1) Marketing. Denying the brand loyalty Apple buyers have would be foolish. Lots of people buy the iPad not because it is the best device for their goals but because it's cool. That is a function of marketing. Building on the iPhone, and iPod's popularity (also a function of marketing) helped a lot. 2) The technology available as short as three years prior to the iPad wouldn't have supported the device. That doesn't mean that others didn't have the ideas nor want to implement them. Without the capacitive touchscreen at a reasonable price and quality, you have no iPad. Apple's great innovation was applying the technology a bit faster than everyone else. Everything from the physical design of the device to the interface of the OS is driven by that single piece of tech. 3) They came out about a year prior to everyone else adopting the tech. Apple must be given credit for that, but it isn't innovation. It is market strategy and market vision.
But no, rounded corners and a simple physical design could only have been created by the geniuses of industrial design at Apple. No one else could possibly have come up with the same thing given the same available technology and design goals. Or else they did and that is why all tablets have rounded corners and few physical buttons.
Except, describe an iPad: A rectangular device with an all black front, rounded corners, thinish bezel and limited physical buttons Now, describe the design likely to come out of these requirements: Touch interface, comfortable to hold, simple.
Result, pretty much what every tablet is. Or a PADD. Odd that only Apple is running around suing everyone left and right for copying their "great innovations" of rounded corners and few buttons.
Also, I can do magic. If I hold a Galaxy Tab in the perspective it is designed to be used in, it suddenly doesn't look like an iPad. Magic!
We had a basement foundation put in for a modular house and jumped through all their hoops; when the inspector came out we failed the inspection because the front porch light was loose and there was no handrail on the concrete stairs leading to the basement OUTSIDE the house. Because of that -- and that alone -- we were not permitted to occupy our own house on our own property. Apparently he felt it was safer for my handicapped wife, my dog, and me to live for six weeks in a leaky motor home in our driveway with no running water in below-zero winter than to sleep in beds in our heated house because of that porch light and handrail.
Is there any building department in the country that will approve stairs with no railing? Your wife is disabled, so you should understand the need for hand railings on stairs. Even if they are OUTSIDE the house, since presumably they may be used for emergency egress. If the porch light was installed as part of the permitted work, then I can understand why they rejected it -- a loose light can be a shock hazard. If it wasn't part of the permitted work, then the inspector was being petty and should have just pointed it out without writing it up. But if it was done under the permit and he gave his signoff and your wife electrocuted herself while changing the light bulb, it's his head on the line.
I don't see why it took you 6 more weeks of sleeping outside to get the handrail installed and porch light fixed? A handrail is a couple hours of work, even in concrete. Couldn't you just fix them and schedule a followup inspection?
As annoying as they are, building department regulations are supposed to insure a minimal standard of construction - any licensed contractor should be able to build to code without a problem. If you're doing the work yourself, stop by your building office and speak to an inspector -- don't assume that if you just submit plans that the inspector is going to call out every little non-compliant item.
Whether all you say is true and just, you walked right by the core point of the post. They were prevented from living in their house on their property by some government bureaucrat. Whether those issues are 'serious' or not, they should be allowed to accept that risk without worrying that some one will show up and evict them from their own home.
I see what you're saying about building codes and I'd likely want a house I bought to be built to some good standards and certified as such by someone. That said, I would also not want some government wonk showing up and telling me I can't live the way I want as long as I'm not bringing harm on others.
I'll tell you what, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell me why less guns mean more people getting shot, I'm sure the logical contortions will be Olympian and thoroughly entertaining.
It may seem that way, but mainly because I didn't go into great detail.:-)
Presuming: A) A full scale confiscatory gun ban were passed into law in the United States B) This didn't immediately lead to riots or worse (Many of those who say "From their cold dead hands" are not kidding) C) The government actually got their collective self in gear and managed to pick up all the guns (never minding how for the moment) without starting a revolution
Then, the primary demand would come from criminals who unsurprisingly didn't just give up their 'trade'. Secondary demand would come from civilians not wanting to face the criminals unarmed. I.E. The situation we have now.
Primary demand might decrease slightly due to increases in cost. Secondary demand may decrease for the same reasons, but would likely be followed by an increase as crime increases. That's supposition but one supported by examples in other places.
