Once you shown some anti-particles and anti-hydrogen falling down in gravity, you better have a *really* good theory why the non-tested stuff will behave differently.
For example the "rods from the gods" kinetic energy weapon makes no sense as to put something in orbit with the potential kinetic energy to be a WMD it's going to take multiple nuke's worth of energy just to lift it to that orbit.
Why is this a problem? And have you compared these to actual nukes? I can see where a non-radioactive weapon as powerful as a nuke, but doesn't require the upkeep would be *very* attractive.
Except that police and bodyguards are trained and vetted to a much higher degree and generally won't be idiots. It's the same with police and cars - they're given additional training to handle high-speed chases that the huge majority won't have. They also have a position of responsibility that should mean they're vetted, sensible and not your average Joe Idiot.
You asserted "An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had.". That means training is worthless when you hand an idiot a gun. And since you don't seem to mind smart people having guns, you're also saying that training is worthless no matter what. Which is interesting since training is used to get people to make the best decision by reflex.
As to your second assumption, no. People aren't tested for intelligence when they become police or bodyguards. Their history is checked for problems. They're interviewed and checked to see if they're going to cause problems. And they'll be checked to see if they'll do what they're told. The US police pretty much only recruits from ex-military these days.
It's reasonably frequent over here. Home of criminal gang found and raided, weapons that are much bigger than a small pistol found, criminals carrying them because they feel the need to because other gangs carry weapons.
I'm amused that you can't tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Since you're in the UK I'll give you a hint, the unarmed one is the law abiding citizen. Good thing you have those anti-gun laws to make you safe! From the people who wouldn't be shooting you anyway.
If that filters down to the general populace then everyone will have to worry about what someone else is potentially carrying.
Why would they worry about that? Why do you find it so hard to trust your fellow man? You act as if they're children, unable to make good decisions that make your society better. Once you assume your populace is unable to make good decisions, they become a liability. They're things that get in the way of a good society.
I live in the US. There's guns of all sorts here, carried out in the public. What exactly am I supposed to be worried about? It's been fine for me so far, and those people have been able to protect themselves from human predators. Which means I don't have to deal with them. It's a lot like vaccinations actually.
Assume you're now in the US and do have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight and your gun is revealed.
See, this is a ridiculous scenario. No one "Puts up a fight" when they have a gun pointed at them except when know they're going to kill you anyway. Other than that, it's something that only happens in the movies.
Please tell me you've done *some* research on this before insisting that people should go back to the caveman days where the biggest strongest brute rules.
An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had.
Using that logic, Police and Bodyguards should never be allowed to carry guns.
so criminals feel more inclined to use heavier hardware, and so the situation escalates with no real gain.
I have never, ever, EVER heard of this. What criminals do is pick easier or unarmed targets, interviews with criminals confirm this. (ugh. It's such a hot topic I'm having trouble finding the link in google.)
Assume you can have access to any military grade weapon. You're robbing a bank. Do you choose:
a) A bank with armed guards. b) A bank with no guards, and has put up a "Gun free zone" sign.
B is the safest choice for you. Even if it's less money, there's no chance of you getting shot or injured.
...give me all of the CCTV cameras in Manchester, London, Birmingham and our other big cities as a way of tracking crime over allowing any idiot to carry a deadly weapon that he's generally probably not capable of using correctly.
Just curious, what makes you think they're not doing exactly that right now?
And is your only problem with being able to carry arms the lack of training? Well, that's pretty easy to fix. Make it so people have to train, it's like getting a drivers license.
It makes it easy to prove that you're the owner, but do you really think a thief is going to open up the laptop to check for markings? They'll just grab the whole thing.
"Tell me where they're killing white people in large numbers?"
What does that have to do with you being ridiculous?
And are you kidding? Protests used to be in the papers and TV all the time, until the media figured out they weren't actually going to change anything.
I saw your video, and it was just film of protests with some hyperbole attached to the end. What was your point?
Because there are impoverished schools in every era. Trying to attach special significance to this because Bush is in office is dragging your political obsessions into something that doesn't need it.
Reducing the need to eat and drink would greatly reduce the mass of the ship. Or greatly increase the amount of supplies you had when you arrive at your destination.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you shown some anti-particles and anti-hydrogen falling down in gravity, you better have a *really* good theory why the non-tested stuff will behave differently.
This will remove all doubt, unless it falls up.
So what's stopping them from just putting him on trial again? Since they didn't go through with the case, they can do this. 9/11 was 7 years ago.
I guess times aren't changing as much as you think.
Bulbs. I have 6 light bulbs in my bathroom that I replaced like he did.
Why is that spooky?
Just don't be part of a crowd.
For example the "rods from the gods" kinetic energy weapon makes no sense as to put something in orbit with the potential kinetic energy to be a WMD it's going to take multiple nuke's worth of energy just to lift it to that orbit.
Why is this a problem? And have you compared these to actual nukes? I can see where a non-radioactive weapon as powerful as a nuke, but doesn't require the upkeep would be *very* attractive.
