Check your math there, guy. 700 RPM cyclic rate = 11.6 rounds per second, emptying that 30 round mag in just a hair over 2.5 seconds. That's on the slow side. Colt says the CRC is 700-950 RPM, so it could be as short as 2 seconds.
Or he could build/buy the sear and selector*, pay $200 for a class-3 tax stamp, and enjoy is non-$50,000 fully-automatic weapon.
Wrong on SO many levels. We'll start with the most damaging. Building the sear and selector yourself is, in the eyes of the BATFE, manufacturing a machine gun, and will land you a very hefty fine, likely a prison sentence, and a lifetime prohibition on ever owning a firearm. The BATFE feels that way about a shitload of different things, and you really, really do need to understand the regulations before you try anything that will look, in hindsight, monumentally stupid.
The $200 tax stamp allows you to own an existing, registered, legal full-auto weapon (or suppressor, short barreled rifle or shotgun, etc). It does not in any way, shape or form allow you to convert your AR-15 or AK clone to full auto using new parts. I know there are guys sitting here saying, "Hey, I just saw an ad for a guy selling pre-ban drop-in auto sears, they legal"... yeah, right. Buy one, and write me from prison to tell me how it worked out for you. And yes, you can buy the few M16 parts that make a machine gun - the sear, selector, etc. But you better be damned sure you have a legal M16 to drop them into.
And there are many, many full auto firearms that can be had for far less than $50K. The last time I looked the going rate for a rock-n-roll MAC-10 was about $3K, and M-16s started around $12K. You can find Stens, Thompsons, Uzis, the list goes on and on. Get out your check book and take your pick. Some are really pricey, some not so much.
you know the assault weapons ban is gone? there's still the classification system in place (points for features, past a given count of points it's now class 3 and you need a license and tax stamp
Still wrong. You need a tax stamp (not a license) if it's a machine gun, or a short barreled (under 18") rifle or shotgun, a suppressor, or a very few other special situations. These are commonly known as "NFA" weapons, controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most except machine guns can be manufactured, as long as you know and religiously follow ALL of the rules ALL of the time, and do ALL of the paperwork BEFORE you start anything.
I wouldn't say the dealers are happy to honor my request to deliver the car sans dealer advertising. However, when I explain to them that I will refuse delivery if it shows up with their name or logo anywhere on it, they eventually get over it and comply. One didn't take me seriously and brought the car around with their logo and name in nice shiny chrome on the ass end... they claimed they put it on as soon as the car leaves the transport, and they can't take them off without damaging the paint. I told them the deal was off and started to leave. They figured out pretty quickly how to get it off.
Ummm, no. He slapped someone with a fine for violating very specific instructions (not to mention the law), and for causing problems and needless expense and delay for the defendant, attorneys, and other jurors.
It's not like Jons just offered to serve on a jury out of the goodness of her heart, had no instructions about how she had to do her job and got fined for an innocent mistake. She was called upon to do her civic duty - as any citizen can be. She received specific instructions about the hows and whys of serving on a jury. Then she apparently decided to ignore the instructions, and that her ability to post whatever crap wandered through her head on Facebook was more important than the right of the defendant to a fair trial.
Bra-vo. Good show. Kudos to the judge for not only giving her a proportionate fine, but for also giving her some more meaningful work to do so she understands WHY what she did was bone-headed and wrong.
I don't think the mere existence of a teachers union is the problem. I think the problem is that the union is very often negotiating with a school board made up of union members and long time supporters. Very often the only people who stand any chance of coming out of contract negotiations with an outcome they're not happy with are the parents and taxpayers.
I'm not, I've just been noticing over the past several months that the signal to noise ratio is getting far worse. I suppose quantity, not quality, must sell more ad space.
Different states may have additional legal definitions. Nebraska's is here: http://law.justia.com/nebraska/codes/s28index/s2812013000.html. I find 7(b) particularly interesting; it seems to me that if the kid's bottle "bomb" was not intended to damage property or injure people, but just to make something go "BOOM", then it's not a destructive device. Hmmm. Perhaps Mom knowing about the kid's experiment would be a strong indication that he wasn't planning to blow something up (other than the soda bottle) or hurt anyone.
The group thinks its protocol could be useful in rural areas of the developing world where text messaging is the only affordable, reliable link.
