>lower voltage and consequently larger currents involved Contributes, and you almost got it. It has nothing to do with the "Grid" and all to do with the last transformer. All US houses are powered with 220Volts, but with a center tap transformer, center leg grounded. What that does, is gives 2 legs any leg to ground is 110Volts, between the 2 legs is 220Volt. Easiest way to picture is we have 4 wires, ground, neutral, +110V, -110V (+/- is not technically accurate, really just 180deg out of phase, ground and neutral are attached at one point, ground wire is only used as a safety...) The neutral leg is usually the problem, it is a smaller gauge wire, with the ground wires connected, in a separate strip, with longer wiring... The 220Volt power is usually rock solid, So when one leg of the 110Volt draws current, it can pull that ground leg up easier (if not wired perfectly.) So then you might have +102VAC on one leg, then -118VAC on the other. That makes lights appear to flicker, even though 220Vac from the grid never wavered. The huge advantage of this system, is while we have 220Volt available in every house, similar to rest of the world if desired. But you can never touch one wire and get shocked by more than 110Volts. The only way to get shocked by 220Volt, is to touch one wire with one hand, and the other line voltage at the same time. For some reason though we only run 110V to most of our outlets though.
Do you sit on the board of Directors? At least 6 times a year it was his job, along with 9 other people to set direction for Disney. Of those 9 other people he alone had enough shares to vote the others out of office if they fought him. It is safe to say he was the most influential person in Disney, anytime he wanted to be. And his personality isn't one that would lead you to believe he would be a silent owner.
Exactly my point, Apple wasn't a content owner, Steve Jobs was. We know from Steve screwing over Woz, that he was unscrupulous and in his role at apple, a marketing master. When Steve Jobs, a major copyright owner, with his background makes a plea to copyright owners, without mention, then without action from his ownership rights. It sends a clear message IMO, this was a sales speal not a legitimate call to arms.
I have see playback from these sensors (not from a google car though) it is better than most any camera. IE it is a 3D representation that shows exact speed and direction + distance of everything around, overlaid with the actions the vehicle is attempting. About the only "issue" I see, is that dense fog/snow/rain can affect most of these sensors just about as bad as a person. The problem arises, that these vehicles will likely be programmed to not overdrive their visibility to stopping distance. Many people who drive in these conditions are used to taking additional risk, to keep moving. I suspect these vehicles will not be "at fault" in the conventional sense for going to slow, but that doesn't mean they won't be sued as in the way.
While Google navigation does a great job of getting a person with a smart phone, and ability to use it around on multiple transfers. I am not sure that people too blind to drive are going to do well roaming around in the streets trying to see, is that the #5 or the #6 bus. From what I see currently most Americans just give up traveling (at least without a able companion) at this point in life, if the driver-less vehicle gives a familiar trusted enclosure, that always knows how to get me home no matter how frustrated I am, I am sure I will feel comfortable traveling much later in life than otherwise. Is that a overall good thing; is a different question.
While in 2006 Amazon wasn't in the picture, every major player was in mp3 players, and there were many (now bankrupted through litigation) services competing. Also considering Steve Jobs was the single largest stock holder in Disney (7% owner) and on the board of directors (Including Hollywood records, which was closely tied with Universal.) He didn't need to make a public appeal for no DRM on a good chunk of the music for sale, if he was serious, he would have just done it.
The biggest problem with the union I was in, were the retired workers were still members, and allowed to vote. Also outnumbered the active workers. Luckily it was a right to work state, took a couple years, but they were able to replace the union (went non union for awhile in between.)
> those who keep playing that card are just crying "wolf," and it will eventually lose any meaning whatsoever.
Seams about right, what you were accused of would have been prejudiced, not racist. IE were you treating Obama differently based on race, that is predjudice. The original meaning of Racism, is that you feal one races difference makes them less likely to succeed. Would it even be racist to say since he is black he'll never reach a higher level than POTUS? Although I will say it is a compliment to the levels of opportunities attained in the US, that racism is now rare enough, that it is being redefined such that racism now must include prejudice, just to be able to continue to complain about it.
Snowden downloaded NSA secrets while working for Dell But that was top secret documents, not access to the spy data. Snowden had claimed to be able to access that as well, but I don't know at what role he was in, when he claimed he could do that.