People aren't that stupid. They don't keep a box on their bed marked "Don't touch! Illegal Drugs!"
This was an easy political move. They can show that they "Did something" and all it cost them was taxpayer dollars.
Yeah. A program isn't "A soldier" and unless you're a AI, you don't live in your computer.
I've found the same thing. I suppose it's for the best that my old CoCo3 died.
I'm not even sure how he does it. Even when bittorrenting, I only get around 300KBps at best.
Except that police and bodyguards are trained and vetted to a much higher degree and generally won't be idiots. It's the same with police and cars - they're given additional training to handle high-speed chases that the huge majority won't have. They also have a position of responsibility that should mean they're vetted, sensible and not your average Joe Idiot.
You asserted "An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had.". That means training is worthless when you hand an idiot a gun. And since you don't seem to mind smart people having guns, you're also saying that training is worthless no matter what. Which is interesting since training is used to get people to make the best decision by reflex.
As to your second assumption, no. People aren't tested for intelligence when they become police or bodyguards. Their history is checked for problems. They're interviewed and checked to see if they're going to cause problems. And they'll be checked to see if they'll do what they're told. The US police pretty much only recruits from ex-military these days.
It's reasonably frequent over here. Home of criminal gang found and raided, weapons that are much bigger than a small pistol found, criminals carrying them because they feel the need to because other gangs carry weapons.
I'm amused that you can't tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Since you're in the UK I'll give you a hint, the unarmed one is the law abiding citizen. Good thing you have those anti-gun laws to make you safe! From the people who wouldn't be shooting you anyway.
If that filters down to the general populace then everyone will have to worry about what someone else is potentially carrying.
Why would they worry about that? Why do you find it so hard to trust your fellow man? You act as if they're children, unable to make good decisions that make your society better. Once you assume your populace is unable to make good decisions, they become a liability. They're things that get in the way of a good society.
I live in the US. There's guns of all sorts here, carried out in the public. What exactly am I supposed to be worried about? It's been fine for me so far, and those people have been able to protect themselves from human predators. Which means I don't have to deal with them. It's a lot like vaccinations actually.
Assume you're now in the US and do have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight and your gun is revealed.
See, this is a ridiculous scenario. No one "Puts up a fight" when they have a gun pointed at them except when know they're going to kill you anyway. Other than that, it's something that only happens in the movies.
Please tell me you've done *some* research on this before insisting that people should go back to the caveman days where the biggest strongest brute rules.
An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had.
Using that logic, Police and Bodyguards should never be allowed to carry guns.
so criminals feel more inclined to use heavier hardware, and so the situation escalates with no real gain.
I have never, ever, EVER heard of this. What criminals do is pick easier or unarmed targets, interviews with criminals confirm this. (ugh. It's such a hot topic I'm having trouble finding the link in google.)
Assume you can have access to any military grade weapon. You're robbing a bank. Do you choose:
a) A bank with armed guards.
b) A bank with no guards, and has put up a "Gun free zone" sign.
B is the safest choice for you. Even if it's less money, there's no chance of you getting shot or injured.
Just curious, what makes you think they're not doing exactly that right now?
And is your only problem with being able to carry arms the lack of training? Well, that's pretty easy to fix. Make it so people have to train, it's like getting a drivers license.
(blinks)
So all you have to do is whip out a label maker, type out "Apple" and stick it on the case?
Why would you assume someone who does B&E is "Desperate"?
:-)
You should project less.
It makes it easy to prove that you're the owner, but do you really think a thief is going to open up the laptop to check for markings? They'll just grab the whole thing.
Then you don't understand politics.
He shows that he's "Doing something" and everyone else is slightly inconvenienced until they start using P2P encryption.
Win-win.
I'm surprised you haven't suggested that people only run their LCD screens at their native resolution.
That, combined with non-AA fonts make laptops much easier on the eyes for me.
It was also done over a 56K modem. It didn't matter how many connections you were using, you weren't going to get that web page any faster.
Wow. Is that what you read from his quote?
He was talking about quotes. That if a blogger asks him a question, and he answers, the blogger will put down *exactly* what the man said.
Why in the world would you see accurate quoting as a bad thing?
Yeah man, you mentioned Bush in your first sentence.
;)
You should listen to what you're saying, you might make a good point someday.
Do you have a constructive outlet for Slashdot musicians, or are you just going to say "BAD DOG!"
"Tell me where they're killing white people in large numbers?"
What does that have to do with you being ridiculous?
And are you kidding? Protests used to be in the papers and TV all the time, until the media figured out they weren't actually going to change anything.
I saw your video, and it was just film of protests with some hyperbole attached to the end. What was your point?
That's right. America should be more racist and not kill people if they're brown.
Because there are impoverished schools in every era. Trying to attach special significance to this because Bush is in office is dragging your political obsessions into something that doesn't need it.
It would be great for in-system space travel.
Reducing the need to eat and drink would greatly reduce the mass of the ship. Or greatly increase the amount of supplies you had when you arrive at your destination.