Nope, this is the result of Obama's policies. Obama was clever enough to make sure that the real results of his policies did not really kick in until two years after he was out of office.
For one thing, what if most gun shows are monitored by the government and foreigners who attend are likely under surveillance?
Yeah, "what if." What if a meteorite hit you on the head and kills you? Life is too short to be worried about "what if."
Park several blocks away and walk there. On the way back, take public transportation to a random mall. Go into the bathroom and change clothes. If you are that paranoid, there are things that you can do.
Also, how is the government supposed to know that you are a foreigner? Brown skin? Wearing a turban? Seriously, if you are THAT much of a threat that the government follows you full time, then don't break the law. But the government is not going to know the immigration status of every random person that walks into a building.
If gunshows have some sort of regulatory loophole, that does not imply that all regulation is therefore useless
You miss the entire point of laws. Laws prescribe what is considered bad, and provides a punishment for doing those bad things. Laws do not stop crime, they just tell you what the punishment is. The punishment is supposed to make you not want to do those things.
However, if you intend to die in the act of your crime, then what punishment would deter you?
Drinking, by itself, is generally OK. Driving is OK. They are only bad when you combine the two. But banning cars or alcohol is not the solution to drunk driving. Similarly, making guns illegal won't stop crime. Gun ownership, by itself, does not hurt anybody. It is only bad when people USE a gun in the wrong manner. Gun laws only affect those honest people who obey the law. I would think that would be common sense, but I guess it isn't so common.
I should point out that there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US. Fewer than one out of every 30,000 guns is used in a murder every year. The average car is more dangerous than the average gun.
Your problem is that you are using logic in what is clearly meant to be an emotional argument. "GUNZ" should trigger everybody to want more laws without even bothering to think rationally.
You have obviously never been to a gun show. With a pocket full of cash, you can easily get everything that isn't a legal gun without any paperwork at all. Uppers, lower parts kits, sights, furniture, etc. is all easily available.
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away. That's the problem. A new equilibrium is needed.
With the lack of apex predators, there are more deer here now that there was 500 years ago. But hunting is evil and cruel. It is much better to let Bambi over-graze until the habitat is destroyed. Dying of disease, starvation, and overpopulation is so much more humane than a bullet...
Obama was VERY clever. He claimed that 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and then triggered the 4% GDP to only happen once he got out of office. I tip my hat for his forethought
If they could modify the board, then yes, this sort of thing becomes MUCH more likely.
The down side to this is that modifications MIGHT be detectable by tests. Lots of things can go wrong while building and assembling a board so tests are standard. Mucking about with it might create changes that can be detected during a standard bed-of-nails test. If the same company controls the test, then they could get away with it easily.
The other side is that changing the board is easy to prove once you discover it.
As a guy who DESIGNS hardware, I can confidently say this....
Yes, it is possible to make a tiny chip that can disguise itself as a capacitor or a resistor. However, this part must be designed into the board for that purpose. There is such a thing as a "one wire interface." The part that it is talking to must know it is there and be intentionally taking to it.
However, adding a chip like this (a two-terminal part as shown in the article) to an existing product not designed for it seems very problematic. I can immediately think of three options for such a ghost part:
1) Pretends to be a signal filter capacitor. Possible, but it likely would not have the power to actively disrupt the signal flowing past it. This thing would only have access to ONE power rail and can get parasitic power off of the signal. But this kind of part would not have the power to actively disrupt the signal.
2) Pretends to be a resistor. This is even worse, because usually low-value resistors are used, so the voltage drop would be minimal. I cannot imagine how this part would get its power.
3) Pretend to be a pull-up or pull-down resistor. This might be useful in mis-configuring a part. It could alter its configuration to get the board into some sort of test mode. The problem is that this configuration would not allow the chip to receive any information from the outside world. So how do you control it?
Of course, this assumes that the part really is just a two-terminal part (as shown in the article). If they replace an active device, something with three or more pins, then all of those limitations go away. Some sort of level converter in a signal path would be an ideal candidate. If you could drop a chip somewhere in the Ethernet interface path, then you can do anything you want... But those chips would look like chips and could not be mistaken for a passive component.
Can you please tell me something significant that current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't do?
But yeah, the reason is that Word 97 would open in about 1/4 second flat on any modern machine. That is unacceptable, and means that an upgrade is not needed. Upgrades are the heart and soul of both the hardware and software worlds.
