the first few incidents, in no particular order: on two separate occasions, new members shot themselves in the foot with firearms the range wasn't cleared for. A member was arrested for walking into a pub across from the range with a pistol hanging off his belt in full view. Another newbie was hospitalised after detonating a saucer of gunpowder (and shattering the brick it was sitting on, some of which embedded itself into his face), and I had calls from the landlord of the range complaining at *me* that *my* members were shooting at the electrics, including the cables, lights, and fuse box. I pointed out to him that a: they were not *my* members, the club had always been owned by its members, I only ran it, and since I no longer either ran it or carried a membership it was zero to do with me, that he should be talking to the designated range safety officer. Which, as it turned out, hadn't been appointed by the new board.
I'm happy with my 92FS, it's nine years old and I've never had an issue with it - even after well over 11,000 rounds put through it. There is an interesting caveat with Beretta, though, in addition to your point, and that is that the one year standard warranty (and the three year extended option) ONLY applies to the original purchasing owner! Kinda makes me glad that it hasn't gone wrong yet, even if it breaks tomorrow it's paid for itself both in terms of the use I've gotten out of it and the overall quality of the piece. It's like the Maserati GT of pistols. All that said, I do prefer my Walther P88 simply because it's more compact (and just as reliable).
there's another one as well, it's ridiculously violent... what the bloody hell was it called...? "Shoot 'Em Up"? Guy defeated the fingerprint lock by amputating some dude's hand.
it is a load of bollocks, they've had years to fix fingerprint recognition on PCs - I can defeat Windows fingerprint recognition simply by plugging in a broken Siemens biometric reader and randomly picking a finger.
can we limit magazine capacities in police firearms to 5 in box magazines and 3 in shotguns while we're at it?
Thought not.
One rule for us, one for them, it's always been the way. Particularly when the Statist crowd wants the Government to have the monopoly on violent persuasion. I'm English but I get what the Second Amendment means: it is the individual's responsibility, not the State's, to ensure and enforce individual safety.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
there are gun cams that do precisely this. The shutter release is mounted on the face of the trigger in some cases, other models shoot video which is slightly more.convenient for those with match-weight triggers.
one more stat you forgot to pull out of your arse: 99% of accidental shootings occur with weapons that were not loaded.
[full disclosure: I ran a shooting club with over 40 full members for six years, and ran the entire time with not a single entry in the accident book. One MONTH after I left, I got a call from the new secretary who asked me where I got the accident book from - it had taken them four WEEKS to fill it in my absence.]
ok, who would you suggest issues this licence? What penalties for operating without one? Who polices it?
The Outer Space Treaty stands pretty well on its own: exploit all you like, keep what you take, but you don't get to picket a chunk of the Moon and say it's yours. Sovereign claims take it from private individual claim status to that of a State Party, no matter how emergent, which is enough to lock you down in the terms of the OST. Even if you didn't sign the treaty, you'll piss other States off enough they'll likely completely ostracise you, which will break you even if you return with an asteroid's worth of brilliant cut diamonds.
ownership of extracted materials, yes. Ownership of territory, as in tracts of the Moon for your own exclusive use? That's a sovereignty claim, and according to the Outer Space Treaty, that's a "no".
you are bound by the laws of your country, yes, you are also bound by treaty where stipulated. Fortunately, the outer space treaty makes no restriction on commercial exploitation of space by private entities, so... wow, how many times does it have to be said, and why haven't any of these so called big shot fucking lawyers picked up on this minor technicality yet?... there is nothing stopping you from hitching a ride on the next SpaceX launcher, sticking a grapple into the next passing asteroid, bringing it back to Earth for a soft landing and saying "MINE!". There would be a problem in the United States Government claiming the Moon for the United States, which is why after the Outer Space Treaty was finally ratified the plaque was changed from "For the People of the United States" to "For All Mankind".
uh, no it's not. Taking someone else's property isn't the same as extracting something that was in the ground possibly inaccessible through economic or technical limitations to anybody else.
by "starter kit", are we to read "factory factory"? As in, a relatively small robotic facility designed and programmed to locate, mine, refine and form mineral resources into larger parts and structures, mechanics and consumables such as larger cutting heads, eventually to clone itself writ large, ready to receive instructions for new and varied structures such as habitation, airponics modules, etc? Because that would be fucking cool.
well, yeah, there's the obvious safety factors, but the thing is you can't use that as a band-aid for claiming mineral rights - the only minerals you can claim in space are the ones you dig up yourself and put in your cargo hold. Once you take off (and I would assume there'd be some rule for not leaving anything behind, like broken equipment or bags of shit or anything else to mark or otherwise prevent landing by anyone else), that patch is anybody's.
bingo. This is what the Outer Space Treaty is intended to prevent, there is no legtimacy in staking claims in space (that bit of the Moon you think you "own"? Well, you simply don't). There is, however, NOTHING in it preventing private entities or even State parties from exploiting resources from space, with the caveat in the case of State parties that anything they extract is for the good of ALL. It makes NO provision or restriction on private exploitation of space. If you mine it, it's yours, however you CANNOT prevent someone else from mining in the same place for the same thing, until it comes out of the regolith it's anybody's. The maxim holds here: if it is not specifically illegal then it is fundamentally legal. Claim staking: illegal. Exploitation: legal.