1)Snowden was way short on resources to hide from the NSA, and until he proved he had something of real value, who with resources would help him? 2) It was a ton of data, the NSA certainly detects the leak before it gets fully transferred to anyone, and shutdown before full transfer. 3)In Snowden's case many of the original archives themselves had digital fingerprints in them indicating who could have downloaded them to begin with. If you break it up enough to disrupt the fingerprints, then it loses credibility (Very unlikely Snowden knew how to defeat the fingerprint.) So the idea (IMO) would be you encrypt it and send it to a news source (or Wiki Leaks, EFF, etc) with established credibility, they use the full document to verify your credibility enough to throw their weight behind supporting you. The news source could then be generic enough in releases to disrupt the document fingerprint to the NSA. They could also in turn throw resources at securing the leaker. In the case of this data mule, they didn't want to really help the terrorists, and en-danger relatively innocent sources in the documents in hand. They want to process, redact, and cross-reference with people the trust to do the work. If the NSA can see who has looked at what, they have a better chance of silencing them.
That was the farmers story. Probably because he didn't want to pay royalties for more years. Resistance would only develop through natural selection, if it was advantageous. When the farmer claims he never sprayed roundup on his crops (again part of his defense, "I didn't even benefit from violating the patent") to develop a new trait for 100% natural selection to occur, it would take a similar natural advantage for canola. With the weeds, it makes sense, only the weeds with the trait survived being sprayed, so those with that trait will take over. For the same to occur to the canola, would have required a similar advantage, of the farmer spraying his plants with roundup to select the winner. It would have been interesting, had the farmer claimed to develop his own variety, by claiming he didn't know what his neighbors planted, and through human selection; by spraying to select his naturally resistant crop to develop his own variety. Had he claimed, and proven this, I suspect when Monsanto showed it had the patented DNA anyway, thus developed from cross contamination, then the farmer shouldn't have been liable for his violations. Definitely a Cease and Desist from selling to his neighbors, but this natural selection defense is all fiction, the farmer never claimed this.
The farmers position that he got enough seed for a hundred acres that was 100% Roundup resistant, that he had harvested from a crop he claimed was cross pollinated from a neighbors field, without him selecting it. That was so out in left field, that it would take proof to make me believe it was possible, it just doesn't make any sense at all. Then the farmer lost all credibility to me, when he claimed in his counter suit that he didn't want Round up resistant seed, but admitted he had detected this "contaminated" area by accident while spraying weeds in a ditch, so harvested that section separately, then used the contaminated seed he "didn't want" for seed for the next year. Not the seed from the 99% of his acreage that he knew wasn't contaminated.
No, what I remember is that the farmers defense was that the farmer didn't want a resistant crop, and never sprayed the crop with roundup (so no selective breeding occurred), and was just caused by cross breading from the neighbors crops pollen. Monsanto tested his "first" generation crop, and found nearly 100% of the resulting plants to be resistant. Monsanto's claim, backed by science showing it to be nearly impossible (1 in billion chance.) That cross pollination without generations of selective breeding couldn't produce anything close to a 100% resistant seed stock. So Monsanto never claimed that their technique was the only way, they proved that without intent, you couldn't have a 100% resistant crop occur naturally in 1 generation from non RR stock.
Exactly the same is Roundup. We know that you don't want to get any on the farmers (during application), and we know we don't want to spray it close to harvest. They know if you don't spray either close to harvest, insignificant amounts (ie none) will be on/in the food. And no one will get ill.
> He apparently bought it on the open market as feed, not seed, so he paid a lower price.
This is the majority of cases of Monsanto suing, the farmers know 90%+ of the soybeans are RR beans, so they know if they buy the soy as feed, they will get RR beans. Nothing screwed up about that (other than the farmers trying to cheat the system) They buy seed agreeing not to plant it, then do, then some get caught. That's OK with me. Although the 90%+ market share of Monsanto worries me, but that is not Monsanto's fault IMO.
The anal retentive nature of HR had little to do with the day to day job. Since the problem was HR and 1000 miles from the location he would have worked at; And the job was a office location with a dozen people (only one asshole, and he was not the boss.)
> working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.
One company I worked for a guy got burned for that. What happened was he left without notice to a small company that screwed him over really bad. However that small company was later bought by a much bigger company that I worked for (had almost 50% market share in the industry.) When my manager tried to hire him (knowing the full story, from more than one source.) HR refused. The database from that companies HR was incorporated into their HR database, and they absolutely refused to do their job, and hire the guy.
