Well the insurance should still cover the accident, unless you caused it on purpose. Accidents are what insurance covers anyway, not deliberate crashes. Even the initiator of the accident is insured, unless they broke the sort of laws that cancel insurance coverage [ie. drove drunk].
This would be good for saving good drivers money, and making those at fault pay for their mistake.
Most people don't even do a "walk around" their car before getting in and driving off. People run out of gas all the time. They get flat tires, and forget to take off the donut for a week.
Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America.
I too remember something from 2 years old. I remember a birthday party for me with a cake on a box for a table, and my family, and one of their friends over.
I found out years later that that memory was probably from the 2 year party, but maybe my memory has failed since then and it was more like my 3rd birthday. I remember lots from 3, 4 and 5 years old. The Article is so wrong that "breathed in" oxygen is needed for memory. I don't think cells can tell the difference, duh.
I read your comments, and they make sense. However I'm sure you're aware that there is much propaganda from either side of the gun debate. America is teeming with it.
In rural Canada, I have a unique viewpoint. I can see that in the US the gun culture is much stronger than it is even than in Western and Northern Canada. This breeds sometimes strange arguments that if you don't have a gun, you are inviting the government to take your rights. WTF! PEOPLE are the government. If the government is going to take your guns, it is because you let them take control of your life a long time before that. Try staying involved in the community and politics [AKA Power], instead of stroking your guns at home waiting them to take them [and you hopefully] away to the funny farm.
Canada has equally nutty gun control advocates. People so desperate that they too look beyond all sense and impement a flawed "2 million" dollar registry, that balloons into 1 Billion overnight. WTF! Never heard of scope creep I guess in all their lawyer schooling.
A gun in every home is just stupid. This isn't the wild west anymore. [Or is it where you live?]
No gun in anyone's possession for 5km is equally naive.
We could try this: Take guns away from unstable people, and let the *more stable* people hang onto them if they want them. Where do we draw the line for mentally stable? Trust me, you'll know it when it is too late and their kid has blown their head off, or a battered wife dies. See why it isn't good to just let every shmuck who wants a gun have one? Who is being more naive?
"And in the vast majority of those cases, the gun isn't even fired."
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun:-)
Security devices apply to all in society, because we all benefit from them. Whether or not this gun device will benefit us remains to be seen.
The security device doesn't have to be only for children. It can be so that someone can't steal your gun and fire it, either at you, or in another crime.
That doesn't change the fact that a gun was used, and provided an easy, and harder to fix method for these sick children. Wrist cutting, and drugs are a lot less effective, especially when there are bystanders, in the case of the gun deaths I spoke of. Perhaps they would have hung themselves? Who knows, but if they didn't have guns they wouldn't have been gun deaths.
LudditeMind I was about to reply to the idiotic comments you just smacked down, but if your comments are read, they pretty much take care of any argument from the gun nut community who think that guns in the home actually make they safer.
Cause kids don't get guns from homes where the guns are locked. Then why have them for self defence in an emergency. Good luck getting to the gun before you notice you are being attacked.
But my kid isn't smart enough to get the locked gun. Yeah, stupidity runs in the family I guess.
Pools are more dangerous. Yeah, your 3 year old can inhale water without trying, so you might not want to let them roam around your pool unsupervised. What does drowning have to do with unsafe gun storage?
Well I know most people around here have some kind of gun. And I know of at least 3 cases where a gun ended a child's life, often by suicide.
Guns are only good for saving lives in the hands of police/military, and hunters who feed their family that way. Anyone with less training is simply fooling themselves that they are safer.
My point is that the critic was not making a good analogy. Someone has since pointed out that they simply meant that the gun would fail, which of course it would at some point. That is why guns shouldn't be used in critical situations. Adding an unstable element to an unstable situation is asking for more trouble, not a pleasent resolution.
Microwaves are not used in critical situations, and if guns were not then there would be no problem. The problem is that some people do depend on them, when they should have a better option [for self defence].
You can trick a microwave into thinking the door is closed when it is not.