This proof is not big deal. I proved the Riemann hypothesis once. But the proof was too big to fit in the margin of the book that I was reading at the time.
Oh, by the way. Less than two miles from my house is a place where a good girl with a gun stopped a criminal intent on becoming a mass murderer.
But according to you, the criminal should have been the only one armed. That woman probably saved a dozen lives, but you would rather the shooter be safe from his victims. Are you planning on killing a bunch of people some day, and you want as much time as possible to kill people before the police arrive?
So the Secret Service officers are children, since they carry guns for protection? That says everything that I need to know about you.
I have friends that have had to draw their guns to deter crime -- no shots fired, just showing that you are armed will often cause criminals to choose a different victim. Are you saying that they would be better off as a victim? I will ask one of my buddies if he would prefer to have been beaten or robbed. I will get back to you and let you know if he regrets not being victimized.
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
London is cracking down on KNIFE ownership. You ban the guns but still allow criminals to walk the streets? They don't join a quilting circle: they use a different weapon. The homicide rate in London recently topped that of New York City. So, clearly they need to ban another weapon instead of actually doing anything about the criminals.
Get rid of the weapon, and you still have dangerous criminals.
Get rid of the criminals, and the weapons don't matter.
Funny how the most armed country in the world still has a relatively low homicide rate. There are plenty of countries with very strict gun laws that have a much higher homicide rate. Even in this country, try doing a scatter plot of gun ownership percentage compared to homicide rate. Yeah, there is not much of a correlation, but the general (weak) trend is more guns == less murder. The most likely explanation is that, as the homicide rate rises, more gun laws are enacted that prove ineffective, thus lowering the gun ownership rate, but doing nothing to save lives.
Yes, but there is MORE of a difference between the two countries than JUST gun laws.
Using your logic, Japan has no guns, but a much higher suicide rate. Clearly, if they had easier access to guns, suicides would drop, right? England also has a different economy, different culture, and different health care system. I guess that none of that matters, right?
Back when they had easier access to guns, they STILL had a lower homicide rate. Simply stated, if you look at the big picture instead of cherry-picking a few numbers, the data doesn't back you up.
In America, you are as safe as the safest parts of Europe, as long as you avoid the "wrong" neighborhoods. Most areas of the US are very safe, as most of the crime is concentrated into a few, small areas.
If you avoid areas with a high population density and high poverty, you will be OK.
Check out this headline: "Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders"
Then, according to your logic, crime should be HIGHER in Indiana, since you don't even have to cross a state line. Funny how Lafayette, Indiana has a significantly lower crime rate than Chicago.
So, one city has an absolutely horrible problem, so the solution is to spread their laws nationwide. Does this mean that Google should copy Yahoo's business model? If you were cheating on a test, would you copy off of the dumbest kid in the class?
So, if four people were stabbed, would you want fewer knives in this country? No, I am not being sarcastic. In England, they have "sane" gun laws, but now they are cracking down on knife ownership. You can't make this stuff up!
So, you go after the weapon, and the criminals choose another weapon. In France, they had a HIGHER death toll that America's worst mass shooting using just a TRUCK! If only they had sane truck laws, with mandatory training and licensing, that would not happen, right?
And states require you to buy liability insurance to obtain a drivers license and to legally drive on public roads
But driving on roads is a CHOICE. If you don't own a car, no insurance needed.
Plus, even insurance is not technically necessary. If you are very wealthy then you can choose to "self-insure." That just means that you have enough money set aside to cover damages in case you cause an accident.
ACA was not a choice. If you make over a certain income, health insurance is mandatory for every citizen.
To make your analogy more accurate you need to force people who live in cities and don't even own a car to buy liability insurance...
you can't publish or even speak material that the government deems to be a state secret.
So, the concept of a tube that holds a bullet is a state secret? Wow, this sort of thing was invented centuries ago. If you think THAT is dangerous, then the terrible secret of the "sail" is certainly dangerous -- making a boat move without an engine
Also, even an "AR-15 receiver" can be had for less than $100, so the plans for those are suddenly state secrets?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, this is the result of Obama's policies. Obama was clever enough to make sure that the real results of his policies did not really kick in until two years after he was out of office.
Yeah, "what if." What if a meteorite hit you on the head and kills you? Life is too short to be worried about "what if."