With the demand in place, it's a matter of satisfying it. The primary method for that would be smuggling with a secondary of local manufacture. With the tools available practically anywhere these days making good quality guns would actually be pretty easy. Turning barrels is the hard part as for most designs that is absolutely critical. Of course, if you're making ones for self-defense then extreme range and accuracy (or even middle range and accuracy) isn't as much of a concern.
What it comes down to is that this isn't the 1930s where milling machines were something that only large companies could own. You could go out and buy a mill, modify it to be CnC if necessary. By day you're making farm machine parts or whatever. At night, AR-15s or even simpler designs.
As to why companies make new guns. The destruction rate isn't that high but clearly demand is. The ownership base expands over time and the current base tends to buy more over time. A friend of mine went from owning one little pistol to 10 pistols and 15 rifles over time. Why? No idea. That's even more than I have. But some people like to collect.
Just a couple of examples. I read once about a guy, can't find the link now, who made one out of sheetmetal. It was ugly, but it worked. The cat is permanently out of the bag and isn't going back in without a fight.:-)
You idiot, why would you ban guns and allow the sale of parts to build one. Are you bring deliberately obtuse?
I'm starting to wonder the same about you...
You clearly didn't read the part where I said all you really need are basic metal working skills and basic tools. I posted examples of using part kits and such as that is the current situation. In the event of a total ban you could simply make all the parts from scratch. They aren't that complicated and any machinist could fairly easily figure out how to make one from either a working example or readily available plans. Guys in prison have managed to figure out how to make working semi-auto hand guns with the crap they have available. You think someone with full access to a machine shop couldn't do it?
Maybe you don't see many machine guns in crimes, but they exist. Look south of three border where you have been giving them away to gangs to see the risks of unrestricted access to weapons.
I suppose this could be considered slightly greater fail. First, as has been pointed out already, Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. They're working such wonders, no? Second, "we/you" have been giving them away to exactly no one. Unless you're referring to that oh so wonderful operation of Obama's Justice Department "Fast and Furious".
Further, you've either ignored or failed to realize that those gangs themselves are a result of the prohibition of a popular product. Banning guns in the US would do nothing more than give them another product to bring across the boarder.
Lastly we're talking about the US here and the US environment. There aren't many, if any, machine guns used in crime here primarily for the reasons I've listed. Neither the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 had any measurable impact on this.
Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
So limit ammunition instead. There's a Chris Rock skit about that, which is straight to the point and hilarious. But yeah, with proper care, guns last a long time. Ammo actually expires or gets old and useless.
That's only partially true though. As Dr Damage already replied, there is reloading to consider. Of course, the brass eventually would give out and you'd need new brass but all that would do is create a blackmarket for ammo (parts and whole). Also, as long as the ammo is kept dry it also can last decades or longer. For one of my oldest guns, itself nearly 70 years old and as good as new, I have ammo that is more than 40 years old. That ammo still works just fine. The only reason I'm not shooting even older stuff is that it was already used up.
Thing is most people aren't very good at making bombs and will likely fail, usually at a not insignificant cost to themselves. Every idiot with an inferiority complex who wants to be like John Wayne can buy a gun over the counter.
And any dumbass can fill a plastic or glass bottle with gasoline (available in all 50 States without a background check!!!) stuff a rag in it and toss it at the right (wrong) time. Would you like to say anything else stupid or are you done?
Good luck going on a killing spree with a home made pop gun...
You are just wrong all over the place, aren't you?
To build your very own Super Evil Military Assault Rifle you need: Basic metal working skills and pretty basic tools.
An AK-47 receiver isn't particularly complicated. An AR-15's receiver is a bit more complicated but not so much so that a person couldn't make one. Since legally only the receiver is "the gun" (in the US) it is the only regulated part and the rest can be ordered online easily. Even if not, an open bolt machine gun is a damned simple design and could probably be done from blank paper to working machine in short order. All you'd need is someone with a bit of brainpower who understood machines.
None of this addresses that you can make a workable AR-15 receiver using several of the 3-D printer systems that are currently available. It wouldn't be strong enough to take Hill 58, but you could easily commit evil with it if you're of a mind.
I'm pretty sure you still get mental institutions, if the culture in America wasn't so vindictive it's probably where he'd end up rather than on Death Row. Do you think you could get hold of a SAM? No? Why is that? Is it because weapon controls don't work?
