempted murder are more difficult to carry out, so I'm just going to come right out and say you're wrong.
400 quatloos for a picture of the NRA sticker on her truck!
But does the lost gray matter come back when you stop lifting?
By the time I'm drunk enough to know to "ease off" it's already too late. It doesn't take a whole lot for me to get drunk and even less now that I've lost about 30 lbs of muscle (former body builder). And once I am drunk, I may not realize how much I'm drinking.
I have a simple method. Add all the beers, glasses of wine and all the shots of liquor that went in the glass. Do not attempt to assess the relative merits of different kinds of liquor. Add all of the above. I subtract one for each hour I've been drinking (based on my metabolism).
If I'm at four or more I am going to call a cab or get a friend to drive me home or I'm sleeping where I am. Depending on your size and metabolism, your numbers might be different, but you should know your number and keep track of it.
Some people profess to be unable to taste alcohol in certain mixed drinks, so I always know if I'm drinking alcohol but not always how strong it is. I prefer to mix my drinks myself or watch them being made so I know how much alcohol is in them.
But seriously, there's obviously a market for such a device...
That's all that's needed.
First of all people are looking at this negatively. Given 3 women roughly all of the same 1-10 scale, you try to pick up the drunk one by finding the one with flashing red alert ice cubes first. Or going the other way, an ugly woman can find a cute guy with the highest intensity beer googles by looking for the ice cubes flashing red alert.
The first one seems plausible. The second one doesn't. The guys with flashing red cubes are least likely to get it up.
They're the most likely to pay for your drinks though, and the easiest to ditch later on.
Seems like a number of things could be done to reduce the likelihood of accidental ingestion. For example, he could have the functional bits encased in a smaller solid piece...
Like a cup?
There needs to be a point in which you can say you did what you could for safety but there's some inherent danger if the person is negligent enough.
Or drinking alcohol?
I mean...
You don't know what you mean.
The article mischaracterizes MIT's research. The original paper did not say that entrepreneurs "innovate better." It said that they used more of their brains. To judge whether they "innovate better" you would have to measure OUTCOMES, which the MIT research did not do.
Doesn't he know you can configure the settings so that people who aren't on your friends list can't send you messages or post on your wall. Meanwhile, the US Post Office only charges 44 cents.
That wasn't an exclusive OR.
Clearly, they can't be talking about open software the way we know it. If YOU had access to your cash register's software, you could hack it to underreport your transactions so as to evade tax. They only mean open to the government and it seems like there's no way to really accomplish their goal. What's to stop you from unloading the government-monitored software and making a version of it that they can't see and looks the same from their end but does something entirely different from your end?
That's the point. Cheap phones breajk tuat model.
On Slashdot!