You're confused, friend. Apple never claimed the classic Mac OS was especially reliable. The fact that the OS could crash, or that an application crash could cause the OS to appear to have crashed, was well known. Apple only claimed (truthfully) that it was easier to use a Mac than a computer running one of the other operating systems.
In fact, you can do pretty much anything to a file you want (short of moving it to another volume and deleting the original) and chances are the alias will still be able to track it down (and update itself) when you double-click it.
If you do manage to "confuse" an alias, a friendly dialog box will pop up when you double-click on it asking you if you'd like to manually associate it with the original, or just delete it. It's stuff like that that really puts Mac OS X head and shoulders above the other UNIX-based and UNIX-like operating systems.
It's an old-school MacOS concept that Unix geeks would do well to learn from.
It's not that old school, is it? If I remember correctly, aliases were a new feature of System 7, back in 1990 or thereabouts. Old school Mac stuff dates back to the mid-1980's. Man, I remember early '86 and the first Mac Plus. System 3.0 was sweeeeeet. It had filesystem caching and allowed you to create nested folders. And it won InfoWorld's People's Choice Award for OS of the Year.
Those were the days, man. I can still close my eyes and hear the sound of the startup beep and of the original Mac floppy drive humming quietly to itself as the machine booted up. So warm and friendly. Mmm.
6.10 Abbreviations with or without periods, lowercase letters used as nouns, and capital letters that would be confusing if
s alone were added for the plural with an apostrophe and an s:
M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s
x's and y's S's, A's, I's SOS's
Note that "SOS" doesn't stand for anything-- it's simply the three-letter combination that is easiest to send and recognize in Morse code-- and it forms the plural with an apostrophe. The correct plural of "DVD," whether or no it has an acronymic expansion, is "DVD's."
I dare say that the well-respected and venerable Chicago Manual takes precedence in general use over the very specific EIA and APA style guides, particularly given the fact that the EIA guide, at least, explicitly notes that the recommendation for acronymic pluralization contained therein differs from that given in a more general style guide.
Never flown trans-Pacific, huh? Sitting in one chair for 12 hours is no picnic, but it's not that big a deal. Fifteen to Sydney is a hike, and 16 from Hong Kong to New York is no fun. But it's doable.
Just for the record, not only is HDTV really coming, it's already here. I've owned an HDTV-- an absurdly expensive top-of-the-line Sony model I bought on a whim after coming into some extra cash; the burden of being a videophile-- since this summer. There's something on in HD 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. HBO and Showtime are running movies in HD via DirecTV, and all three major nets are broadcasting most of their prime-time schedule in HD. PBS is showing a lot of HD content, and the Discovery Channel set up a whole new channel just for HD programming. Even the WB is running shows like Smallville in HD; can't say I care for it, but it's fun to watch with the sound off. Hell, CBS is even running some of their soaps in HD. The playoffs are in HD, the Superbowl will be in HD next month, the Oscars will be in HD next spring.
There's still a heck of a lot more SD than HD out there, but HD has definitely arrived.
Hate to inform you, but he's wrong on both counts. General relativity states that matter affects the topology of space-time locally, but says nothing about the large-scale structure of the universe. Given nothing but general relativity, we could construct equally valid universes of infinite topology, finite-and-bounded topology, and finite-but-unbounded topology.
You're thinking instead of the work of Riemann, who first postulated his "closed cosmic hypersphere" model; that is to say that the universe may be in the shape of a 4-dimensional hypersphere, and that what we observe as 3-dimensional space is merely the 3-surface manifold of that hypersphere. In this model, the universe can be said to have no center, or it can just as easily be said that all points within the 3-surface manifold meet the qualifications for being the center.
No, by that logic we should be allowed to drive without our seatbelts, but (in my state at least) evidently I am causing others pain by not strapping pieces of nylon across my chest and lap.