For the same reason you can't buy nukes. They're expensive and generally not worth the trouble.
Want to know the real reason criminals don't generally buy machine guns? They aren't useful for crime. They're large and expensive to run. It's not because a stupid ass law was passed to ban new ones for civilians. They weren't used for crime much prior to that law. The only criminals to ever use them regularly was organized crime. Which we practically created by a.. wait for it... ban on alcohol. Funny how those bans work out.. huh?
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
This is going to undo some rather necessary modding.. but...
You're dead wrong. How's that War on Drugs working out? How about the one on prostitution?
These are facts: Passing gun bans does not reduce crime. If crime does go down, you can likely find a far more logical reason why real close by. Passing bans on anything has never stopped anyone from buying them. It at best raises the bar and prevents the law abiding from acquiring them. Those who are willing to break the law will simply do so anyway. This is true for guns, drugs, prostitutes or anything else you care to name. This has been true since day one.
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
The reason blacks in the United States and scholars of race are particular about naming is because historical usage is often inaccurate and/or racist.
Negro is a mistaken identification of race, and scientists are in general agreement that race has no biological basis.
In the contemporary context, "black" is perfectly acceptable as is "African-American", though "black" has problems with precision and specificity as does "African-American". For example, many "black" people are actually less black in their skin-tone than some non-blacks (including some whites). African-American confuses nationality and obscures color in order to be historically accurate and, for better or worse, is the term generally accepted by educated and cultured people in the United States.
The real issue is that racism is often not even conscious. People don't even recognize how they have been subtly trained by media and culture to hold a racist bias.
What I find curious is how you mush together a discussion of how to refer to mentally impaired people and people of black African ancestry. Why these two? Why not Jews and blacks, or Indians and blacks? What are your unconscious presumptions about these populations that makes you link them together when thinking about how to name them?
Or, at least in the case of those living inside the United States, we could just say Americans? We can hardly "move beyond race" when large numbers of people are insisting on constantly labeling people in such a way, can we? Not saying whether you're in that camp or not, just pointing out the existence of that camp.
As to why not Jews and blacks, have Jewish people gone through the PC-Rename machine in the same way? The Indian comparison might be more valid, but I'm not sure if their "rename" to Native American was entirely for PC reasons. One could quite legitimately argue "They aren't Indians so we really ought to call them something else, no?"
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact?
Normally when a sentance begins "I think" it is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. So, no, I don't actually need any citation to state my own opinion.
Now, if you want reasons for why I hold that opinion: (1) saving the American auto industry (still one of the largest employers of the middle class); (2) challenging china on dumping, currency inflation and import tarrifs placed on American goods; (3) Restructuring student loans to both allow more loans to be issued at lower cost to the government and to the borrowers; (4) increased spending on transportation and infrastructure projects (jobs now, useful commerce later); (5) multiple tax cuts he passed for the middle class; (6) opposition to further cuts for the wealthiest Americas who a, do not need them, and b, will not spend their savings if taxes are cut - the proceeds of which strengthen the Federal budget, including Medicare and Medicaid (Social security is separately supported and funded and is not on the Federal budget).
1) If by saving you mean nationalizing instead of letting losers fail. Then yes. If by saving you mean turning over those companies to Obama's Union pals, then yes. If we constantly allow companies to make their losses public, as long as their big enough, then nothing will ever improve. They should have been allowed to die so that others who don't need such bailouts, Ford for instance, can take their place. 2) Might be a good thing, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the "middle class". 3) Because more debt is awesome! That'll be great as tuition costs continue to rise out of control. Funny how that started about the same time that cheap(ish) government loans for every random kid to go to college became available. Coincidence I'm sure. 4) This would be more debt and more problems that we're just pushing on to future generations. If our grandkids don't string us up for the crap we're pushing down on them we'll all be lucky. 5) They are (no counting ones that were already in place)? While you're at it, don't forget to mention all the new taxes brought in recently too. 6) Tax cuts are good. If you think we can tax our way to prosperity, no matter who is paying them, then we've got a core disagreement with the way you see reality. The government doesn't, on a whole, produce anything. It is a drag on the parts of the economy that actually does produce things. If you believe that the solution to our problems is "tax the rich" or anything resembling that, then you've got a serious problem right there. As to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, these programs as they stand are going to bankrupt us regardless of how high we run the tax rate or what else we cut. It doesn't matter that SS is separately funded and "not on the Federal budget". It still has to be paid for and it still creates drag on the over all economy.