The same sort of approach is possible for a "smart gun" using biometrics. I'm sure you know that gummy bears are more than just tasty?
Your comment about my relationship with appliances was... amusing. I did just get a new fridge though with an ice crusher? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....
Just where do you live that the threat of home invasion with the intent to murder or injure you is enough of a concern that you need to spend hundreds on a gun(s), and risk the well being of your children at the same time?
I think you need to work at reducing the number of scum in your community, more than taking them out after the fact.
Police don't need to be hampered by technology that can and will fail. They have enough to worry about, and focusing too much on their gun will lead to the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" scenarios.
This may surprise you, but yes I own[ed] several [but I live in Canada, so don't tell the Mounties, eh?;-)]
And I have used biometrics before. The gun "crashing" isn't the problem though. It is the gun that is the problem. Used in places where they introduce more risk than percieved benefit, they are dangerous. They should be in those situations. With law enforcement it is sometimes unavoidable, but home users have few excuses.
Ultimately though a life is threatened by the gun [although not always unfairly]. To call it "life sustaining" is sugar coating for a weapon.
Instead of laying down and dying, which is hardly likely, you *could* try a knife or bat. People managed to defend themselves long before gun powder you know. Before police even. Now that we have police we don't need an armoury, just a phone an a bat [and a rifle to shoot food].
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but did State Farm pay HIM any money?
:-)
State Farm was there!
Well the insurance should still cover the accident, unless you caused it on purpose. Accidents are what insurance covers anyway, not deliberate crashes. Even the initiator of the accident is insured, unless they broke the sort of laws that cancel insurance coverage [ie. drove drunk].
This would be good for saving good drivers money, and making those at fault pay for their mistake.
Most people don't even do a "walk around" their car before getting in and driving off. People run out of gas all the time. They get flat tires, and forget to take off the donut for a week.
Holding car drivers to the same standards as aircraft is such a huge leap that the paperwork generated by it could likely employ everyone in America.
I too remember something from 2 years old. I remember a birthday party for me with a cake on a box for a table, and my family, and one of their friends over.
I found out years later that that memory was probably from the 2 year party, but maybe my memory has failed since then and it was more like my 3rd birthday.
I remember lots from 3, 4 and 5 years old. The Article is so wrong that "breathed in" oxygen is needed for memory. I don't think cells can tell the difference, duh.
Teenager Acretion model?
I don't think it will work as well as the planetary model.
Why thank you.
Freud was quite intellectual wasn't he? He had insight into the human condition that revolutionized modern psychology.
However, I don't think he ever determined what makes someone think that a gun kills someone deader than a cut throat or bashed temple does.
I think your Fruedian slip explains reality much better.
Now I've seen everything.
/.er with a wife and kid.
A
I can die a happy man.
Merry Christmas
I'm living the dream. Learning if my hardware is compatible with my disto of choice, and reading my favourite forums on the Internet.
/. at the moment because my family won't be here for another hour or so.
I'm only on
I read your comments, and they make sense. However I'm sure you're aware that there is much propaganda from either side of the gun debate. America is teeming with it.
In rural Canada, I have a unique viewpoint. I can see that in the US the gun culture is much stronger than it is even than in Western and Northern Canada. This breeds sometimes strange arguments that if you don't have a gun, you are inviting the government to take your rights. WTF! PEOPLE are the government. If the government is going to take your guns, it is because you let them take control of your life a long time before that. Try staying involved in the community and politics [AKA Power], instead of stroking your guns at home waiting them to take them [and you hopefully] away to the funny farm.
Canada has equally nutty gun control advocates. People so desperate that they too look beyond all sense and impement a flawed "2 million" dollar registry, that balloons into 1 Billion overnight. WTF! Never heard of scope creep I guess in all their lawyer schooling.
A gun in every home is just stupid. This isn't the wild west anymore. [Or is it where you live?]
No gun in anyone's possession for 5km is equally naive.
We could try this: Take guns away from unstable people, and let the *more stable* people hang onto them if they want them. Where do we draw the line for mentally stable? Trust me, you'll know it when it is too late and their kid has blown their head off, or a battered wife dies. See why it isn't good to just let every shmuck who wants a gun have one? Who is being more naive?
