Did I say I have a problem with Bing. Bing isn't spyware. I prefer Google for myself, but to each his own.
actually, what you said before is you change the search provider on (l)users' laptops. now you way you politely inquire. which is different than what you said before.
I chose bing for personal preference, and I would be miffed if somebody took it upon himself to change my shit.
the whole point is that the handset owners say they effectively have to use goog due to business pressures. your statement is akin to saying "don't like it, then go out of business!"
i purposely set all my engines to Bing, so I'd be pretty pissed off if you changed my shite. like i would be po'd if you installed crappy firefox bar extensions.
a better way to think of it is that EVs are usually around 2 kwh/mile. so for you that would be a dime per mile in electricity. but consider that EVs are currently putt-putt cars for in-the-city driving. no way there's an outback or similar for the country side, and the mileage would tank with high speed / freeway use.
what an empty distinction, "most fuel efficient electric car". it's electricity, silly, we have plenty of it. The big differentiators between models is and always will be range. although there seems to be an EV niche developing aournd $40k and 80mi range.
Are you aware of the features that were in AWB, or in any of the proposed new AWBs? Do you know how they work and what they're for (a serious question, by the way - if you do not, then I'll be happy to explain).
to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers. 2% direct experience. I had to think a bit before I realized that AWB is assault weapons ban.
Mainly because there is a perceived tie-in with legislation that purports to mandate such technology.
nobody is mandating anything! here is a private company that wants to make a product. A company that manufactures guns, by the way. they should be allowed to develop products and bring products to market without the interference of gun zealots.
and if it turns out that these gun accessories meaningfully contribute to gun safety, then as a society it behooves us to encourage their adoption. how about vouchers and free upgrades for gun owners? tax breaks? that would be cool, huh?
well maybe there's room for new technology that improves gun safety. like the company in this post that is trying to innovate new weapon technology, but got shut down by zealots why?
cmon man don't be a tool. you're being purposefully obtuse. every gun and accessory is designed for and used in certain scenarios. it is reasonable to place limits on guns equipment designed to hurt people. I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.
one, why do you hate on a company exploring new gun technologies? free market, man. so what if they want to develop aeon flux dna identifcaiton handguns that only work for the owner. what do you care? why do you want to stop this company from pursuing their interests? that's not very freedom loving.
cmon man. I don't own a gun, let alone one with a flash surpressor. I don't know why somebody would buy a flash surpressor. nor do I know why somebody would want to own WMDs. perhaps a flash surpressor owner can chime in with why they own one.
but none of the amendments are absolutes. free speech is good, subject to limitatations. I don't want my kids to be at school where everybody else is armed.
I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.
I think a question that gun enthusiasts refuse to answer is "what is the purpose of a gun". A gun is a tool, and all tools are designed for a purpose. And there's different types of guns, each suited for different purposes.
Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people. one compromise in gun control is to make a prohibition only on a subset of guns, the guns that are designed to harm other people.
the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is like a palantir, you use it to search the internet but they track everything you do online.
Did I say I have a problem with Bing. Bing isn't spyware. I prefer Google for myself, but to each his own.
actually, what you said before is you change the search provider on (l)users' laptops. now you way you politely inquire. which is different than what you said before.
I chose bing for personal preference, and I would be miffed if somebody took it upon himself to change my shit.
I'm sure bing or yahoo would gladly pay moto or HTC $$$$$ to be the default provider. this would lower costs to consumers
yahoo is gunning for this right now
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/16/yahoo-wants-apple-change-default-search/
no, but it's tied in through business contracts as part of the handset alliance, which is the exact point of this suit.
the whole point is that the handset owners say they effectively have to use goog due to business pressures. your statement is akin to saying "don't like it, then go out of business!"
i purposely set all my engines to Bing, so I'd be pretty pissed off if you changed my shite. like i would be po'd if you installed crappy firefox bar extensions.
a better way to think of it is that EVs are usually around 2 kwh/mile. so for you that would be a dime per mile in electricity. but consider that EVs are currently putt-putt cars for in-the-city driving. no way there's an outback or similar for the country side, and the mileage would tank with high speed / freeway use.
0.12 jigawatt-seconds.
The exact opposite of true. It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.
what an empty distinction, "most fuel efficient electric car". it's electricity, silly, we have plenty of it. The big differentiators between models is and always will be range. although there seems to be an EV niche developing aournd $40k and 80mi range.
what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun? or a military sniper rifle? any military weapon? bombs? assault grips?
Are you aware of the features that were in AWB, or in any of the proposed new AWBs? Do you know how they work and what they're for (a serious question, by the way - if you do not, then I'll be happy to explain).
to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers. 2% direct experience. I had to think a bit before I realized that AWB is assault weapons ban.
spoiler alert!
Mainly because there is a perceived tie-in with legislation that purports to mandate such technology.
nobody is mandating anything! here is a private company that wants to make a product. A company that manufactures guns, by the way. they should be allowed to develop products and bring products to market without the interference of gun zealots. and if it turns out that these gun accessories meaningfully contribute to gun safety, then as a society it behooves us to encourage their adoption. how about vouchers and free upgrades for gun owners? tax breaks? that would be cool, huh?
well maybe there's room for new technology that improves gun safety. like the company in this post that is trying to innovate new weapon technology, but got shut down by zealots why?
cmon man don't be a tool. you're being purposefully obtuse. every gun and accessory is designed for and used in certain scenarios. it is reasonable to place limits on guns equipment designed to hurt people. I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.
one, why do you hate on a company exploring new gun technologies? free market, man. so what if they want to develop aeon flux dna identifcaiton handguns that only work for the owner. what do you care? why do you want to stop this company from pursuing their interests? that's not very freedom loving.
its not murder when the government does it.
I take it that you don't own any guns either but wish you did.
cmon man. I don't own a gun, let alone one with a flash surpressor. I don't know why somebody would buy a flash surpressor. nor do I know why somebody would want to own WMDs. perhaps a flash surpressor owner can chime in with why they own one.
but none of the amendments are absolutes. free speech is good, subject to limitatations. I don't want my kids to be at school where everybody else is armed.
How, exactly, does a flash suppressor "speak to the purpose of the weapon" in this case?
what's the purpose of a flash surpressor? Why would somebody buy one and install one on their weapon?
look, going around in circles here. all I'm saying is would somebody reasonable stand up so we can have a reasonable conversation.
I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.
I think a question that gun enthusiasts refuse to answer is "what is the purpose of a gun". A gun is a tool, and all tools are designed for a purpose. And there's different types of guns, each suited for different purposes.
Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people. one compromise in gun control is to make a prohibition only on a subset of guns, the guns that are designed to harm other people.
the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.