Not like either of them tried that I know of. I know that after Dorner was the most wanted person in the USA, full resources out to get a single man on the run, with a gun in the city. While he did get killed, but I think he killed 2 police before becoming the most wanted, and shot like 5 more police (killing 3 of them) before getting burned to the ground in a cabin. So if 1 trained person, after Police only, with gun kills 5:1; guns are certainly capable of increasing the impact of your change. He didn't have near the dirt of Snowden or Manning, but he certainly got the info he had out with the help of the gun, that he wasn't able to do after first trying without the gun.
thats why cost efficient is more important than just efficiency. going to cost you $.20 for electric even if generation was free, if it has to be transported over the power grid. Were getting close to needing to focus on transportation more than generation, this is why bio fuels are so interesting, since the cost of transportation is so much less. It is also why solar panels are so interesting, they can be placed at the end of the grid.
> Transmission losses on copper wire over a few thousand km is between 5% and 10%, AKA relatively insignificant.
And the loss from transporting liquids is 0. but that is the insignificant part for both. 20% of the cost of my electricity is generation, IE 80% of the cost is getting it to my house. And we still haven't gotten it into and out of a battery for transportation. With Natural gas, to my house, it is more like 20% of the cost is transportation. For fuel picked up on the road (where I need it) the transportation cost from the refinery is more like 10% of the cost.
>Problem with that scheme is the economy now has an artificial growth boundary defined by the supply of gold.
Historically the biggest problem with gold wasn't the artificial boundary, it was banking. Even with gold (or bitcoins) having unregulated banking, the banks would hold onto gold, then loan that gold out, then that gold loaned would be re-deposited at some point, and loaned again. So you may have 10 pounds of gold, but based on that you could have depositors owed 500 pounds and debtors owing 490 pounds and 10 pounds circulating. But then the bank charges interest, so then from 10 pounds of gold you end up with debtors owe 510 pounds (depositors owed 500, bank owed 10 from interest) , and thus it becomes impossible (without a new supply of gold) for them to all pay off, since there is no longer enough gold in the world to cover the debts. Then defaults happen, the banks stop loaning, the creditors all want their money back now, and unless you can infuse a supply of new currency, the money system must crash occasionally. Basically if you have any sort of lending/borrowing, you must have a central authority with power to control supply and lending, or the currency and the economy around it is guaranteed to go through boom and bust.
Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns? Can we agree a thousand armed civilians, can take on and make progress against a hundred US soldiers, without reverting to terrorist attacks against the families? I agree the odds are against them, it will be 50:1 losses, without armed civilians it would be more like 10000:1. Recap, no civilian arms vs US army, terrorist style attacks only. Armed civilians against army, 50:1 or 100:1 deaths when out numbering them 100:1. I would say that a few thousand cannot control a few million when just 10% of the civilians are armed. The 1% better armed cannot be confident of victory. take away the arms from one side, then we know who wins.
Not sure if your talking usa or in general. This is how syrian rebels took over. Bengazi had a similar path recently. Many us outposts have been lost in Iraq, but the us main bases were well seperated from populations.
>This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.
I am not sure I agree. One that can only shoot a few times, I agree. But this is the early stage. Since not all shot projectiles are for killing, I used a.22 cal cartridge to attach my deck to the block walls, and concrete slabs (uses a blank to shoot a nail.) Also other things, like balloonists have been using helium balloons for wind speed/direction, cheap plastic gun to shoot parachutes to hundred feet would be much quicker and cheaper. Granted I think the point of this effort is an attempt to say, the gun is out of the bag, we have to assume everyone at all times has one. So lets forget about stopping people from having them, and concentrate on the root cause of the violence. I am not sure that is completely possible, but I do think getting to a reasonably low fatality rate from guns is do able, even when they are prolific.
It is merely a manner of force multiplier. If guns were not helpfull, we wouldn't have soldiers carrying guns in the army, we would only have tanks, and planes when we attacked. If you watch Black Hawk down for example, eventually that plane, tank, whatever is going to go down in a bad spot. Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment. Same in Iraq, Afganistan, etc, it required a huge force of 100,000+ troops to take on the guns, without the proliferation of guns, it would have taken less than 1/10th that. In the USA with most every base in the middle of a major city in the USA, if you have a majority of the population against the military side, and 10% of the population armed, the military wouldn't be able to hold onto many of the bases in the USA for long. Without a secure base, the army couldn't take the US population on at home. Guns alone wouldn't cut it, but explosive are easier to improvise... I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...