Affordable and reliable, that is, until people start flooding the system with millions of text messages carrying data traffic -- at which time it will become suddenly less reliable, followed shortly by it becoming less affordable even for its intended use.
It's not me, nor people like me, stalking you. It's the advertisers, the data aggregators, and whoever is willing to pay for or steal the information. I personally don't give a rat's ass what you do nor where you go to do it, but you can bet a lot of people far more annoying and potentially dangerous than I do care and will pay for the information you so blithely give up. So... enjoy yourself, just make sure you stay on the yellow line.
Ah, the old "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument. So, then, you're OK with video surveillance of you in your home as well? I mean, if you have nothign to feel guilty about, where DO you draw the line? Indifference and apathy are the best friends of tyranny.
There's a big difference, I think you might agree, between "complete strangers see me with my pint" and "a man in a suit follows me everywhere, noting the exact time, date and location wherever I go. He's always there, there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, following me. He also keeps records of every phone call i make, every song I listen to, every message I send and every web page I visit."
One of these, you see, is normal human social behavior. The other is more than a little creepy, and something most of us would never put up with. But, if you give your permission I guess you're OK with it as long as you get a beer coupon.
We could, if it were not a one-sided battle. The government is who decides what percentage is "reasonable". It seems that the current feeling is leaning toward 100% being "reasonable", with a little doled out to keep us voting them into power while being utterly dependent upon government services. It's because, you see, they're SO Much smarter than we are, and SO better able to spend our - er, their - money for our benefit.
Now, if only there were some way we could actually take control of the government... but I guess that's just a crazy idea.
Absolutely. One movie I believe everyone should see, at least once. My only fear is that it won't take us a few hundred years - more like a few dozen at the rate we seem to be going.
Give that man a cookie. I mean, jeebus, all one has to do is look at the sources currently being exploited for diamonds, oil, gold, etc. Do you want to vacation or raise your kids in Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, or even Saudi Arabia? It seems like the only time stability occurs is when the ruling junta has enough power and outside help to keep the entire country's population well under control.
I guess it was easier when you had a huge corporation with government backing, and a population of uneducated, uninformed, largely unarmed folk who were glad for anything they could get out of the deal. Now you've got huge corporations with government backing facing a more educated, well connected population with cell phone, satellite and Internet access, and a phalanx of groups itching for the chance to sell a few hundred thousand more AKs and RPGs to equip the next insurgency.
To be perfectly honest, if I discovered anything of value underneath Afghanistan - I'm not sure I wouldn't keep my damn mouth shut until the place was something more than a shooting gallery in the round.
I don't see a problem with brainstorming and discussing all possible options, no matter how bad they may eventually turn out to be. It's an important step in the decision-making process. You list all the ideas, good and bad, then start weeding out the obvious bad ones, then debating the apparently not-too-bad ones until you have it narrowed down to a few good options - then pick the best option. IMHO that best, last remaining option would be "let the newspapers try to figure out how to survive, and if they can, great. If they can't, the electronic media can report on their eventual demise".
Of course over the past few decades, there seems to be an increasing trend for the most idiotic, most obviously flawed ideas to float to the top and become law. I attribute that to voter apathy and a press (both print and electronic) that have for a very long time been reduced to pandering for market share to survive.
The very things discussed in TFA are the things that keep me from owning anything made by Apple. I have a music player, I have a laptop, I have a couple of desktops, I have a neat-o phone. Not one of them are dependent upon Apple, or anyone else, for content or applications (the sole exception being the phone, but anyone can make a mistake once in a while). I place a higher value than some people - including, apparently, people who buy Apple products - on my ability to acquire and create software and content without needing the blessing of a particular corporation.
Of course I avoid Google and Yahoo Groups, Gmail, Google Apps, etc for the same reason. I don't single out Apple for special treatment.
"Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."
Sadly, your decisions regarding from whom you will buy your gas and oil won't affect the market one bit. Your first-year econ class notes should tell you what happens when you switch gas stations but not how much you buy. (Hint: not one damn thing). That said, I would be the LAST person to discourage you from doing what YOU believe is right and claiming the moral victory. It's just not an economic blow, but you're smart enough to know that already I'm sure.