First of all, to my knowledge this law doesn't mandate the use of these devices. It mandates that the devices be included on all guns sold in the state. So it's not comparable to mandatory seat belt use laws. It's comparable to the regulations of the DOT that require manufacturers to include seat belts in their cars.
That said, you most certainly do cause others pain, both literally and financially, by not wearing your seat belt. If you get into an accident without a seat belt, your broken and bleeding body will be hauled to the nearest hospital and you'll be stitched back together. See, even though you may deserve it, the EMTs and doctors don't have the option of leaving you there in the middle of the street. Given that the likelihood of debilitating head injury is significantly greater with unrestrained passengers, the chance goes way up that you'll end up in what they call CVS: chronic vegetative state. Depending on their beliefs and opinions, your family may or may not choose to discontinue medical care for you at that point, but even if they do you'll still have been subject to triage, trauma care, surgical intervention, medical intervention, blood care, and a host of other services.
Who do you think pays for those services if your family can't? The state does. But even more important than the financial cost of providing that care is the opportunity cost. There are only so many doctors to go around. If you're lying in an emergency room bleeding from the skull because you were too stupid to buckle up, somebody with a less critical complaint is going to have to wait. That waiting leads to pain, at the very least, and in tragic cases, morbidity or mortality.
Optimism is built into this law. The mandate only goes into effect after these sorts of safety features become commercially and technologically viable.
There is a simple solution (depending upon the weapon): pull the trigger again.
The only circumstance I can think of in which that would work is if you're shooting a revolver and you had a non-firing round. If you're shooting a semi-automatic, you have to work the slide to eject the non-firing round before trying again. Same with a rifle or shotgun.
Pulling the trigger again also won't help you if you've got a spent shell casing jammed in your weapon. You have to first clear the jam before firing again.
Of course, non-firing rounds and jams are the least of your worries. A round that explodes is a much more dangerous proposition. It leaves your gun, and possibly your hand, disabled.
If we lowered the speed limit to say, 30 MPH, and enforced it with governors installed in cars, and with stiff penalties, a lot fewer Americans would be killed.
A lot fewer? The evidence doesn't support that. According to some oft-quoted statistics, most injury accidents, occur at speeds of less than 35 miles per hour. They teach that little statistic in driver's ed; I learned it years ago, and my friend's 15-year-old daughter learned it this past fall.
The real point, though, is that you have to weigh the benefits of a safety measure against any negative consequences. Since it's taken as read that the features built into these new guns will not reduce their reliability-- if they do, the manufacturers will go back to the drawing board until they get it right-- the possibility of failure doesn't come into the equation. So the cost-benefit analysis adds up to a big fat "Hell, yeah."
There are rules for their use -- if these rules are followed, the risk of them causing harm to their user is, for all intents and purposes, nil.
Guy's on the firing range getting ready to practice his marksmanship. He suffers a stroke, causing his body to spasm. He involuntarily squeezes the trigger. The gun discharges unintentionally.
Yeah, that's a pretty unlikely example, but it demonstrates that the risk of a gun accident is not nil. Accidents happen.
A gun owner keeps his guns and ammunition under combination lock. His 15-year-old son guesses the combination (it's his own birth date), takes a gun to school, and shoots somebody. The owner took all reasonable precautions, and yet something bad happened anyway.
I've been using guns for over twenty years, and never been harmed by a gun -- neither has anyone I know (I grew up in rural Kansas -- everyone owns several guns and uses them on a regular basis).
Oh, well, then it must never happen. I was wrong. Sorry.
It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces.
Funny faces? They sent out a press release with Dow's name on it, filled with false information and quotes, solely intended to defame Dow. It had nothing to do with raising awareness, it had nothing to do with calling attention. It was meant only to confuse people and to hurt Dow.
There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.
Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems. Since they didn't do so, when Dow brought the most recent offense to Verio's attention, Verio decided to act according to their policies.
One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).
Look, I don't mean to delve into hyperbole here, but blowing up a busload of school kids has also been referred to as "targeted political action." The ends do not justify the means. The fact that a group of people has a political problem with a company doesn't give them the right to cause them harm by maliciously disrupting their means of doing business.
