If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher. Just because a criminal does not have a gun does not mean he is no longer a criminal.
Well, criminals can still have guns. They don't have to obey the law. Only law abiding people have to obey the law.
So we should alter our lifestyle to suit the whims of the criminals? I think not. 6 blocks from my house a criminal robbed a man at gunpoint and forced the man's girlfriend to strip in the middle of the street. The man offered no resistance and handed over his wallet. The criminal murdered the man in front of his girlfriend. I have no intention of taking my chances that a criminal is just going to rob me and then let me go. Just as we as a country are no longer going to allow a a terrorist to take over a plane thinking that they will just fly us to Cuba. If a criminal is willing to break the law to steal from you, then you have no ability to say for certain just how far they are willing to escalate the situation.
The gun-owners will be safer when they are at home because the criminals know they have a gun. The gun-owners will be more likely to get broken into when they are not home because the criminals know they have a gun.Of course, they probably have it in a gun safe, but meanwhile the criminal will go ahead and steal whatever isn't nailed down and can be pawned for pennies on the dollar.
The non-gun owner houses will still be fair game at any time of day to the criminals, although they still prefer to be non-confrontational and just break in when they know nobody is home.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.
No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.
The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent.
So when access to a gun is taken away, the percentage of suicides by gun is reduced. Not surprising. Now, what about the suicide rate in general? Did it also go down, go up, stay the same? My guess is the latter.
So, since some people choose to disobey the law, what we should do is make more laws restricting what people who do obey the law can do? Hmm, sounds kind of dumb. How about instead of that, we just go after people who choose to disobey the law?
How is Data that is already public be leaked? AFIAK the data was public when the website was published, if it was not then that data was out in the open for more then a few days anyway.
The data is public, but not easy to aggregate. Criminals are lazy, but if some do-gooder news agency does the hard work of mapping out the data, the lazy criminal can now just wait until people leave the house and then break in and attempt to steal the weapons. I say attempt because most of the registered gun owners I know keep their guns stored in a gun safe.
We should go ahead and publish maps of people who exercise their right to free speech too, and maps of people who insist on their right to due process, and those who insist on their right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.
Well, they are not supposed to let luggage go on if the person doesn't check in at the gate, but I've never seen them digging around in the cargo hold even when they are calling people over the loudspeaker announcing that they are about to be left behind. On some flights, it would be all but impossible, since they use containers for the luggage and don't just toss it in the hold.
As far as connections go, I find it much more likely that you as a passenger will make the flight than your luggage. I'm sure it occasionally happens that the luggage makes it and not the passenger, but the other way around is much more common.
No way are the insurance companies going to allow screening to go back to the airlines when they proved they couldn't handle it.
I'm not aware of a point in recent history when the airlines performed the screening. It was always the airport's responsibility.
I also never heard about insurance companies raising a requirement for more security. I would think they would look at it as 400 people died in air travel out of 600 million passengers. In other words, not such a big deal.
It is against international regulations to have luggage for a passenger carried on a plane where the passenger isn't flying.
That's not entirely accurate. If you get off the plane, they will pull your luggage, but if your luggage misses the flight and you don't, they will put the luggage on another flight.
But not willing to think ahead to grow a junior developer,
We have several junior developers. My problem right now is that the company would not hire anyone for me a year or two ago when we needed to start grooming somebody. They waited until now, when I need someone to jump in with both feet. Even a seasoned developer will need to time to become familiar with our company and our programs. However, at this point, we don't even have time for that. But at least if we hire somebody now, then in 6 months or a year or whenever the next severe time crunch comes, we will have somebody who knows what they are doing.
There is, supposedly, a shortage / gap of mid-level developers.
Well, in that case I am willing to take a high level developer and pay them mid level wages.
I have had the same job in Pittsburgh (I don't live there) spammed at me about 6 times, all by Indian recruiting firms. I don't even bother to respond because they won't present me to the client because I am not an Indian on H1b.
My company has a real job posted, for a mid-level Java developer. We have received one resume, from someone 1,000 miles away who had Java in his experience somewhere, but not recent and it was not the focus of any previous job.
Of course, my company is too cheap to post on any board that is not free, and I don't think mid-level developers cruise craigslist. I sure don't when I am looking.
While I don't have a child, my best buddy has a 3 year old that has been very difficult to get potty trained. They finally did so by using the iPad as a way to entice her to stay on the potty long enough to do her business. Within two weeks she is fully potty trained.
Yeah, that's how I litter-box trained my cat, too, but cleaning up the iPad afterwords sure is a mess. But you have to love technology. Before the iPad, only the editorial section could convince a cat to use the litter-box.