Really? not a single thing? You mean 1) Jobs act that will put many middle class workers back to work 2) Affordable Care Act that will lower the cost of insurance on workers with pre-existing conditions 3) Extending the bush tax cuts on the middle class 4) Stimulus plans that helped put more money in the middle classes hands...
And that's just off the top of my head, there's much much more.. I think you are confused about this.
1) Government jobs for the most part. Which are only a drag on the economy and a net loss over all. This is harm, not helping. 2) It will likely lead to the destruction of the private insurance industry as we know it. Leading to single payer and all the suck and fail that is. At the risk of repeating others, Welcome to the Department of Health, run by the DMV. Also, I'm fairly sure that the collapse of government finances likely to result from this boondongle will impact the middle class far more than those evil Rich Guys. More harm and not help. 3) Only true if you agree with Obama's definition of the "rich" starting at 250,000 a year and only for the next year anyway. It's a campaign trick and nothing else. Besides, taxes will have to sky rocket to pay for ACA and save medicare/medicaid from collapse. 4) The stimulus has not been proven to do a damned thing except run the debt ever higher.
I'm not confused at all. You're just seeing benefits where none exist and blind to the costs of providing all those "benefits".
You forget that the president has very limited powers in what he can do. Primarily, a president affects change by proposing legislation, but he needs a congress that will approve it.
Even in the first 2 years, when the democrats controlled both the house and senate, it was difficult to get things done because the Senate republicans would filibuster almost everything.
I have no doubt Obama would LIKE to help the middle class, I just doubt he can get it done with a congress hell bent on blocking everything he tries to do.
I'm not forgetting it at all. Sometimes it seems I'm one of the few people I know that remember it no matter who is in the White House. That said, not a single thing proposed nor enacted would help the middle class and nearly every single thing would severely hurt them in the long run.
One cannot blame the Republicans for Obama's economically destructive agenda.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact? Given he's done exactly nothing to help the middle class and lots to do drastic harm to them, your position is extremely weak.
To wit: Deficits and debt on a scale the world has never seen with no end in sight, exploding entitlement programs with never ending commitments and nothing but a desire to further expand them. Exactly how does that help the "middle class"? Who do you think is going to be paying for this or are you just assuming that we'll just soak the rich for all of it?
If one of the licence requirements of Android was an unlocked bootloader from the start, and an inbuilt (optional, but on by default) periodic check for updates, perhaps the ecosystem could be streamlined. I don't know. I just feel that right now it's almost silly that so few Android users are on the current, bugfixed, high quality ICS despite the fact that they almost certainly could be and would be having a better experience as a result.
Ecosystem to Ecosystem you've got a valid point. The abandonment of phones by carriers (seems to be mainly a US thing. Though, I could be wrong) in the Android Ecosystem is a serious issue. That said, I'm not sure if a full ecosystem to ecosystem comparison is valid in this instance. For the longest time in the US market the iPhone was an AT&T phone. Single model, single carrier. Based on that exclusivity Apple was able to gain the majority control of the device, something which up to this point was generally not the case and still isn't. That is the single reason iOS updates are as good as they are. Once they had that for a period of time it was pretty hard for Verizon to demand full control. So, now you're at two carriers and still only a handful of active models.
This is far more analogous to the Nexus subsection of the overall Android ecosystem. I'm sure you may feel that I'm cherry picking, however I believe it is valid in this case. I'm not sure Google could, with the open source nature of Android, make the demands you're suggesting without destroying that open source nature and doing serious damage to the rest of the ecosystem. Whether that is desirable or not is a separate question and I'm also not debating whether your suggestions are good ones or not (they are).
Locked boot loaders suck. Locked phones suck. True for iOS and for Android. However, as has been said before the vast vast majority of people don't seem to give a damn. If they did, they really would be buying the GNEX from either Google directly or from VZW (as I did). Sales says they aren't. The GNEX is doing well but certainly not as well as the SGSIII is likely to.
By your standard, I have no right to marry again (let alone have a kid) and you would perhaps suggest me to do software development (presumably open source for free). Have you ever thought marrying, having kids and a family are fundamental rights of a human (and even an animal)?