Slashdot Mirror
>lower voltage and consequently larger currents involved
Contributes, and you almost got it. It has nothing to do with the "Grid" and all to do with the last transformer. All US houses are powered with 220Volts, but with a center tap transformer, center leg grounded. What that does, is gives 2 legs any leg to ground is 110Volts, between the 2 legs is 220Volt. Easiest way to picture is we have 4 wires, ground, neutral, +110V, -110V (+/- is not technically accurate, really just 180deg out of phase, ground and neutral are attached at one point, ground wire is only used as a safety...) The neutral leg is usually the problem, it is a smaller gauge wire, with the ground wires connected, in a separate strip, with longer wiring... The 220Volt power is usually rock solid, So when one leg of the 110Volt draws current, it can pull that ground leg up easier (if not wired perfectly.) So then you might have +102VAC on one leg, then -118VAC on the other. That makes lights appear to flicker, even though 220Vac from the grid never wavered.
The huge advantage of this system, is while we have 220Volt available in every house, similar to rest of the world if desired. But you can never touch one wire and get shocked by more than 110Volts. The only way to get shocked by 220Volt, is to touch one wire with one hand, and the other line voltage at the same time. For some reason though we only run 110V to most of our outlets though.
Do you sit on the board of Directors? At least 6 times a year it was his job, along with 9 other people to set direction for Disney. Of those 9 other people he alone had enough shares to vote the others out of office if they fought him. It is safe to say he was the most influential person in Disney, anytime he wanted to be. And his personality isn't one that would lead you to believe he would be a silent owner.
Exactly my point, Apple wasn't a content owner, Steve Jobs was. We know from Steve screwing over Woz, that he was unscrupulous and in his role at apple, a marketing master. When Steve Jobs, a major copyright owner, with his background makes a plea to copyright owners, without mention, then without action from his ownership rights. It sends a clear message IMO, this was a sales speal not a legitimate call to arms.
I have see playback from these sensors (not from a google car though) it is better than most any camera. IE it is a 3D representation that shows exact speed and direction + distance of everything around, overlaid with the actions the vehicle is attempting. About the only "issue" I see, is that dense fog/snow/rain can affect most of these sensors just about as bad as a person. The problem arises, that these vehicles will likely be programmed to not overdrive their visibility to stopping distance. Many people who drive in these conditions are used to taking additional risk, to keep moving. I suspect these vehicles will not be "at fault" in the conventional sense for going to slow, but that doesn't mean they won't be sued as in the way.
While Google navigation does a great job of getting a person with a smart phone, and ability to use it around on multiple transfers. I am not sure that people too blind to drive are going to do well roaming around in the streets trying to see, is that the #5 or the #6 bus.
From what I see currently most Americans just give up traveling (at least without a able companion) at this point in life, if the driver-less vehicle gives a familiar trusted enclosure, that always knows how to get me home no matter how frustrated I am, I am sure I will feel comfortable traveling much later in life than otherwise. Is that a overall good thing; is a different question.
While in 2006 Amazon wasn't in the picture, every major player was in mp3 players, and there were many (now bankrupted through litigation) services competing.
Also considering Steve Jobs was the single largest stock holder in Disney (7% owner) and on the board of directors (Including Hollywood records, which was closely tied with Universal.) He didn't need to make a public appeal for no DRM on a good chunk of the music for sale, if he was serious, he would have just done it.
>democratically elected by the union members
The biggest problem with the union I was in, were the retired workers were still members, and allowed to vote. Also outnumbered the active workers. Luckily it was a right to work state, took a couple years, but they were able to replace the union (went non union for awhile in between.)
> those who keep playing that card are just crying "wolf," and it will eventually lose any meaning whatsoever.
Seams about right, what you were accused of would have been prejudiced, not racist. IE were you treating Obama differently based on race, that is predjudice. The original meaning of Racism, is that you feal one races difference makes them less likely to succeed. Would it even be racist to say since he is black he'll never reach a higher level than POTUS? Although I will say it is a compliment to the levels of opportunities attained in the US, that racism is now rare enough, that it is being redefined such that racism now must include prejudice, just to be able to continue to complain about it.
Snowden downloaded NSA secrets while working for Dell But that was top secret documents, not access to the spy data. Snowden had claimed to be able to access that as well, but I don't know at what role he was in, when he claimed he could do that.
1)Snowden was way short on resources to hide from the NSA, and until he proved he had something of real value, who with resources would help him?
2) It was a ton of data, the NSA certainly detects the leak before it gets fully transferred to anyone, and shutdown before full transfer.