"Only a very tiny fraction of them are misused."
:-)
If so, why do you need so many?
"And in the vast majority of those cases, the gun isn't even fired."
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun
Security devices apply to all in society, because we all benefit from them. Whether or not this gun device will benefit us remains to be seen.
The security device doesn't have to be only for children. It can be so that someone can't steal your gun and fire it, either at you, or in another crime.
"'Microsoft's CEOs have made it 'patently' clear..."
Next Microsoft will try to patent Santa Claus, right?
Did I blame the suicide on the gun? No.
That doesn't change the fact that a gun was used, and provided an easy, and harder to fix method for these sick children. Wrist cutting, and drugs are a lot less effective, especially when there are bystanders, in the case of the gun deaths I spoke of. Perhaps they would have hung themselves? Who knows, but if they didn't have guns they wouldn't have been gun deaths.
LudditeMind I was about to reply to the idiotic comments you just smacked down, but if your comments are read, they pretty much take care of any argument from the gun nut community who think that guns in the home actually make they safer.
Cause kids don't get guns from homes where the guns are locked.
Then why have them for self defence in an emergency. Good luck getting to the gun before you notice you are being attacked.
But my kid isn't smart enough to get the locked gun.
Yeah, stupidity runs in the family I guess.
Pools are more dangerous.
Yeah, your 3 year old can inhale water without trying, so you might not want to let them roam around your pool unsupervised. What does drowning have to do with unsafe gun storage?
No I mean you can make it run with the door open. You can also make a smart gun think it is OK to fire, when it is not. ;-)
Well I know most people around here have some kind of gun. And I know of at least 3 cases where a gun ended a child's life, often by suicide.
Guns are only good for saving lives in the hands of police/military, and hunters who feed their family that way. Anyone with less training is simply fooling themselves that they are safer.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&cid=4950 236
Read this thread just above you to see your long awaited answers about microwave tom foolery.
And yes you can etch "hard coded" programming into harware, they are called ROMs. Or just use a properly designed circuit.
I like it too that you noticed.
My point is that the critic was not making a good analogy. Someone has since pointed out that they simply meant that the gun would fail, which of course it would at some point. That is why guns shouldn't be used in critical situations. Adding an unstable element to an unstable situation is asking for more trouble, not a pleasent resolution.
Microwaves are not used in critical situations, and if guns were not then there would be no problem. The problem is that some people do depend on them, when they should have a better option [for self defence].
You can trick a microwave into thinking the door is closed when it is not.
... amusing. I did just get a new fridge though with an ice crusher? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....
The same sort of approach is possible for a "smart gun" using biometrics. I'm sure you know that gummy bears are more than just tasty?
Your comment about my relationship with appliances was
Just where do you live that the threat of home invasion with the intent to murder or injure you is enough of a concern that you need to spend hundreds on a gun(s), and risk the well being of your children at the same time?
I think you need to work at reducing the number of scum in your community, more than taking them out after the fact.
I should use preview.
[Guns shouldN'T be in those situations.]
Police don't need to be hampered by technology that can and will fail. They have enough to worry about, and focusing too much on their gun will lead to the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" scenarios.
This may surprise you, but yes I own[ed] several [but I live in Canada, so don't tell the Mounties, eh? ;-)]
And I have used biometrics before.
The gun "crashing" isn't the problem though. It is the gun that is the problem. Used in places where they introduce more risk than percieved benefit, they are dangerous. They should be in those situations. With law enforcement it is sometimes unavoidable, but home users have few excuses.
Ultimately though a life is threatened by the gun [although not always unfairly]. To call it "life sustaining" is sugar coating for a weapon.
Instead of laying down and dying, which is hardly likely, you *could* try a knife or bat. People managed to defend themselves long before gun powder you know. Before police even. Now that we have police we don't need an armoury, just a phone an a bat [and a rifle to shoot food].
So what you are saying is that we need better laws for pools too?
Or just trashy people who don't watch their kids around dangerous things?