Park several blocks away and walk there. On the way back, take public transportation to a random mall. Go into the bathroom and change clothes. If you are that paranoid, there are things that you can do.
Also, how is the government supposed to know that you are a foreigner? Brown skin? Wearing a turban? Seriously, if you are THAT much of a threat that the government follows you full time, then don't break the law. But the government is not going to know the immigration status of every random person that walks into a building.
You miss the entire point of laws. Laws prescribe what is considered bad, and provides a punishment for doing those bad things. Laws do not stop crime, they just tell you what the punishment is. The punishment is supposed to make you not want to do those things.
However, if you intend to die in the act of your crime, then what punishment would deter you?
Drinking, by itself, is generally OK. Driving is OK. They are only bad when you combine the two. But banning cars or alcohol is not the solution to drunk driving. Similarly, making guns illegal won't stop crime. Gun ownership, by itself, does not hurt anybody. It is only bad when people USE a gun in the wrong manner. Gun laws only affect those honest people who obey the law. I would think that would be common sense, but I guess it isn't so common.
I should point out that there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US. Fewer than one out of every 30,000 guns is used in a murder every year. The average car is more dangerous than the average gun.
Your problem is that you are using logic in what is clearly meant to be an emotional argument. "GUNZ" should trigger everybody to want more laws without even bothering to think rationally.
You have obviously never been to a gun show. With a pocket full of cash, you can easily get everything that isn't a legal gun without any paperwork at all. Uppers, lower parts kits, sights, furniture, etc. is all easily available.
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away. That's the problem. A new equilibrium is needed.
With the lack of apex predators, there are more deer here now that there was 500 years ago. But hunting is evil and cruel. It is much better to let Bambi over-graze until the habitat is destroyed. Dying of disease, starvation, and overpopulation is so much more humane than a bullet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Obama was VERY clever. He claimed that 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and then triggered the 4% GDP to only happen once he got out of office. I tip my hat for his forethought
http://www.aei.org/publication...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r....
Yup, Russian communists are evil. But we need to vote in the domestic communists.
If they could modify the board, then yes, this sort of thing becomes MUCH more likely.
The down side to this is that modifications MIGHT be detectable by tests. Lots of things can go wrong while building and assembling a board so tests are standard. Mucking about with it might create changes that can be detected during a standard bed-of-nails test. If the same company controls the test, then they could get away with it easily.
The other side is that changing the board is easy to prove once you discover it.
As a guy who DESIGNS hardware, I can confidently say this....
Yes, it is possible to make a tiny chip that can disguise itself as a capacitor or a resistor. However, this part must be designed into the board for that purpose. There is such a thing as a "one wire interface." The part that it is talking to must know it is there and be intentionally taking to it.
However, adding a chip like this (a two-terminal part as shown in the article) to an existing product not designed for it seems very problematic. I can immediately think of three options for such a ghost part:
1) Pretends to be a signal filter capacitor. Possible, but it likely would not have the power to actively disrupt the signal flowing past it. This thing would only have access to ONE power rail and can get parasitic power off of the signal. But this kind of part would not have the power to actively disrupt the signal.
2) Pretends to be a resistor. This is even worse, because usually low-value resistors are used, so the voltage drop would be minimal. I cannot imagine how this part would get its power.
3) Pretend to be a pull-up or pull-down resistor. This might be useful in mis-configuring a part. It could alter its configuration to get the board into some sort of test mode. The problem is that this configuration would not allow the chip to receive any information from the outside world. So how do you control it?
Of course, this assumes that the part really is just a two-terminal part (as shown in the article). If they replace an active device, something with three or more pins, then all of those limitations go away. Some sort of level converter in a signal path would be an ideal candidate. If you could drop a chip somewhere in the Ethernet interface path, then you can do anything you want... But those chips would look like chips and could not be mistaken for a passive component.
Can you please tell me something significant that current Word can do that Word 97 couldn't do?
But yeah, the reason is that Word 97 would open in about 1/4 second flat on any modern machine. That is unacceptable, and means that an upgrade is not needed. Upgrades are the heart and soul of both the hardware and software worlds.
This proof is not big deal. I proved the Riemann hypothesis once. But the proof was too big to fit in the margin of the book that I was reading at the time.