The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses.
What rights? When you sign a contract with a service provider, you both agree to the terms. They agree to provide you with the service, and you agree not to violate their terms of use. If you violate their terms of use, you can and should be cut off, if the contract so stipulates, with no prior notice.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with rights. It has to do with following the rules, and the consequences of not doing so. If you're going to break the rules, don't whine about the consequences.
One of the reasons Verio cited for shutting down the entire Thing network was a denial of service attack launched some time ago against etoys.com or etoy.com or whichever it was. There was a domain name dispute at the time, and somebody on Thing's network decided to do something about it by DOS'ing the company's site right before a big holiday.
Verio's position is that Thing's network got cut off because of a pattern of repeated AUP violations, not just one incident. Straw that broke the camel's back, sort of thing.
The same sort of approach is possible for a "smart gun" using biometrics.
I read about one group-- not a gun manufacturer, but a think-tank, I think-- that was working on a biometric system for this sort of thing. If I recall, they don't even have a prototype yet. Other systems that aren't based on biometrics at all have been in prototype form for years now, and are much simpler. Simpler, of course, also having the pleasant side-effect of being cheaper.
Don't worry. If a system for this purpose makes it to market, I'm quite confident that it's going to take more than the speculations of a couple of Slashdotters to circumvent it.
I don't think anyone would suggest that an 8 year old should pick up a handgun and start firing it in the dark with family around.
I don't think anyone should pick up a handgun and start firing it in the dark with family around.
If you want your child-- young adult, whatever-- to be able to fire your gun, give him or her the authorization to do so. Like I mentioned in another post, the system I've seen demonstrated used a (presumably magnetic) ring to identify who could and who could not fire the gun. If you want your kid to have one, give him one.
I'd like to have the option of reliability in the future, thanks.
I don't hear you arguing in favor of removing the safeties from all handguns. That's all this is: another type of safety. While the ordinary safety protects against accidental discharge of the gun, this one will (if they can make it work) protect against unauthorized discharge. Same thing.
Personally, I don't plan on my kids being stupid around guns.
You don't have to be stupid to have a gun accident. You don't even have to be careless. You only have to be unlucky. And what's more, you only have to be unlucky once.
I'm not in favor of gun control. While I don't own any myself, I would under different circumstances, and I support the right to do so generally. But I'm also strongly in favor of safer guns, assuming (as we all are, even the legislators) that such a goal can be accomplished practically and effectively.
Hard-coded? Hell, it'll probably be one step removed from purely mechanical. I'm guessing that it'll be about as complex as those little magnetic door locks they use in hotels nowadays.
I can fool my microwave pretty easily, so I'd expect the same from a gun.
Uh... you can fool your microwave? What do you do, try to convince it that it's making popcorn for you instead of frozen peas? Do you distract your microwave when you slip the food in? "Hey, microwave, how's it going? Everything okay? Oh my, what in the world could that be?? (stuff) Heh heh. Defrost, my pretty, defrost them all."
I think you have a very strange relationship with your household appliances.
Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?
When's the last time your alarm clock broke? Or your wristwatch? Solid-state electronics is a lot more reliable than you give it credit for being.
Besides, this is a gun we're talking about. There's a nonzero chance that the gun itself is going to fail when you pull the trigger. Does anybody spend a lot of time worrying about that?
Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.
By that logic, we should take the seat belts out of all the cars. If people would just accept the liabilities associated with car ownership, and drive carefully, there would be no car crashes. Right?
Accidents happen even when people act responsibly. If we can prevent accidents, or lessen the harm that can come from them, we should.
It will be heavy and unreliable in its first few models.