You seem to have had a regrettable series of events. That said...
Do you have the right to make that choice? Sure, absolutely. Self-determination and all that. However, with that right comes the requirement to deal with the consequences of that choice. You have absolutely no right to externalize those consequences by demanding the State provide you with the means to exercise that right or support you or your children. If you cannot support them, for whatever reason, you shouldn't intentionally have them.
To put it another way, you have the right to choose as long as you're willing and able to deal with the consequences of that choice yourself. You don't have the right to effectively enslave others through the machinations of the State to support you and yours after having made the decision. Saying you didn't mean to have children at this time doesn't change that fact. Your choice, your responsibility.
You know, this gets tossed around as gospel quite a lot and accepted as such. So I'm curious... name these massive innovations. For the purposes of this: Nothing they bought from someone else and merely integrated, that isn't innovation. Nothing they copied from someone else either directly nor with slight to middling tweaks, that also isn't innovation. No citing merely dropping or adopting technology before someone else. While that is laudable, it by definition isn't innovation. It is merely adoption. No cases of "it was implemented somewhere else, now it is in in iOS/OSX so now it is innovation".
Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.
Score 5: Insightful??? Really? And without a scintilla of evidence, too.
Nice, slashdot mods. Nice.
And you'd call attempting to seize control of the smartphone and tablet markets by claiming that any product which resembles yours and has certain base features which has loads of prior art what? Even if we presume there is infringement, was there an offer of licensing? Of settlement? Nope.
"Remove them from the market. We'd rather not compete with something that is better than us."
It's cool, Apple will come out with another iPhone with a somewhat better processor and screen. Also, perhaps some more memory. Certain groups of people will proclaim it the best there is and could be and a revolution in the space.
You have a short memory. Apple is no worse than MS has been. That may be faint praise, but it's justifiable.
Not at all. I very well remember MSFT's actions. They are living memory for me, as it were. However, I don't recall them suing everyone in existence (which is to say in the same market as them) and attempting to force them out of the market over such trivial things. They at least tried, sorta, to innovate and compete. As opposed to innovating a little bit and then suing anyone who catches up with them and surpasses them.
Also, MSFT usually went for licensing fees instead of bans from the market.
If this gets upheld, Apple will be able to get an injunction on every Android phone because this is a core OS feature. I'd say that affects consumers. Plus, it seems like there's a pretty good chance that Google could find some patent between theirs and Motorola's that applies to the iPhone, which could lead to a counter ban. Maybe (hopefully) it won't get that far, but this is the patent armageddon that people have been worrying about with all these lawsuits.
On the contrary, this is exactly what needs to happen. Google should search their patents and find every single one that could apply to every single Apple device. Once they've built their case they should, without a seconds warning, nuke Apple with everything. Seek injunctions against Apple's entire business. Once granted, bring them to the table to sort all this stupidity out.
It's either that or everyone but Apple suffers a death of a thousand cuts.
Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Marketing. Denying the brand loyalty Apple buyers have would be foolish. Lots of people buy the iPad not because it is the best device for their goals but because it's cool. That is a function of marketing. Building on the iPhone, and iPod's popularity (also a function of marketing) helped a lot.
2) The technology available as short as three years prior to the iPad wouldn't have supported the device. That doesn't mean that others didn't have the ideas nor want to implement them. Without the capacitive touchscreen at a reasonable price and quality, you have no iPad. Apple's great innovation was applying the technology a bit faster than everyone else. Everything from the physical design of the device to the interface of the OS is driven by that single piece of tech.
3) They came out about a year prior to everyone else adopting the tech. Apple must be given credit for that, but it isn't innovation. It is market strategy and market vision.
But no, rounded corners and a simple physical design could only have been created by the geniuses of industrial design at Apple. No one else could possibly have come up with the same thing given the same available technology and design goals. Or else they did and that is why all tablets have rounded corners and few physical buttons.
You can see a bunch of postage-stamp sized thumbnails of them.
Check out these not-iPads: http://tablets-planet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Best-Buy-Tablet-Central-in-store-display.jpg
Oh, hey, here's more: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=best+buy+tablet+section&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=BvUOUOK6IaKMiAKsuYGQBA&biw=1334&bih=848&sei=CPUOULanJ4WXiAKMwIHgCQ
Follow instructions next time.