Oh, by the way. Less than two miles from my house is a place where a good girl with a gun stopped a criminal intent on becoming a mass murderer.
But according to you, the criminal should have been the only one armed. That woman probably saved a dozen lives, but you would rather the shooter be safe from his victims. Are you planning on killing a bunch of people some day, and you want as much time as possible to kill people before the police arrive?
So the Secret Service officers are children, since they carry guns for protection? That says everything that I need to know about you.
I have friends that have had to draw their guns to deter crime -- no shots fired, just showing that you are armed will often cause criminals to choose a different victim. Are you saying that they would be better off as a victim? I will ask one of my buddies if he would prefer to have been beaten or robbed. I will get back to you and let you know if he regrets not being victimized.
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
London is cracking down on KNIFE ownership. You ban the guns but still allow criminals to walk the streets? They don't join a quilting circle: they use a different weapon. The homicide rate in London recently topped that of New York City. So, clearly they need to ban another weapon instead of actually doing anything about the criminals.
Get rid of the weapon, and you still have dangerous criminals.
Get rid of the criminals, and the weapons don't matter.
https://www.met.police.uk/Stop...
Funny how the most armed country in the world still has a relatively low homicide rate. There are plenty of countries with very strict gun laws that have a much higher homicide rate. Even in this country, try doing a scatter plot of gun ownership percentage compared to homicide rate. Yeah, there is not much of a correlation, but the general (weak) trend is more guns == less murder. The most likely explanation is that, as the homicide rate rises, more gun laws are enacted that prove ineffective, thus lowering the gun ownership rate, but doing nothing to save lives.
Wait. Are you saying that there are things more important than gun laws? Thanks for proving my point.
Please explain to me how somebody stabbed to death or killed with a truck is less dead than somebody shot to death.
I will wait.
Yes, but there is MORE of a difference between the two countries than JUST gun laws.
Using your logic, Japan has no guns, but a much higher suicide rate. Clearly, if they had easier access to guns, suicides would drop, right? England also has a different economy, different culture, and different health care system. I guess that none of that matters, right?
Back when they had easier access to guns, they STILL had a lower homicide rate. Simply stated, if you look at the big picture instead of cherry-picking a few numbers, the data doesn't back you up.
In America, you are as safe as the safest parts of Europe, as long as you avoid the "wrong" neighborhoods. Most areas of the US are very safe, as most of the crime is concentrated into a few, small areas.
If you avoid areas with a high population density and high poverty, you will be OK.
Check out this headline: "Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders"
https://crimeresearch.org/2017...
If you want to reduce violence, then improving the economy would be a big step in the right direction.
Then, according to your logic, crime should be HIGHER in Indiana, since you don't even have to cross a state line. Funny how Lafayette, Indiana has a significantly lower crime rate than Chicago.
So, one city has an absolutely horrible problem, so the solution is to spread their laws nationwide. Does this mean that Google should copy Yahoo's business model? If you were cheating on a test, would you copy off of the dumbest kid in the class?
Emacs or vi.
So, if four people were stabbed, would you want fewer knives in this country? No, I am not being sarcastic. In England, they have "sane" gun laws, but now they are cracking down on knife ownership. You can't make this stuff up!
https://www.met.police.uk/Stop...
So, you go after the weapon, and the criminals choose another weapon. In France, they had a HIGHER death toll that America's worst mass shooting using just a TRUCK! If only they had sane truck laws, with mandatory training and licensing, that would not happen, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yup, four shot. Horrible. If four people had been stabbed, or four run over with a truck, that is OK somehow.
But driving on roads is a CHOICE. If you don't own a car, no insurance needed.
Plus, even insurance is not technically necessary. If you are very wealthy then you can choose to "self-insure." That just means that you have enough money set aside to cover damages in case you cause an accident.
ACA was not a choice. If you make over a certain income, health insurance is mandatory for every citizen.
To make your analogy more accurate you need to force people who live in cities and don't even own a car to buy liability insurance...
While you have a point, comparing a single-shot pistol to a nuclear weapon is certainly a stretch.
So, the concept of a tube that holds a bullet is a state secret? Wow, this sort of thing was invented centuries ago. If you think THAT is dangerous, then the terrible secret of the "sail" is certainly dangerous -- making a boat move without an engine
Also, even an "AR-15 receiver" can be had for less than $100, so the plans for those are suddenly state secrets?