One of the major manufacturers-- I think it's Smith & Wesson, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now-- has been demonstrating a prototype gun of this type since the mid-1990's. It's neither heavy-- I've held one myself-- nor, by reports, unreliable. If the gun is in proximity of a particular item, which in the demo was worn on the finger like a ring, it will fire. If not, it won't. When I saw it, if you wore the ring on either hand and used a two-handed grip, the gun would dry-fire. If you wore it on your left hand and held the gun in a single-handed grip on your right hand, the gun wouldn't fire.
Besides, your argument about hurting gun sales is probably bogus. I'm sure just as many people will flock to New Jersey to buy these new, safer guns as will go elsewhere to buy other models.
Agreed... but I would much rather prefer that my wife of one of my children are able to pick up a handgun I own to defend themselves in the event that I'm disabled
Sure. Except for the children bit, of course. The danger of a child hurting or killing himself or someone else accidentally is too great, even when compared to the chance that your child might use your gun to stop an intruder. The math on that one just doesn't add up.
Yep... all them law abiding criminals that buy guys legally will certainly be up shit creek without a paddle on this one.
Like I said in another post, this is not a crime bill. It's a public safety bill. If you judge this bill on its effectiveness against crime, you're going to reach the wrong conclusion. Think of it instead in terms of how it'll affect public safety.
I do not want to put my life on the line when I need it to something that -may- fail based on my fingerprint. I'll take the risk of my own firearm being used against me.
I certainly don't wish this on you or anybody else, but I'm sure your opinion would be different if your child were ever involved in a gun accident.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confused, friend. Apple never claimed the classic Mac OS was especially reliable. The fact that the OS could crash, or that an application crash could cause the OS to appear to have crashed, was well known. Apple only claimed (truthfully) that it was easier to use a Mac than a computer running one of the other operating systems.
In fact, you can do pretty much anything to a file you want (short of moving it to another volume and deleting the original) and chances are the alias will still be able to track it down (and update itself) when you double-click it.
If you do manage to "confuse" an alias, a friendly dialog box will pop up when you double-click on it asking you if you'd like to manually associate it with the original, or just delete it. It's stuff like that that really puts Mac OS X head and shoulders above the other UNIX-based and UNIX-like operating systems.
It's an old-school MacOS concept that Unix geeks would do well to learn from.
It's not that old school, is it? If I remember correctly, aliases were a new feature of System 7, back in 1990 or thereabouts. Old school Mac stuff dates back to the mid-1980's. Man, I remember early '86 and the first Mac Plus. System 3.0 was sweeeeeet. It had filesystem caching and allowed you to create nested folders. And it won InfoWorld's People's Choice Award for OS of the Year.
Those were the days, man. I can still close my eyes and hear the sound of the startup beep and of the original Mac floppy drive humming quietly to itself as the machine booted up. So warm and friendly. Mmm.
I dare say that the well-respected and venerable Chicago Manual takes precedence in general use over the very specific EIA and APA style guides, particularly given the fact that the EIA guide, at least, explicitly notes that the recommendation for acronymic pluralization contained therein differs from that given in a more general style guide.
Never flown trans-Pacific, huh? Sitting in one chair for 12 hours is no picnic, but it's not that big a deal. Fifteen to Sydney is a hike, and 16 from Hong Kong to New York is no fun. But it's doable.
Pluralizing an abbreviation, on the other hand, does. At least, according to most style guides.
It's "CD's" and "DVD's," not "CDs" and "DVDs."
If HDTV is really coming, they may be
Just for the record, not only is HDTV really coming, it's already here. I've owned an HDTV-- an absurdly expensive top-of-the-line Sony model I bought on a whim after coming into some extra cash; the burden of being a videophile-- since this summer. There's something on in HD 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. HBO and Showtime are running movies in HD via DirecTV, and all three major nets are broadcasting most of their prime-time schedule in HD. PBS is showing a lot of HD content, and the Discovery Channel set up a whole new channel just for HD programming. Even the WB is running shows like Smallville in HD; can't say I care for it, but it's fun to watch with the sound off. Hell, CBS is even running some of their soaps in HD. The playoffs are in HD, the Superbowl will be in HD next month, the Oscars will be in HD next spring.