Except, describe an iPad: A rectangular device with an all black front, rounded corners, thinish bezel and limited physical buttons
Now, describe the design likely to come out of these requirements: Touch interface, comfortable to hold, simple.
Result, pretty much what every tablet is. Or a PADD. Odd that only Apple is running around suing everyone left and right for copying their "great innovations" of rounded corners and few buttons.
Also, I can do magic. If I hold a Galaxy Tab in the perspective it is designed to be used in, it suddenly doesn't look like an iPad. Magic!
We had a basement foundation put in for a modular house and jumped through all their hoops; when the inspector came out we failed the inspection because the front porch light was loose and there was no handrail on the concrete stairs leading to the basement OUTSIDE the house. Because of that -- and that alone -- we were not permitted to occupy our own house on our own property. Apparently he felt it was safer for my handicapped wife, my dog, and me to live for six weeks in a leaky motor home in our driveway with no running water in below-zero winter than to sleep in beds in our heated house because of that porch light and handrail.
Is there any building department in the country that will approve stairs with no railing? Your wife is disabled, so you should understand the need for hand railings on stairs. Even if they are OUTSIDE the house, since presumably they may be used for emergency egress. If the porch light was installed as part of the permitted work, then I can understand why they rejected it -- a loose light can be a shock hazard. If it wasn't part of the permitted work, then the inspector was being petty and should have just pointed it out without writing it up. But if it was done under the permit and he gave his signoff and your wife electrocuted herself while changing the light bulb, it's his head on the line.
I don't see why it took you 6 more weeks of sleeping outside to get the handrail installed and porch light fixed? A handrail is a couple hours of work, even in concrete. Couldn't you just fix them and schedule a followup inspection?
As annoying as they are, building department regulations are supposed to insure a minimal standard of construction - any licensed contractor should be able to build to code without a problem. If you're doing the work yourself, stop by your building office and speak to an inspector -- don't assume that if you just submit plans that the inspector is going to call out every little non-compliant item.
Whether all you say is true and just, you walked right by the core point of the post. They were prevented from living in their house on their property by some government bureaucrat. Whether those issues are 'serious' or not, they should be allowed to accept that risk without worrying that some one will show up and evict them from their own home.
I see what you're saying about building codes and I'd likely want a house I bought to be built to some good standards and certified as such by someone. That said, I would also not want some government wonk showing up and telling me I can't live the way I want as long as I'm not bringing harm on others.
I'll tell you what, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell me why less guns mean more people getting shot, I'm sure the logical contortions will be Olympian and thoroughly entertaining.
Are you asking about Mexico here or what?
It may seem that way, but mainly because I didn't go into great detail. :-)
Presuming:
A) A full scale confiscatory gun ban were passed into law in the United States
B) This didn't immediately lead to riots or worse (Many of those who say "From their cold dead hands" are not kidding)
C) The government actually got their collective self in gear and managed to pick up all the guns (never minding how for the moment) without starting a revolution
Then, the primary demand would come from criminals who unsurprisingly didn't just give up their 'trade'. Secondary demand would come from civilians not wanting to face the criminals unarmed. I.E. The situation we have now.
Primary demand might decrease slightly due to increases in cost. Secondary demand may decrease for the same reasons, but would likely be followed by an increase as crime increases. That's supposition but one supported by examples in other places.
With the demand in place, it's a matter of satisfying it. The primary method for that would be smuggling with a secondary of local manufacture. With the tools available practically anywhere these days making good quality guns would actually be pretty easy. Turning barrels is the hard part as for most designs that is absolutely critical. Of course, if you're making ones for self-defense then extreme range and accuracy (or even middle range and accuracy) isn't as much of a concern.
What it comes down to is that this isn't the 1930s where milling machines were something that only large companies could own. You could go out and buy a mill, modify it to be CnC if necessary. By day you're making farm machine parts or whatever. At night, AR-15s or even simpler designs.
As to why companies make new guns. The destruction rate isn't that high but clearly demand is. The ownership base expands over time and the current base tends to buy more over time. A friend of mine went from owning one little pistol to 10 pistols and 15 rifles over time. Why? No idea. That's even more than I have. But some people like to collect.