3)In Snowden's case many of the original archives themselves had digital fingerprints in them indicating who could have downloaded them to begin with. If you break it up enough to disrupt the fingerprints, then it loses credibility (Very unlikely Snowden knew how to defeat the fingerprint.)
So the idea (IMO) would be you encrypt it and send it to a news source (or Wiki Leaks, EFF, etc) with established credibility, they use the full document to verify your credibility enough to throw their weight behind supporting you. The news source could then be generic enough in releases to disrupt the document fingerprint to the NSA. They could also in turn throw resources at securing the leaker.
In the case of this data mule, they didn't want to really help the terrorists, and en-danger relatively innocent sources in the documents in hand. They want to process, redact, and cross-reference with people the trust to do the work. If the NSA can see who has looked at what, they have a better chance of silencing them.
That was the farmers story. Probably because he didn't want to pay royalties for more years. Resistance would only develop through natural selection, if it was advantageous. When the farmer claims he never sprayed roundup on his crops (again part of his defense, "I didn't even benefit from violating the patent") to develop a new trait for 100% natural selection to occur, it would take a similar natural advantage for canola. With the weeds, it makes sense, only the weeds with the trait survived being sprayed, so those with that trait will take over. For the same to occur to the canola, would have required a similar advantage, of the farmer spraying his plants with roundup to select the winner.
It would have been interesting, had the farmer claimed to develop his own variety, by claiming he didn't know what his neighbors planted, and through human selection; by spraying to select his naturally resistant crop to develop his own variety. Had he claimed, and proven this, I suspect when Monsanto showed it had the patented DNA anyway, thus developed from cross contamination, then the farmer shouldn't have been liable for his violations. Definitely a Cease and Desist from selling to his neighbors, but this natural selection defense is all fiction, the farmer never claimed this.
The farmers position that he got enough seed for a hundred acres that was 100% Roundup resistant, that he had harvested from a crop he claimed was cross pollinated from a neighbors field, without him selecting it. That was so out in left field, that it would take proof to make me believe it was possible, it just doesn't make any sense at all. Then the farmer lost all credibility to me, when he claimed in his counter suit that he didn't want Round up resistant seed, but admitted he had detected this "contaminated" area by accident while spraying weeds in a ditch, so harvested that section separately, then used the contaminated seed he "didn't want" for seed for the next year. Not the seed from the 99% of his acreage that he knew wasn't contaminated.
No, what I remember is that the farmers defense was that the farmer didn't want a resistant crop, and never sprayed the crop with roundup (so no selective breeding occurred), and was just caused by cross breading from the neighbors crops pollen. Monsanto tested his "first" generation crop, and found nearly 100% of the resulting plants to be resistant. Monsanto's claim, backed by science showing it to be nearly impossible (1 in billion chance.) That cross pollination without generations of selective breeding couldn't produce anything close to a 100% resistant seed stock. So Monsanto never claimed that their technique was the only way, they proved that without intent, you couldn't have a 100% resistant crop occur naturally in 1 generation from non RR stock.
Exactly the same is Roundup. We know that you don't want to get any on the farmers (during application), and we know we don't want to spray it close to harvest. They know if you don't spray either close to harvest, insignificant amounts (ie none) will be on/in the food. And no one will get ill.
> He apparently bought it on the open market as feed, not seed, so he paid a lower price.
This is the majority of cases of Monsanto suing, the farmers know 90%+ of the soybeans are RR beans, so they know if they buy the soy as feed, they will get RR beans. Nothing screwed up about that (other than the farmers trying to cheat the system) They buy seed agreeing not to plant it, then do, then some get caught. That's OK with me. Although the 90%+ market share of Monsanto worries me, but that is not Monsanto's fault IMO.
The anal retentive nature of HR had little to do with the day to day job. Since the problem was HR and 1000 miles from the location he would have worked at; And the job was a office location with a dozen people (only one asshole, and he was not the boss.)
> working for a few real douchebags and those are bridges I wouldn't mind burning either.
One company I worked for a guy got burned for that. What happened was he left without notice to a small company that screwed him over really bad. However that small company was later bought by a much bigger company that I worked for (had almost 50% market share in the industry.) When my manager tried to hire him (knowing the full story, from more than one source.) HR refused. The database from that companies HR was incorporated into their HR database, and they absolutely refused to do their job, and hire the guy.