There's still a heck of a lot more SD than HD out there, but HD has definitely arrived.
The ultimate aggressive move would be to release Marklar, the x86 version of Mac OS X.
I'm sorry, but I think you typed "aggressive" when you meant to type "suicidal."
It's a common mistake. The keys are right next to each other.
supposed to deliver a 1.5 TB (that's a terabyte and a half)
This reminds me of a quote from an old Sports Night episode. They were talking about Mt. Everest, I think.
Guy #1: "Twenty-nine thousand feet. Can you imagine how high that is?"
Guy #2: "It's 29,000 feet."
Guy #1: "Yeah, but you've got to put it in perspective. Compare it to something you can visualize."
Guy #2: (beat) "It's 29,000 rulers."
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
Oh, come on. Somebody throw this AC a few mod points. The post cracked me up!
Hate to inform you, but he's wrong on both counts. General relativity states that matter affects the topology of space-time locally, but says nothing about the large-scale structure of the universe. Given nothing but general relativity, we could construct equally valid universes of infinite topology, finite-and-bounded topology, and finite-but-unbounded topology.
You're thinking instead of the work of Riemann, who first postulated his "closed cosmic hypersphere" model; that is to say that the universe may be in the shape of a 4-dimensional hypersphere, and that what we observe as 3-dimensional space is merely the 3-surface manifold of that hypersphere. In this model, the universe can be said to have no center, or it can just as easily be said that all points within the 3-surface manifold meet the qualifications for being the center.
No, by that logic we should be allowed to drive without our seatbelts, but (in my state at least) evidently I am causing others pain by not strapping pieces of nylon across my chest and lap.
First of all, to my knowledge this law doesn't mandate the use of these devices. It mandates that the devices be included on all guns sold in the state. So it's not comparable to mandatory seat belt use laws. It's comparable to the regulations of the DOT that require manufacturers to include seat belts in their cars.
That said, you most certainly do cause others pain, both literally and financially, by not wearing your seat belt. If you get into an accident without a seat belt, your broken and bleeding body will be hauled to the nearest hospital and you'll be stitched back together. See, even though you may deserve it, the EMTs and doctors don't have the option of leaving you there in the middle of the street. Given that the likelihood of debilitating head injury is significantly greater with unrestrained passengers, the chance goes way up that you'll end up in what they call CVS: chronic vegetative state. Depending on their beliefs and opinions, your family may or may not choose to discontinue medical care for you at that point, but even if they do you'll still have been subject to triage, trauma care, surgical intervention, medical intervention, blood care, and a host of other services.
Who do you think pays for those services if your family can't? The state does. But even more important than the financial cost of providing that care is the opportunity cost. There are only so many doctors to go around. If you're lying in an emergency room bleeding from the skull because you were too stupid to buckle up, somebody with a less critical complaint is going to have to wait. That waiting leads to pain, at the very least, and in tragic cases, morbidity or mortality.
So buckle up, you selfish prick.
I think you are being overly optimistic.
Optimism is built into this law. The mandate only goes into effect after these sorts of safety features become commercially and technologically viable.
There is a simple solution (depending upon the weapon): pull the trigger again.
The only circumstance I can think of in which that would work is if you're shooting a revolver and you had a non-firing round. If you're shooting a semi-automatic, you have to work the slide to eject the non-firing round before trying again. Same with a rifle or shotgun.
Pulling the trigger again also won't help you if you've got a spent shell casing jammed in your weapon. You have to first clear the jam before firing again.
Of course, non-firing rounds and jams are the least of your worries. A round that explodes is a much more dangerous proposition. It leaves your gun, and possibly your hand, disabled.
If we lowered the speed limit to say, 30 MPH, and enforced it with governors installed in cars, and with stiff penalties, a lot fewer Americans would be killed.