The only way to affect the market is to STOP buying altogether, or drastically reduce your consumption. It's harder than it sounds, of course, but we're very slowly making progress. Over the past few years my family has cut its gasoline consumption by about half, just by changing what and how and why we drive. I make a lot of routine runs to pick things up and drop things off on a motorcycle (40+ MPG) instead of the pickup (14 MPG in town), and when my wife & I travel we take her car (36+ MPG, city or highway). The pickup gets used to haul things, period. Our electricity consumption is down from a couple of years ago as well, thanks to CFL bulbs (which I hate) and newer computers & appliances - we don't replace things before they need replacing, but when we do we'll pay a little extra for low energy consumption. We get most of our power from a nuke plant, but there are coal plants nearby as well. I'd like nothing more than to see them fade away from reduced demand and increased input to the grid from other sources.
I don't think oil companies are inherently evil, but like most enormous corporations are not terribly bright. That's actually a good thing, I think. If they wised up and changed the oil economy in a grossly positive manner -- which I believe they could almost overnight -- it would remove our incentives to get solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biofuels and all the other up and coming alternatives to oil and coal up to speed. In the short run we get screwed and the oil companies make out like masked bandits, but in the long run I suspect it will all work out. I think 50 years from now we'll look back and remember how the oil companies used to be huge, highly profitable enterprises.
I would guess that a civilization sufficiently advanced to both master interstellar travel, AND do it in such a way as to be any threat to our world, would be quite able to find us - or at least find our very hospitable planet - without our help. It's not like we could hide if we wanted to. How could we, exactly? We have many decades' worth of radio signals emitted already, and we're sending more all the time. Are we going to suddenly stop the use of radio? Build a giant Faraday cage around the planet, and paint it to look like an inhospitable, dead planet? Of course that might attract MORE attention from a race who could send out an automated planet-munching mining machine. It's tough to make bets when you don't even know who or what you're betting on, if anything.
Here's my suggestion. Live your life. Don't worry about things over which you have absolutely no control whatsoever, and never will have. If we discover or are discovered by off-planet life forms, we'll just have to see how that works out - we may be more advanced, less advanced or, God help us all, about the same. The chances of any of it happening in our lifetimes, or in the next few thousand years, is probably pretty slim anyway. On a galactic scale, our presence on this planet has been just the blink of an eye - the odds are in our favor. If someone does find us all we can hope for is that they're a lot smarter than we are, and a lot nicer.
I don't even know where to begin.
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How many things are wrong with this kooky idea? Completely ineffective if you're attacked from behind, if your assailant wears a mask, if the attack happens at night, etc. Of course the very FIRST thing that's going to get stolen is your "life recorder", so now your mugger knows your ATM PIN code, all your passwords, your address, your home, your family, your friends, EVERYTHING. Your "life recorder" will of course provide evidence against you in any trial. Your employer will use it to prove you've been slacking off or sneaking off to your car for a company policy prohibited smoke. Use your imagination, there's almost NO upside to this.
If you live in constant fear of being attacked, you either need counseling or you REALLY need to move somewhere else. This country is full of small towns, medium sized cities, and even larger cities where you will be quite safe.
Human listeners can't pinpoint the source of the shot. By using a series of microphones at known locations, and using the time of arrival of the sound wave at each, taking into account humidity, etc you can determine the source with some degree of accuracy. We used to do that for locating artillery batteries and spotting impacts.
I wonder, though, how much good it would do the cops to know exactly where the shot came from, even if the system could tell them with a useful degree of accuracy. If I'm some dickweed shooting someone in Chicago I'm going to shoot him and un-ass the area as quickly as my stolen SUV or stubby little legs (wrapped up with saggy jeans) will carry me. If the cops show up thirty SECONDS later, too bad -- I'm a distant memory.
Mind you I don't have an answer to this problem. Personally I wonder how effective it would be to put twice as many cops out there with half as much investment in overpriced crap that has now come to be regarded as absolutely necessary - but that's just me, a non-cop and non-criminal, wondering. I'm probably way off base. Maybe it would be quicker and more effective to provide free marksmanship training to the bangers so they can kill each other without so many non-combatant casualties. If they were selectively and effectively killing each other and not riddling bystanders with rounds from poorly-used bullet hoses, maybe we wouldn't perceive it as such a big problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be looking for a horse and buggy sound clip for my wife's Fusion hybrid.