*Let me try and clarify: I can plant a quartz mine on the Moon, but I can't stick a forty foot perimeter fence around it and I can't prevent my competitor building a quartz mine five feet away.
> If the theory that the Moon was ejected from the Earth from a massive asteroid impact is correct.
It is not. The moon is a billion years older then the earth.
uh, other way. The Moon, according to the latest theory, formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with Earth, the two iron cores merged and the Moon formed from mainly quartz and SiO2 ejecta - which is the reason why the Moon has no appreciable magnetic field and Earth has a much larger nickel-iron core than it should have.
The Outer Space Treaty refers to STATE PARTIES, it does NOT refer to private entities nor to commercial exploitation of resources found and extracted in outer space by commercial entities.
This entire article is a waste of time except to invalidate itself by the simple act of linking to the treaty it's bemoaning.
no because something that folds down to something the size of an emergency blanket yet folds out to something you could tiw between two trees and go to sleep in, would be extremely useful for rural survivalists.
it does kinda fit the discussion profile though, doesn't it? Take a commuter train for an extreme example: on the London Underground, you're fighting not to inhale other people's elbows, particularly at rush hour where the mere event of a door opening causes bodies to pile up on the platform. It's like that the entire length of the platform, back up the service escalators, out into the street. That's one reason I refuse to use the London Underground.
The other reason is: 31 minutes delay and I would have been in the middle of the King's Cross fire of 1987.
Slashdot Mirror
...they're looking for a way to introduce and re-legitimise the term "sociopath" so it sews up the trainwreck that is the DSM.
the first few incidents, in no particular order: on two separate occasions, new members shot themselves in the foot with firearms the range wasn't cleared for. A member was arrested for walking into a pub across from the range with a pistol hanging off his belt in full view. Another newbie was hospitalised after detonating a saucer of gunpowder (and shattering the brick it was sitting on, some of which embedded itself into his face), and I had calls from the landlord of the range complaining at *me* that *my* members were shooting at the electrics, including the cables, lights, and fuse box. I pointed out to him that a: they were not *my* members, the club had always been owned by its members, I only ran it, and since I no longer either ran it or carried a membership it was zero to do with me, that he should be talking to the designated range safety officer. Which, as it turned out, hadn't been appointed by the new board.
I'm happy with my 92FS, it's nine years old and I've never had an issue with it - even after well over 11,000 rounds put through it. There is an interesting caveat with Beretta, though, in addition to your point, and that is that the one year standard warranty (and the three year extended option) ONLY applies to the original purchasing owner! Kinda makes me glad that it hasn't gone wrong yet, even if it breaks tomorrow it's paid for itself both in terms of the use I've gotten out of it and the overall quality of the piece. It's like the Maserati GT of pistols. All that said, I do prefer my Walther P88 simply because it's more compact (and just as reliable).
there's another one as well, it's ridiculously violent... what the bloody hell was it called...? "Shoot 'Em Up"? Guy defeated the fingerprint lock by amputating some dude's hand.
it is a load of bollocks, they've had years to fix fingerprint recognition on PCs - I can defeat Windows fingerprint recognition simply by plugging in a broken Siemens biometric reader and randomly picking a finger.
that's what you get for buying a Brazilian clone of an Italian pistol.
because one is my rifle, one is my gun. One is for shooting, the other's for fun.
can we limit magazine capacities in police firearms to 5 in box magazines and 3 in shotguns while we're at it?
Thought not.
One rule for us, one for them, it's always been the way. Particularly when the Statist crowd wants the Government to have the monopoly on violent persuasion. I'm English but I get what the Second Amendment means: it is the individual's responsibility, not the State's, to ensure and enforce individual safety.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
there are gun cams that do precisely this. The shutter release is mounted on the face of the trigger in some cases, other models shoot video which is slightly more .convenient for those with match-weight triggers.
one more stat you forgot to pull out of your arse: 99% of accidental shootings occur with weapons that were not loaded.
[full disclosure: I ran a shooting club with over 40 full members for six years, and ran the entire time with not a single entry in the accident book. One MONTH after I left, I got a call from the new secretary who asked me where I got the accident book from - it had taken them four WEEKS to fill it in my absence.]
ok, who would you suggest issues this licence? What penalties for operating without one? Who polices it?