A lot fewer? The evidence doesn't support that. According to some oft-quoted statistics, most injury accidents, occur at speeds of less than 35 miles per hour. They teach that little statistic in driver's ed; I learned it years ago, and my friend's 15-year-old daughter learned it this past fall.
The real point, though, is that you have to weigh the benefits of a safety measure against any negative consequences. Since it's taken as read that the features built into these new guns will not reduce their reliability-- if they do, the manufacturers will go back to the drawing board until they get it right-- the possibility of failure doesn't come into the equation. So the cost-benefit analysis adds up to a big fat "Hell, yeah."
There are rules for their use -- if these rules are followed, the risk of them causing harm to their user is, for all intents and purposes, nil.
Guy's on the firing range getting ready to practice his marksmanship. He suffers a stroke, causing his body to spasm. He involuntarily squeezes the trigger. The gun discharges unintentionally.
Yeah, that's a pretty unlikely example, but it demonstrates that the risk of a gun accident is not nil. Accidents happen.
A gun owner keeps his guns and ammunition under combination lock. His 15-year-old son guesses the combination (it's his own birth date), takes a gun to school, and shoots somebody. The owner took all reasonable precautions, and yet something bad happened anyway.
I've been using guns for over twenty years, and never been harmed by a gun -- neither has anyone I know (I grew up in rural Kansas -- everyone owns several guns and uses them on a regular basis).
Oh, well, then it must never happen. I was wrong. Sorry.
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Copernicus, but nice try. You know, I'm starting to form the conclusion that you're pretty stupid.
It's more like that an important corporate citizen didn't like Yes Men making funny faces.
Funny faces? They sent out a press release with Dow's name on it, filled with false information and quotes, solely intended to defame Dow. It had nothing to do with raising awareness, it had nothing to do with calling attention. It was meant only to confuse people and to hurt Dow.
There's a line. They crossed it. They have, in fact, crossed it repeatedly. They are suffering the consequences.
Thing.net could have avoided this problem by taking care of their own problems. Since they didn't do so, when Dow brought the most recent offense to Verio's attention, Verio decided to act according to their policies.
One is a targeted political action (and you can argue about the means).
Look, I don't mean to delve into hyperbole here, but blowing up a busload of school kids has also been referred to as "targeted political action." The ends do not justify the means. The fact that a group of people has a political problem with a company doesn't give them the right to cause them harm by maliciously disrupting their means of doing business.
The second is behaving like an 800 pound gorilla and waltzing over the rights of completely unrelated businesses.
What rights? When you sign a contract with a service provider, you both agree to the terms. They agree to provide you with the service, and you agree not to violate their terms of use. If you violate their terms of use, you can and should be cut off, if the contract so stipulates, with no prior notice.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with rights. It has to do with following the rules, and the consequences of not doing so. If you're going to break the rules, don't whine about the consequences.
One of the reasons Verio cited for shutting down the entire Thing network was a denial of service attack launched some time ago against etoys.com or etoy.com or whichever it was. There was a domain name dispute at the time, and somebody on Thing's network decided to do something about it by DOS'ing the company's site right before a big holiday.
Verio's position is that Thing's network got cut off because of a pattern of repeated AUP violations, not just one incident. Straw that broke the camel's back, sort of thing.
The same sort of approach is possible for a "smart gun" using biometrics.
I read about one group-- not a gun manufacturer, but a think-tank, I think-- that was working on a biometric system for this sort of thing. If I recall, they don't even have a prototype yet. Other systems that aren't based on biometrics at all have been in prototype form for years now, and are much simpler. Simpler, of course, also having the pleasant side-effect of being cheaper.
Don't worry. If a system for this purpose makes it to market, I'm quite confident that it's going to take more than the speculations of a couple of Slashdotters to circumvent it.
I don't think anyone would suggest that an 8 year old should pick up a handgun and start firing it in the dark with family around.
I don't think anyone should pick up a handgun and start firing it in the dark with family around.