Check your math there, guy. 700 RPM cyclic rate = 11.6 rounds per second, emptying that 30 round mag in just a hair over 2.5 seconds. That's on the slow side. Colt says the CRC is 700-950 RPM, so it could be as short as 2 seconds.
Or he could build/buy the sear and selector*, pay $200 for a class-3 tax stamp, and enjoy is non-$50,000 fully-automatic weapon.
Wrong on SO many levels. We'll start with the most damaging. Building the sear and selector yourself is, in the eyes of the BATFE, manufacturing a machine gun, and will land you a very hefty fine, likely a prison sentence, and a lifetime prohibition on ever owning a firearm. The BATFE feels that way about a shitload of different things, and you really, really do need to understand the regulations before you try anything that will look, in hindsight, monumentally stupid.
The $200 tax stamp allows you to own an existing, registered, legal full-auto weapon (or suppressor, short barreled rifle or shotgun, etc). It does not in any way, shape or form allow you to convert your AR-15 or AK clone to full auto using new parts. I know there are guys sitting here saying, "Hey, I just saw an ad for a guy selling pre-ban drop-in auto sears, they legal"... yeah, right. Buy one, and write me from prison to tell me how it worked out for you. And yes, you can buy the few M16 parts that make a machine gun - the sear, selector, etc. But you better be damned sure you have a legal M16 to drop them into.
And there are many, many full auto firearms that can be had for far less than $50K. The last time I looked the going rate for a rock-n-roll MAC-10 was about $3K, and M-16s started around $12K. You can find Stens, Thompsons, Uzis, the list goes on and on. Get out your check book and take your pick. Some are really pricey, some not so much.
you know the assault weapons ban is gone? there's still the classification system in place (points for features, past a given count of points it's now class 3 and you need a license and tax stamp
Still wrong. You need a tax stamp (not a license) if it's a machine gun, or a short barreled (under 18") rifle or shotgun, a suppressor, or a very few other special situations. These are commonly known as "NFA" weapons, controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most except machine guns can be manufactured, as long as you know and religiously follow ALL of the rules ALL of the time, and do ALL of the paperwork BEFORE you start anything.
RTFA. Ragu, it's in there.
I wouldn't say the dealers are happy to honor my request to deliver the car sans dealer advertising. However, when I explain to them that I will refuse delivery if it shows up with their name or logo anywhere on it, they eventually get over it and comply. One didn't take me seriously and brought the car around with their logo and name in nice shiny chrome on the ass end... they claimed they put it on as soon as the car leaves the transport, and they can't take them off without damaging the paint. I told them the deal was off and started to leave. They figured out pretty quickly how to get it off.
Ummm, no. He slapped someone with a fine for violating very specific instructions (not to mention the law), and for causing problems and needless expense and delay for the defendant, attorneys, and other jurors.
It's not like Jons just offered to serve on a jury out of the goodness of her heart, had no instructions about how she had to do her job and got fined for an innocent mistake. She was called upon to do her civic duty - as any citizen can be. She received specific instructions about the hows and whys of serving on a jury. Then she apparently decided to ignore the instructions, and that her ability to post whatever crap wandered through her head on Facebook was more important than the right of the defendant to a fair trial.
Bra-vo. Good show. Kudos to the judge for not only giving her a proportionate fine, but for also giving her some more meaningful work to do so she understands WHY what she did was bone-headed and wrong.
I don't think the mere existence of a teachers union is the problem. I think the problem is that the union is very often negotiating with a school board made up of union members and long time supporters. Very often the only people who stand any chance of coming out of contract negotiations with an outcome they're not happy with are the parents and taxpayers.
I'm not, I've just been noticing over the past several months that the signal to noise ratio is getting far worse. I suppose quantity, not quality, must sell more ad space.
So now we're just re-posting old shit from every other news source? I read this on the BBC News feed a couple of days ago, and it's been banging around since well before then.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12001910794327/man-finds-plant-growing-inside-his-lung/ (8/9)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10945050 (8/11)
Excelsior!
Actually, "destructive device" has a specific definition in Federal regulations, courtesy of our friends at the BATFE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
Different states may have additional legal definitions. Nebraska's is here: http://law.justia.com/nebraska/codes/s28index/s2812013000.html. I find 7(b) particularly interesting; it seems to me that if the kid's bottle "bomb" was not intended to damage property or injure people, but just to make something go "BOOM", then it's not a destructive device. Hmmm. Perhaps Mom knowing about the kid's experiment would be a strong indication that he wasn't planning to blow something up (other than the soda bottle) or hurt anyone.