Last note, if a person ever wanted to know if a complete ban would work see here:
Plastic CNC AR-15 Lower
Bolt Together AR-15 Lower out of Aluminum
Just a couple of examples. I read once about a guy, can't find the link now, who made one out of sheetmetal. It was ugly, but it worked. The cat is permanently out of the bag and isn't going back in without a fight. :-)
You idiot, why would you ban guns and allow the sale of parts to build one. Are you bring deliberately obtuse?
I'm starting to wonder the same about you...
You clearly didn't read the part where I said all you really need are basic metal working skills and basic tools. I posted examples of using part kits and such as that is the current situation. In the event of a total ban you could simply make all the parts from scratch. They aren't that complicated and any machinist could fairly easily figure out how to make one from either a working example or readily available plans. Guys in prison have managed to figure out how to make working semi-auto hand guns with the crap they have available. You think someone with full access to a machine shop couldn't do it?
Maybe you don't see many machine guns in crimes, but they exist. Look south of three border where you have been giving them away to gangs to see the risks of unrestricted access to weapons.
I suppose this could be considered slightly greater fail. First, as has been pointed out already, Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. They're working such wonders, no? Second, "we/you" have been giving them away to exactly no one. Unless you're referring to that oh so wonderful operation of Obama's Justice Department "Fast and Furious".
Further, you've either ignored or failed to realize that those gangs themselves are a result of the prohibition of a popular product. Banning guns in the US would do nothing more than give them another product to bring across the boarder.
Lastly we're talking about the US here and the US environment. There aren't many, if any, machine guns used in crime here primarily for the reasons I've listed. Neither the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 had any measurable impact on this.
Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
So limit ammunition instead. There's a Chris Rock skit about that, which is straight to the point and hilarious. But yeah, with proper care, guns last a long time. Ammo actually expires or gets old and useless.
That's only partially true though. As Dr Damage already replied, there is reloading to consider. Of course, the brass eventually would give out and you'd need new brass but all that would do is create a blackmarket for ammo (parts and whole). Also, as long as the ammo is kept dry it also can last decades or longer. For one of my oldest guns, itself nearly 70 years old and as good as new, I have ammo that is more than 40 years old. That ammo still works just fine. The only reason I'm not shooting even older stuff is that it was already used up.
Thing is most people aren't very good at making bombs and will likely fail, usually at a not insignificant cost to themselves. Every idiot with an inferiority complex who wants to be like John Wayne can buy a gun over the counter.
And any dumbass can fill a plastic or glass bottle with gasoline (available in all 50 States without a background check!!!) stuff a rag in it and toss it at the right (wrong) time. Would you like to say anything else stupid or are you done?
Good luck going on a killing spree with a home made pop gun...
You are just wrong all over the place, aren't you?
To build your very own Super Evil Military Assault Rifle you need: Basic metal working skills and pretty basic tools.
An AK-47 receiver isn't particularly complicated. An AR-15's receiver is a bit more complicated but not so much so that a person couldn't make one. Since legally only the receiver is "the gun" (in the US) it is the only regulated part and the rest can be ordered online easily. Even if not, an open bolt machine gun is a damned simple design and could probably be done from blank paper to working machine in short order. All you'd need is someone with a bit of brainpower who understood machines.
None of this addresses that you can make a workable AR-15 receiver using several of the 3-D printer systems that are currently available. It wouldn't be strong enough to take Hill 58, but you could easily commit evil with it if you're of a mind.
You clearly have no idea of what you speak.
I'm pretty sure you still get mental institutions, if the culture in America wasn't so vindictive it's probably where he'd end up rather than on Death Row. Do you think you could get hold of a SAM? No? Why is that? Is it because weapon controls don't work?
For the same reason you can't buy nukes. They're expensive and generally not worth the trouble.
Want to know the real reason criminals don't generally buy machine guns? They aren't useful for crime. They're large and expensive to run. It's not because a stupid ass law was passed to ban new ones for civilians. They weren't used for crime much prior to that law. The only criminals to ever use them regularly was organized crime. Which we practically created by a.. wait for it... ban on alcohol. Funny how those bans work out.. huh?
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
This is going to undo some rather necessary modding.. but...
You're dead wrong. How's that War on Drugs working out? How about the one on prostitution?
These are facts:
Passing gun bans does not reduce crime. If crime does go down, you can likely find a far more logical reason why real close by.