I predict that Slashdot groupthinkers will bash the idea of ever paying for Facebook messages
Not me. I think that having to pay for message should be expanded to everyone. For people who are ACTUALLY my friends, I can allow them to send for free. For people who aren't on my friend's list, their can be a charge of some amount that I can specify, but I can also override, if it turns out to be a long lost relative or an old friend or something. We can work out a split where Facebooks gets 10% and I get 90% or something.
In fact, I wish e-mail and the telephone also worked the same way.
the computer in your pocket will become the computer you use everywhere, that depending on where you are, it will have different interfaces, inputs and outputs. CES is apparently showing it all to be true... at least so far. But Microsoft doesn't appear to be responding in any meaningful way.
No, Microsoft is going the other way. You will have computers everywhere and regardless of where the computer is or how big or small or for what purpose, it will have the SAME interfaces, inputs and outputs, not matter how inconvenient, anti-intuitive and frustrating it is to the user.
This is an argument for open protocols.
My vote for first protocol is a separate ON versus OFF command. No more of this toggle ON/OFF. If you use a smart remote and it thinks the ON/OFF is toggled differently then it is, then it is frustrating as heck. Simply let your ON be ON and your OFF be OFF and you will have no problems.
They should have put one of those in the video instead of that ugly orange thing.
I have a Cooler Master Haf X full Tower that came with a 1 KW power supply and 3 or 4 10 inch variable speed fans, clever wire routing grommets and accessibility options to get at both sides of the motherboard, front side USBs, card readers, external sata connectors and enough plugs and wiring to hook up every accessory you could think of, all for less than the cost of that case. And it's also not ugly.
Carlin would have loved this news. His whole point about profanity was that the only difference between clean vs. dirty language wasn't so much the words themselves as it was the attitude and emotion behind them.
I agree with Carlin. Which is why I have not uttered a profanity in over 10 years and yet am still able to get my point across. It's all about the attitude.
People who invest in Bitcoins are idiots. It is absolutely worthless. And even though it is worthless, I will still buy your Bitcoins for $10 USD each just so you won't be stuck in a jam of holding onto those worthless Bitcoins.
Submitted by the same guy even. Either the submitter got put in his place when he tried to tell the more experienced guy how to do how job or the submitter is just schizophrenic and is talking about himself.
Well I think it sucks that she made this decision based on religion, too, because now nobody is siding with her on it, and they should be. However, she can't very well just say "I don't want to wear it just because", although she should be able to. The religious angle is jut about the only way out for protesting intrusive government invasion of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher. Just because a criminal does not have a gun does not mean he is no longer a criminal.
Well, criminals can still have guns. They don't have to obey the law. Only law abiding people have to obey the law.
So we should alter our lifestyle to suit the whims of the criminals? I think not. 6 blocks from my house a criminal robbed a man at gunpoint and forced the man's girlfriend to strip in the middle of the street. The man offered no resistance and handed over his wallet. The criminal murdered the man in front of his girlfriend. I have no intention of taking my chances that a criminal is just going to rob me and then let me go. Just as we as a country are no longer going to allow a a terrorist to take over a plane thinking that they will just fly us to Cuba. If a criminal is willing to break the law to steal from you, then you have no ability to say for certain just how far they are willing to escalate the situation.
The gun-owners will be safer when they are at home because the criminals know they have a gun. The gun-owners will be more likely to get broken into when they are not home because the criminals know they have a gun.Of course, they probably have it in a gun safe, but meanwhile the criminal will go ahead and steal whatever isn't nailed down and can be pawned for pennies on the dollar.
The non-gun owner houses will still be fair game at any time of day to the criminals, although they still prefer to be non-confrontational and just break in when they know nobody is home.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.
No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.
The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent.
So when access to a gun is taken away, the percentage of suicides by gun is reduced. Not surprising. Now, what about the suicide rate in general? Did it also go down, go up, stay the same? My guess is the latter.
So, since some people choose to disobey the law, what we should do is make more laws restricting what people who do obey the law can do? Hmm, sounds kind of dumb. How about instead of that, we just go after people who choose to disobey the law?
How is Data that is already public be leaked? AFIAK the data was public when the website was published, if it was not then that data was out in the open for more then a few days anyway.
The data is public, but not easy to aggregate. Criminals are lazy, but if some do-gooder news agency does the hard work of mapping out the data, the lazy criminal can now just wait until people leave the house and then break in and attempt to steal the weapons. I say attempt because most of the registered gun owners I know keep their guns stored in a gun safe.
We should go ahead and publish maps of people who exercise their right to free speech too, and maps of people who insist on their right to due process, and those who insist on their right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.
Well, they are not supposed to let luggage go on if the person doesn't check in at the gate, but I've never seen them digging around in the cargo hold even when they are calling people over the loudspeaker announcing that they are about to be left behind. On some flights, it would be all but impossible, since they use containers for the luggage and don't just toss it in the hold.