Affordable and reliable, that is, until people start flooding the system with millions of text messages carrying data traffic -- at which time it will become suddenly less reliable, followed shortly by it becoming less affordable even for its intended use.
It's not me, nor people like me, stalking you. It's the advertisers, the data aggregators, and whoever is willing to pay for or steal the information. I personally don't give a rat's ass what you do nor where you go to do it, but you can bet a lot of people far more annoying and potentially dangerous than I do care and will pay for the information you so blithely give up. So... enjoy yourself, just make sure you stay on the yellow line.
Ah, the old "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument. So, then, you're OK with video surveillance of you in your home as well? I mean, if you have nothign to feel guilty about, where DO you draw the line? Indifference and apathy are the best friends of tyranny.
There's a big difference, I think you might agree, between "complete strangers see me with my pint" and "a man in a suit follows me everywhere, noting the exact time, date and location wherever I go. He's always there, there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, following me. He also keeps records of every phone call i make, every song I listen to, every message I send and every web page I visit."
One of these, you see, is normal human social behavior. The other is more than a little creepy, and something most of us would never put up with. But, if you give your permission I guess you're OK with it as long as you get a beer coupon.
We could, if it were not a one-sided battle. The government is who decides what percentage is "reasonable". It seems that the current feeling is leaning toward 100% being "reasonable", with a little doled out to keep us voting them into power while being utterly dependent upon government services. It's because, you see, they're SO Much smarter than we are, and SO better able to spend our - er, their - money for our benefit.
Now, if only there were some way we could actually take control of the government... but I guess that's just a crazy idea.
Absolutely. One movie I believe everyone should see, at least once. My only fear is that it won't take us a few hundred years - more like a few dozen at the rate we seem to be going.
Give that man a cookie. I mean, jeebus, all one has to do is look at the sources currently being exploited for diamonds, oil, gold, etc. Do you want to vacation or raise your kids in Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, or even Saudi Arabia? It seems like the only time stability occurs is when the ruling junta has enough power and outside help to keep the entire country's population well under control.
I guess it was easier when you had a huge corporation with government backing, and a population of uneducated, uninformed, largely unarmed folk who were glad for anything they could get out of the deal. Now you've got huge corporations with government backing facing a more educated, well connected population with cell phone, satellite and Internet access, and a phalanx of groups itching for the chance to sell a few hundred thousand more AKs and RPGs to equip the next insurgency.
To be perfectly honest, if I discovered anything of value underneath Afghanistan - I'm not sure I wouldn't keep my damn mouth shut until the place was something more than a shooting gallery in the round.
I don't see a problem with brainstorming and discussing all possible options, no matter how bad they may eventually turn out to be. It's an important step in the decision-making process. You list all the ideas, good and bad, then start weeding out the obvious bad ones, then debating the apparently not-too-bad ones until you have it narrowed down to a few good options - then pick the best option. IMHO that best, last remaining option would be "let the newspapers try to figure out how to survive, and if they can, great. If they can't, the electronic media can report on their eventual demise".
Of course over the past few decades, there seems to be an increasing trend for the most idiotic, most obviously flawed ideas to float to the top and become law. I attribute that to voter apathy and a press (both print and electronic) that have for a very long time been reduced to pandering for market share to survive.
The very things discussed in TFA are the things that keep me from owning anything made by Apple. I have a music player, I have a laptop, I have a couple of desktops, I have a neat-o phone. Not one of them are dependent upon Apple, or anyone else, for content or applications (the sole exception being the phone, but anyone can make a mistake once in a while). I place a higher value than some people - including, apparently, people who buy Apple products - on my ability to acquire and create software and content without needing the blessing of a particular corporation.
Of course I avoid Google and Yahoo Groups, Gmail, Google Apps, etc for the same reason. I don't single out Apple for special treatment.
"Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."
Sadly, your decisions regarding from whom you will buy your gas and oil won't affect the market one bit. Your first-year econ class notes should tell you what happens when you switch gas stations but not how much you buy. (Hint: not one damn thing). That said, I would be the LAST person to discourage you from doing what YOU believe is right and claiming the moral victory. It's just not an economic blow, but you're smart enough to know that already I'm sure.