If you want your child-- young adult, whatever-- to be able to fire your gun, give him or her the authorization to do so. Like I mentioned in another post, the system I've seen demonstrated used a (presumably magnetic) ring to identify who could and who could not fire the gun. If you want your kid to have one, give him one.
I'd like to have the option of reliability in the future, thanks.
I don't hear you arguing in favor of removing the safeties from all handguns. That's all this is: another type of safety. While the ordinary safety protects against accidental discharge of the gun, this one will (if they can make it work) protect against unauthorized discharge. Same thing.
Personally, I don't plan on my kids being stupid around guns.
You don't have to be stupid to have a gun accident. You don't even have to be careless. You only have to be unlucky. And what's more, you only have to be unlucky once.
I'm not in favor of gun control. While I don't own any myself, I would under different circumstances, and I support the right to do so generally. But I'm also strongly in favor of safer guns, assuming (as we all are, even the legislators) that such a goal can be accomplished practically and effectively.
In two days, more child die from backyard pool drowning accidents than die all year from gun accidents.
There are more than 125 backyard pool drownings per day*? Amazing. You have statistics to back this up, of course?
*The oft-quoted statistic is 250 accidental shooting deaths of children in 1995.
A gun will not have an OS, it will be hard coded.
Hard-coded? Hell, it'll probably be one step removed from purely mechanical. I'm guessing that it'll be about as complex as those little magnetic door locks they use in hotels nowadays.
I can fool my microwave pretty easily, so I'd expect the same from a gun.
Uh... you can fool your microwave? What do you do, try to convince it that it's making popcorn for you instead of frozen peas? Do you distract your microwave when you slip the food in? "Hey, microwave, how's it going? Everything okay? Oh my, what in the world could that be?? (stuff) Heh heh. Defrost, my pretty, defrost them all."
I think you have a very strange relationship with your household appliances.
Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?
When's the last time your alarm clock broke? Or your wristwatch? Solid-state electronics is a lot more reliable than you give it credit for being.
Besides, this is a gun we're talking about. There's a nonzero chance that the gun itself is going to fail when you pull the trigger. Does anybody spend a lot of time worrying about that?
Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.
By that logic, we should take the seat belts out of all the cars. If people would just accept the liabilities associated with car ownership, and drive carefully, there would be no car crashes. Right?
Accidents happen even when people act responsibly. If we can prevent accidents, or lessen the harm that can come from them, we should.
It will be heavy and unreliable in its first few models.
One of the major manufacturers-- I think it's Smith & Wesson, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now-- has been demonstrating a prototype gun of this type since the mid-1990's. It's neither heavy-- I've held one myself-- nor, by reports, unreliable. If the gun is in proximity of a particular item, which in the demo was worn on the finger like a ring, it will fire. If not, it won't. When I saw it, if you wore the ring on either hand and used a two-handed grip, the gun would dry-fire. If you wore it on your left hand and held the gun in a single-handed grip on your right hand, the gun wouldn't fire.
Besides, your argument about hurting gun sales is probably bogus. I'm sure just as many people will flock to New Jersey to buy these new, safer guns as will go elsewhere to buy other models.
Agreed... but I would much rather prefer that my wife of one of my children are able to pick up a handgun I own to defend themselves in the event that I'm disabled
Sure. Except for the children bit, of course. The danger of a child hurting or killing himself or someone else accidentally is too great, even when compared to the chance that your child might use your gun to stop an intruder. The math on that one just doesn't add up.
Yep... all them law abiding criminals that buy guys legally will certainly be up shit creek without a paddle on this one.
Like I said in another post, this is not a crime bill. It's a public safety bill. If you judge this bill on its effectiveness against crime, you're going to reach the wrong conclusion. Think of it instead in terms of how it'll affect public safety.
I do not want to put my life on the line when I need it to something that -may- fail based on my fingerprint. I'll take the risk of my own firearm being used against me.
I certainly don't wish this on you or anybody else, but I'm sure your opinion would be different if your child were ever involved in a gun accident.