Not like either of them tried that I know of. I know that after Dorner was the most wanted person in the USA, full resources out to get a single man on the run, with a gun in the city. While he did get killed, but I think he killed 2 police before becoming the most wanted, and shot like 5 more police (killing 3 of them) before getting burned to the ground in a cabin. So if 1 trained person, after Police only, with gun kills 5:1; guns are certainly capable of increasing the impact of your change. He didn't have near the dirt of Snowden or Manning, but he certainly got the info he had out with the help of the gun, that he wasn't able to do after first trying without the gun.
thats why cost efficient is more important than just efficiency. going to cost you $.20 for electric even if generation was free, if it has to be transported over the power grid. Were getting close to needing to focus on transportation more than generation, this is why bio fuels are so interesting, since the cost of transportation is so much less. It is also why solar panels are so interesting, they can be placed at the end of the grid.
> Transmission losses on copper wire over a few thousand km is between 5% and 10%, AKA relatively insignificant.
And the loss from transporting liquids is 0. but that is the insignificant part for both. 20% of the cost of my electricity is generation, IE 80% of the cost is getting it to my house. And we still haven't gotten it into and out of a battery for transportation. With Natural gas, to my house, it is more like 20% of the cost is transportation. For fuel picked up on the road (where I need it) the transportation cost from the refinery is more like 10% of the cost.
>Problem with that scheme is the economy now has an artificial growth boundary defined by the supply of gold.
Historically the biggest problem with gold wasn't the artificial boundary, it was banking. Even with gold (or bitcoins) having unregulated banking, the banks would hold onto gold, then loan that gold out, then that gold loaned would be re-deposited at some point, and loaned again. So you may have 10 pounds of gold, but based on that you could have depositors owed 500 pounds and debtors owing 490 pounds and 10 pounds circulating. But then the bank charges interest, so then from 10 pounds of gold you end up with debtors owe 510 pounds (depositors owed 500, bank owed 10 from interest) , and thus it becomes impossible (without a new supply of gold) for them to all pay off, since there is no longer enough gold in the world to cover the debts. Then defaults happen, the banks stop loaning, the creditors all want their money back now, and unless you can infuse a supply of new currency, the money system must crash occasionally. Basically if you have any sort of lending/borrowing, you must have a central authority with power to control supply and lending, or the currency and the economy around it is guaranteed to go through boom and bust.
Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns? Can we agree a thousand armed civilians, can take on and make progress against a hundred US soldiers, without reverting to terrorist attacks against the families? I agree the odds are against them, it will be 50:1 losses, without armed civilians it would be more like 10000:1. Recap, no civilian arms vs US army, terrorist style attacks only. Armed civilians against army, 50:1 or 100:1 deaths when out numbering them 100:1. I would say that a few thousand cannot control a few million when just 10% of the civilians are armed. The 1% better armed cannot be confident of victory. take away the arms from one side, then we know who wins.
Not sure if your talking usa or in general. This is how syrian rebels took over. Bengazi had a similar path recently. Many us outposts have been lost in Iraq, but the us main bases were well seperated from populations.
>This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.
I am not sure I agree. One that can only shoot a few times, I agree. But this is the early stage. Since not all shot projectiles are for killing, I used a .22 cal cartridge to attach my deck to the block walls, and concrete slabs (uses a blank to shoot a nail.) Also other things, like balloonists have been using helium balloons for wind speed/direction, cheap plastic gun to shoot parachutes to hundred feet would be much quicker and cheaper.
Granted I think the point of this effort is an attempt to say, the gun is out of the bag, we have to assume everyone at all times has one. So lets forget about stopping people from having them, and concentrate on the root cause of the violence. I am not sure that is completely possible, but I do think getting to a reasonably low fatality rate from guns is do able, even when they are prolific.
It is merely a manner of force multiplier. If guns were not helpfull, we wouldn't have soldiers carrying guns in the army, we would only have tanks, and planes when we attacked. If you watch Black Hawk down for example, eventually that plane, tank, whatever is going to go down in a bad spot. Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment. Same in Iraq, Afganistan, etc, it required a huge force of 100,000+ troops to take on the guns, without the proliferation of guns, it would have taken less than 1/10th that. In the USA with most every base in the middle of a major city in the USA, if you have a majority of the population against the military side, and 10% of the population armed, the military wouldn't be able to hold onto many of the bases in the USA for long. Without a secure base, the army couldn't take the US population on at home. Guns alone wouldn't cut it, but explosive are easier to improvise... I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...