The only way to affect the market is to STOP buying altogether, or drastically reduce your consumption. It's harder than it sounds, of course, but we're very slowly making progress. Over the past few years my family has cut its gasoline consumption by about half, just by changing what and how and why we drive. I make a lot of routine runs to pick things up and drop things off on a motorcycle (40+ MPG) instead of the pickup (14 MPG in town), and when my wife & I travel we take her car (36+ MPG, city or highway). The pickup gets used to haul things, period. Our electricity consumption is down from a couple of years ago as well, thanks to CFL bulbs (which I hate) and newer computers & appliances - we don't replace things before they need replacing, but when we do we'll pay a little extra for low energy consumption. We get most of our power from a nuke plant, but there are coal plants nearby as well. I'd like nothing more than to see them fade away from reduced demand and increased input to the grid from other sources.
I don't think oil companies are inherently evil, but like most enormous corporations are not terribly bright. That's actually a good thing, I think. If they wised up and changed the oil economy in a grossly positive manner -- which I believe they could almost overnight -- it would remove our incentives to get solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biofuels and all the other up and coming alternatives to oil and coal up to speed. In the short run we get screwed and the oil companies make out like masked bandits, but in the long run I suspect it will all work out. I think 50 years from now we'll look back and remember how the oil companies used to be huge, highly profitable enterprises.
I would guess that a civilization sufficiently advanced to both master interstellar travel, AND do it in such a way as to be any threat to our world, would be quite able to find us - or at least find our very hospitable planet - without our help. It's not like we could hide if we wanted to. How could we, exactly? We have many decades' worth of radio signals emitted already, and we're sending more all the time. Are we going to suddenly stop the use of radio? Build a giant Faraday cage around the planet, and paint it to look like an inhospitable, dead planet? Of course that might attract MORE attention from a race who could send out an automated planet-munching mining machine. It's tough to make bets when you don't even know who or what you're betting on, if anything.
Here's my suggestion. Live your life. Don't worry about things over which you have absolutely no control whatsoever, and never will have. If we discover or are discovered by off-planet life forms, we'll just have to see how that works out - we may be more advanced, less advanced or, God help us all, about the same. The chances of any of it happening in our lifetimes, or in the next few thousand years, is probably pretty slim anyway. On a galactic scale, our presence on this planet has been just the blink of an eye - the odds are in our favor. If someone does find us all we can hope for is that they're a lot smarter than we are, and a lot nicer.
How many things are wrong with this kooky idea? Completely ineffective if you're attacked from behind, if your assailant wears a mask, if the attack happens at night, etc. Of course the very FIRST thing that's going to get stolen is your "life recorder", so now your mugger knows your ATM PIN code, all your passwords, your address, your home, your family, your friends, EVERYTHING. Your "life recorder" will of course provide evidence against you in any trial. Your employer will use it to prove you've been slacking off or sneaking off to your car for a company policy prohibited smoke. Use your imagination, there's almost NO upside to this.
If you live in constant fear of being attacked, you either need counseling or you REALLY need to move somewhere else. This country is full of small towns, medium sized cities, and even larger cities where you will be quite safe.
Human listeners can't pinpoint the source of the shot. By using a series of microphones at known locations, and using the time of arrival of the sound wave at each, taking into account humidity, etc you can determine the source with some degree of accuracy. We used to do that for locating artillery batteries and spotting impacts.
I wonder, though, how much good it would do the cops to know exactly where the shot came from, even if the system could tell them with a useful degree of accuracy. If I'm some dickweed shooting someone in Chicago I'm going to shoot him and un-ass the area as quickly as my stolen SUV or stubby little legs (wrapped up with saggy jeans) will carry me. If the cops show up thirty SECONDS later, too bad -- I'm a distant memory.
Mind you I don't have an answer to this problem. Personally I wonder how effective it would be to put twice as many cops out there with half as much investment in overpriced crap that has now come to be regarded as absolutely necessary - but that's just me, a non-cop and non-criminal, wondering. I'm probably way off base. Maybe it would be quicker and more effective to provide free marksmanship training to the bangers so they can kill each other without so many non-combatant casualties. If they were selectively and effectively killing each other and not riddling bystanders with rounds from poorly-used bullet hoses, maybe we wouldn't perceive it as such a big problem.