As far as connections go, I find it much more likely that you as a passenger will make the flight than your luggage. I'm sure it occasionally happens that the luggage makes it and not the passenger, but the other way around is much more common.
No way are the insurance companies going to allow screening to go back to the airlines when they proved they couldn't handle it.
I'm not aware of a point in recent history when the airlines performed the screening. It was always the airport's responsibility.
I also never heard about insurance companies raising a requirement for more security. I would think they would look at it as 400 people died in air travel out of 600 million passengers. In other words, not such a big deal.
It is against international regulations to have luggage for a passenger carried on a plane where the passenger isn't flying.
That's not entirely accurate. If you get off the plane, they will pull your luggage, but if your luggage misses the flight and you don't, they will put the luggage on another flight.
But not willing to think ahead to grow a junior developer,
We have several junior developers. My problem right now is that the company would not hire anyone for me a year or two ago when we needed to start grooming somebody. They waited until now, when I need someone to jump in with both feet. Even a seasoned developer will need to time to become familiar with our company and our programs. However, at this point, we don't even have time for that. But at least if we hire somebody now, then in 6 months or a year or whenever the next severe time crunch comes, we will have somebody who knows what they are doing.
There is, supposedly, a shortage / gap of mid-level developers.
Well, in that case I am willing to take a high level developer and pay them mid level wages.
I have had the same job in Pittsburgh (I don't live there) spammed at me about 6 times, all by Indian recruiting firms. I don't even bother to respond because they won't present me to the client because I am not an Indian on H1b.
My company has a real job posted, for a mid-level Java developer. We have received one resume, from someone 1,000 miles away who had Java in his experience somewhere, but not recent and it was not the focus of any previous job.
Of course, my company is too cheap to post on any board that is not free, and I don't think mid-level developers cruise craigslist. I sure don't when I am looking.
While I don't have a child, my best buddy has a 3 year old that has been very difficult to get potty trained. They finally did so by using the iPad as a way to entice her to stay on the potty long enough to do her business. Within two weeks she is fully potty trained.
Yeah, that's how I litter-box trained my cat, too, but cleaning up the iPad afterwords sure is a mess. But you have to love technology. Before the iPad, only the editorial section could convince a cat to use the litter-box.
I predict that Slashdot groupthinkers will bash the idea of ever paying for Facebook messages
Not me. I think that having to pay for message should be expanded to everyone. For people who are ACTUALLY my friends, I can allow them to send for free. For people who aren't on my friend's list, their can be a charge of some amount that I can specify, but I can also override, if it turns out to be a long lost relative or an old friend or something. We can work out a split where Facebooks gets 10% and I get 90% or something.
In fact, I wish e-mail and the telephone also worked the same way.
the computer in your pocket will become the computer you use everywhere, that depending on where you are, it will have different interfaces, inputs and outputs. CES is apparently showing it all to be true... at least so far. But Microsoft doesn't appear to be responding in any meaningful way.
No, Microsoft is going the other way. You will have computers everywhere and regardless of where the computer is or how big or small or for what purpose, it will have the SAME interfaces, inputs and outputs, not matter how inconvenient, anti-intuitive and frustrating it is to the user.
This is an argument for open protocols.
My vote for first protocol is a separate ON versus OFF command. No more of this toggle ON/OFF. If you use a smart remote and it thinks the ON/OFF is toggled differently then it is, then it is frustrating as heck. Simply let your ON be ON and your OFF be OFF and you will have no problems.
They should have put one of those in the video instead of that ugly orange thing.
I have a Cooler Master Haf X full Tower that came with a 1 KW power supply and 3 or 4 10 inch variable speed fans, clever wire routing grommets and accessibility options to get at both sides of the motherboard, front side USBs, card readers, external sata connectors and enough plugs and wiring to hook up every accessory you could think of, all for less than the cost of that case. And it's also not ugly.
Carlin would have loved this news. His whole point about profanity was that the only difference between clean vs. dirty language wasn't so much the words themselves as it was the attitude and emotion behind them.
I agree with Carlin. Which is why I have not uttered a profanity in over 10 years and yet am still able to get my point across. It's all about the attitude.
People who invest in Bitcoins are idiots. It is absolutely worthless. And even though it is worthless, I will still buy your Bitcoins for $10 USD each just so you won't be stuck in a jam of holding onto those worthless Bitcoins.
You're quite right. $50 worth of Bitcoins yesterday is worth $52 today. Darned dollar just can't hold it's value.
Submitted by the same guy even. Either the submitter got put in his place when he tried to tell the more experienced guy how to do how job or the submitter is just schizophrenic and is talking about himself.
Well I think it sucks that she made this decision based on religion, too, because now nobody is siding with her on it, and they should be. However, she can't very well just say "I don't want to wear it just because", although she should be able to. The religious angle is jut about the only way out for protesting intrusive government invasion of privacy.