Personally, I think 99% of free software's appeal to people who work for big, oblivious corporations is the fact that it's not just free as in beer or liberty... it's also free of bureaucratic grief.
Indeed.
Finding cracked software on your machine around here is a fireable offense. Open source is seen as a viable alternative.
You can also run into problems in supporting multiple databases without using stored procedures.
DB specific functions can cause a similar amount of grief. Like porting SQL Server code to Oracle, then getting errors when trying to use a GETDATE() function.
Firearms shooting subsonic rounds are still quite loud. My Glock 21 shoots a.45 ACP round; subsonic, but it's very noticeable as a gun shot.
However, combined with a silencer ( which contains the expanding gases from the fired round ) a subsonic round will not "crack" when it crosses the sound barrier, since it doesn't cross the sound barrier.
So, you could have a pistol with a quick detach silencer and the shooter wouldn't have to worry about switching to subsonic ammo ( such as switching from 124gr. 9mm to 147gr. 9mm to prevent the sonic boom ) .
To do away with the silencer completely, I suspect you'd have to do away with explosive propellant. Something like a rail gun, but that leads to other problems.
Bruce Lund, the company's CEO, says the gun works by mixing a liquid or gaseous fuel with air in a combustion chamber behind the bullet. This determines the explosive capability of the propellant and consequently the velocity of the bullet as it leaves the gun.
So this would seem to work more like a conventional firearm, only one would select the explosive power rather than relying on different types of ammunition.
First, I own several firearms. I practice with them regularly, along with other means of self defense.
Yes, I'd prefer to get close to an attacker. Getting within their reach means one is able to perform a multitude of actions which, at a distance, are much harder. For further on this topic, I'd suggest you look into any number of self defense methods, such as krav maga, or the works of Sykes and Fairbain.
Again, I have no sympathy for an attacker, as they by their actions have no consideration for my right to life and health. I really am at a loss as to why you do.
Now, on verbal de-escalation techniques, these are of course preferred to violent confrontation. If they are effective, good. I've used them myself to good effect.
However, I've also twice used firearms in defense of my home. In both cases, the intruder saw I was armed and, perhaps, quite willing to kill them. They left immediately and quickly. This is perhaps the best outcome possible ( rather than the best possible outcome ). In any event, me and mine remained alive and whole, so I consider that a success.
Note also that the absence of firearms does not equate to an absence of violent crime. While I lived in Japan I knew of two people who were murdered. Their attackers used knives.
You, apparently, adhere to some moral code I find incomprehensible. I doubt either of us will convince the other our way is superior.
This is all over the place, but I'll note most "Christian" values are already out of favor. Then again, I think "Christian Values" and I think "Hate gays", "Ban abortion" and "Theocracy". You may have a different definition.
I disagree with your conclusion that not defending yourself does not equate to "Criminals taking over". The high crime rates of the 70's and 80's in the US seemed to have been stopped, at least in part, by citizens doing just that.
In any case, I still see no reason why I should sacrifice my life or health so an attacker remains unharmed. I really don't even understand why someone would. There's no benefit to the victim.
No, jevelinco's position ( if I'm reading it right ) seems the sane one.
To willingly become a victim, and by refusing to resist that's exactly what you're doing, is behavior which tends toward extinction.
Tell me, if all who were attacked simply rolled over and played nice doggie what's to discourage the attacker from doing it again? Why wouldn't they seek more than just money, jewelry or your cellphone? Why not rape, or murder?
It's not as if, by attacking people, attackers express a respect for human life.
Similarly, why should anyone be forced to be a victim by denying them the tools to defend themselves?
Since economically both the Dems and the Repubs hold essentially the same positions, it's these "social issues" they differentiate themselves on.
Times might be changing though. Jim Wallis, et. al., seem to be evangelicals ( read: traditionally Republican ) who work for social justice ( read: traditionally leftist causes ).
I've met enough people who share your views to think this ruling may be a good thing for the Democratic party.
While I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, I've met more than a few people who hold the 2nd amendment as the most important right, but also supported some positions of the Democratic party. For instance, the breakdown in the 2004 election ( IIRC and all that ) showed Union members voted Democratic unless they owned firearms.
Perhaps, with the right to keep and bare arms now confirmed as an individual right the Democratic party might gain even more support. Provided, of course, the party does not attempt to impose onerous "reasonable" restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we all know that BSD is dying... does that uptime indicate a large number of zombie processes?
sorry.... ;)
Indeed.
Finding cracked software on your machine around here is a fireable offense. Open source is seen as a viable alternative.
When it comes to common chemicals causing cancer, Carlin had a good line:
Well another poster pointed out this story with a juicy quote:
What... really?
I've been doing it wrong all this time?
So is that what they mean when the French say "I fart in your general direction?"
[badum-ching]
what, they don't have taco bell in Finland?
As an aside, thanks for undoing your moderation rather than letting it slide.