The Outer Space Treaty stands pretty well on its own: exploit all you like, keep what you take, but you don't get to picket a chunk of the Moon and say it's yours. Sovereign claims take it from private individual claim status to that of a State Party, no matter how emergent, which is enough to lock you down in the terms of the OST. Even if you didn't sign the treaty, you'll piss other States off enough they'll likely completely ostracise you, which will break you even if you return with an asteroid's worth of brilliant cut diamonds.
uh... the Apollo astronauts were employees of the US Government, ergo whatever they brought back did belong to the US Government as extracted samples.
because the Outer Space Treaty specifically prohibits the deployment of weapons systems in space.
Thank you, come again.
ownership of extracted materials, yes. Ownership of territory, as in tracts of the Moon for your own exclusive use? That's a sovereignty claim, and according to the Outer Space Treaty, that's a "no".
you are bound by the laws of your country, yes, you are also bound by treaty where stipulated. Fortunately, the outer space treaty makes no restriction on commercial exploitation of space by private entities, so... wow, how many times does it have to be said, and why haven't any of these so called big shot fucking lawyers picked up on this minor technicality yet?... there is nothing stopping you from hitching a ride on the next SpaceX launcher, sticking a grapple into the next passing asteroid, bringing it back to Earth for a soft landing and saying "MINE!". There would be a problem in the United States Government claiming the Moon for the United States, which is why after the Outer Space Treaty was finally ratified the plaque was changed from "For the People of the United States" to "For All Mankind".
uh, no it's not. Taking someone else's property isn't the same as extracting something that was in the ground possibly inaccessible through economic or technical limitations to anybody else.
by "starter kit", are we to read "factory factory"? As in, a relatively small robotic facility designed and programmed to locate, mine, refine and form mineral resources into larger parts and structures, mechanics and consumables such as larger cutting heads, eventually to clone itself writ large, ready to receive instructions for new and varied structures such as habitation, airponics modules, etc? Because that would be fucking cool.
well, yeah, there's the obvious safety factors, but the thing is you can't use that as a band-aid for claiming mineral rights - the only minerals you can claim in space are the ones you dig up yourself and put in your cargo hold. Once you take off (and I would assume there'd be some rule for not leaving anything behind, like broken equipment or bags of shit or anything else to mark or otherwise prevent landing by anyone else), that patch is anybody's.
bingo. This is what the Outer Space Treaty is intended to prevent, there is no legtimacy in staking claims in space (that bit of the Moon you think you "own"? Well, you simply don't). There is, however, NOTHING in it preventing private entities or even State parties from exploiting resources from space, with the caveat in the case of State parties that anything they extract is for the good of ALL. It makes NO provision or restriction on private exploitation of space. If you mine it, it's yours, however you CANNOT prevent someone else from mining in the same place for the same thing, until it comes out of the regolith it's anybody's. The maxim holds here: if it is not specifically illegal then it is fundamentally legal. Claim staking: illegal. Exploitation: legal.
*Let me try and clarify: I can plant a quartz mine on the Moon, but I can't stick a forty foot perimeter fence around it and I can't prevent my competitor building a quartz mine five feet away.
5 billion, more like. It's receding at an inch or two a year.
> If the theory that the Moon was ejected from the Earth from a massive asteroid impact is correct.
It is not. The moon is a billion years older then the earth.
uh, other way. The Moon, according to the latest theory, formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with Earth, the two iron cores merged and the Moon formed from mainly quartz and SiO2 ejecta - which is the reason why the Moon has no appreciable magnetic field and Earth has a much larger nickel-iron core than it should have.
The Outer Space Treaty refers to STATE PARTIES, it does NOT refer to private entities nor to commercial exploitation of resources found and extracted in outer space by commercial entities.
This entire article is a waste of time except to invalidate itself by the simple act of linking to the treaty it's bemoaning.
no because something that folds down to something the size of an emergency blanket yet folds out to something you could tiw between two trees and go to sleep in, would be extremely useful for rural survivalists.
FTR, I'm English, but nobody's perfect, eh?
large scale production for me would be taking two metre wide, three metre long sheets of monatomically thin graphene and making hammocks out of them.
Come back when they've managed *that*. :)
it does kinda fit the discussion profile though, doesn't it? Take a commuter train for an extreme example: on the London Underground, you're fighting not to inhale other people's elbows, particularly at rush hour where the mere event of a door opening causes bodies to pile up on the platform. It's like that the entire length of the platform, back up the service escalators, out into the street. That's one reason I refuse to use the London Underground.
The other reason is: 31 minutes delay and I would have been in the middle of the King's Cross fire of 1987.