I tend to agree myself, although a number of developers seem frightened of putting application logic in the database.
Seems they'd rather try to get something like websphere to share functionality rather than let two applications use the same stored procedure.
You can also run into problems in supporting multiple databases without using stored procedures.
DB specific functions can cause a similar amount of grief. Like porting SQL Server code to Oracle, then getting errors when trying to use a GETDATE() function.
"No matter how much we preach to the choir, it seems that most managers simply don't want to pay for it."
Fixed that for you.
Does seem like the study was designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, doesn't it?
You're half right.
Firearms shooting subsonic rounds are still quite loud. My Glock 21 shoots a .45 ACP round; subsonic, but it's very noticeable as a gun shot.
However, combined with a silencer ( which contains the expanding gases from the fired round ) a subsonic round will not "crack" when it crosses the sound barrier, since it doesn't cross the sound barrier.
So, you could have a pistol with a quick detach silencer and the shooter wouldn't have to worry about switching to subsonic ammo ( such as switching from 124gr. 9mm to 147gr. 9mm to prevent the sonic boom ) .
To do away with the silencer completely, I suspect you'd have to do away with explosive propellant. Something like a rail gun, but that leads to other problems.
The gyrojet was a solid propellant round which gained velocity as the propellant was burned; a missile rather than a bullet.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet
From TFA:
So this would seem to work more like a conventional firearm, only one would select the explosive power rather than relying on different types of ammunition.
Heck, combine it with some prerecorded messages and parents will snap these up "for the children".
Top sellers could be:
All with constant repetition which only ends when the desired action is performed.
First, I own several firearms. I practice with them regularly, along with other means of self defense.
Yes, I'd prefer to get close to an attacker. Getting within their reach means one is able to perform a multitude of actions which, at a distance, are much harder. For further on this topic, I'd suggest you look into any number of self defense methods, such as krav maga, or the works of Sykes and Fairbain.
Again, I have no sympathy for an attacker, as they by their actions have no consideration for my right to life and health. I really am at a loss as to why you do.
Now, on verbal de-escalation techniques, these are of course preferred to violent confrontation. If they are effective, good. I've used them myself to good effect.
However, I've also twice used firearms in defense of my home. In both cases, the intruder saw I was armed and, perhaps, quite willing to kill them. They left immediately and quickly. This is perhaps the best outcome possible ( rather than the best possible outcome ). In any event, me and mine remained alive and whole, so I consider that a success.
Note also that the absence of firearms does not equate to an absence of violent crime. While I lived in Japan I knew of two people who were murdered. Their attackers used knives.
You, apparently, adhere to some moral code I find incomprehensible. I doubt either of us will convince the other our way is superior.
This is all over the place, but I'll note most "Christian" values are already out of favor. Then again, I think "Christian Values" and I think "Hate gays", "Ban abortion" and "Theocracy". You may have a different definition.
I disagree with your conclusion that not defending yourself does not equate to "Criminals taking over". The high crime rates of the 70's and 80's in the US seemed to have been stopped, at least in part, by citizens doing just that.
In any case, I still see no reason why I should sacrifice my life or health so an attacker remains unharmed. I really don't even understand why someone would. There's no benefit to the victim.
No problem, and thanks for clearing things up.
Well said.
If someone is attacking me and/or breaking into my home what should I do? Stop an ask them what their intentions are?
Well said.
I'm not Christian. I see no reason to make any sacrifice for someone who's attacking me.
However if you'd like to, feel free.
No, jevelinco's position ( if I'm reading it right ) seems the sane one.
To willingly become a victim, and by refusing to resist that's exactly what you're doing, is behavior which tends toward extinction.
Tell me, if all who were attacked simply rolled over and played nice doggie what's to discourage the attacker from doing it again? Why wouldn't they seek more than just money, jewelry or your cellphone? Why not rape, or murder?
It's not as if, by attacking people, attackers express a respect for human life.
Similarly, why should anyone be forced to be a victim by denying them the tools to defend themselves?
All I can say is check my sig.
Well, the text at the end of my comment. I actually prefer Glocks ;-)
Agreed.
Since economically both the Dems and the Repubs hold essentially the same positions, it's these "social issues" they differentiate themselves on.
Times might be changing though. Jim Wallis, et. al., seem to be evangelicals ( read: traditionally Republican ) who work for social justice ( read: traditionally leftist causes ).
I've met enough people who share your views to think this ruling may be a good thing for the Democratic party.
While I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, I've met more than a few people who hold the 2nd amendment as the most important right, but also supported some positions of the Democratic party. For instance, the breakdown in the 2004 election ( IIRC and all that ) showed Union members voted Democratic unless they owned firearms.
Perhaps, with the right to keep and bare arms now confirmed as an individual right the Democratic party might gain even more support. Provided, of course, the party does not attempt to impose onerous "reasonable" restrictions.