Passing bans on anything has never stopped anyone from buying them. It at best raises the bar and prevents the law abiding from acquiring them. Those who are willing to break the law will simply do so anyway. This is true for guns, drugs, prostitutes or anything else you care to name. This has been true since day one.
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
The reason blacks in the United States and scholars of race are particular about naming is because historical usage is often inaccurate and/or racist.
Negro is a mistaken identification of race, and scientists are in general agreement that race has no biological basis.
In the contemporary context, "black" is perfectly acceptable as is "African-American", though "black" has problems with precision and specificity as does "African-American". For example, many "black" people are actually less black in their skin-tone than some non-blacks (including some whites). African-American confuses nationality and obscures color in order to be historically accurate and, for better or worse, is the term generally accepted by educated and cultured people in the United States.
The real issue is that racism is often not even conscious. People don't even recognize how they have been subtly trained by media and culture to hold a racist bias.
What I find curious is how you mush together a discussion of how to refer to mentally impaired people and people of black African ancestry. Why these two? Why not Jews and blacks, or Indians and blacks? What are your unconscious presumptions about these populations that makes you link them together when thinking about how to name them?
Or, at least in the case of those living inside the United States, we could just say Americans? We can hardly "move beyond race" when large numbers of people are insisting on constantly labeling people in such a way, can we? Not saying whether you're in that camp or not, just pointing out the existence of that camp.
As to why not Jews and blacks, have Jewish people gone through the PC-Rename machine in the same way? The Indian comparison might be more valid, but I'm not sure if their "rename" to Native American was entirely for PC reasons. One could quite legitimately argue "They aren't Indians so we really ought to call them something else, no?"
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact?
Normally when a sentance begins "I think" it is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. So, no, I don't actually need any citation to state my own opinion.
Now, if you want reasons for why I hold that opinion: (1) saving the American auto industry (still one of the largest employers of the middle class); (2) challenging china on dumping, currency inflation and import tarrifs placed on American goods; (3) Restructuring student loans to both allow more loans to be issued at lower cost to the government and to the borrowers; (4) increased spending on transportation and infrastructure projects (jobs now, useful commerce later); (5) multiple tax cuts he passed for the middle class; (6) opposition to further cuts for the wealthiest Americas who a, do not need them, and b, will not spend their savings if taxes are cut - the proceeds of which strengthen the Federal budget, including Medicare and Medicaid (Social security is separately supported and funded and is not on the Federal budget).
1) If by saving you mean nationalizing instead of letting losers fail. Then yes. If by saving you mean turning over those companies to Obama's Union pals, then yes. If we constantly allow companies to make their losses public, as long as their big enough, then nothing will ever improve. They should have been allowed to die so that others who don't need such bailouts, Ford for instance, can take their place.
2) Might be a good thing, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the "middle class".
3) Because more debt is awesome! That'll be great as tuition costs continue to rise out of control. Funny how that started about the same time that cheap(ish) government loans for every random kid to go to college became available. Coincidence I'm sure.
4) This would be more debt and more problems that we're just pushing on to future generations. If our grandkids don't string us up for the crap we're pushing down on them we'll all be lucky.
5) They are (no counting ones that were already in place)? While you're at it, don't forget to mention all the new taxes brought in recently too.
6) Tax cuts are good. If you think we can tax our way to prosperity, no matter who is paying them, then we've got a core disagreement with the way you see reality. The government doesn't, on a whole, produce anything. It is a drag on the parts of the economy that actually does produce things. If you believe that the solution to our problems is "tax the rich" or anything resembling that, then you've got a serious problem right there. As to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, these programs as they stand are going to bankrupt us regardless of how high we run the tax rate or what else we cut. It doesn't matter that SS is separately funded and "not on the Federal budget". It still has to be paid for and it still creates drag on the over all economy.
Really? not a single thing? You mean 1) Jobs act that will put many middle class workers back to work 2) Affordable Care Act that will lower the cost of insurance on workers with pre-existing conditions 3) Extending the bush tax cuts on the middle class 4) Stimulus plans that helped put more money in the middle classes hands...
And that's just off the top of my head, there's much much more.. I think you are confused about this.
1) Government jobs for the most part. Which are only a drag on the economy and a net loss over all. This is harm, not helping. 2) It will likely lead to the destruction of the private insurance industry as we know it. Leading to single payer and all the suck and fail that is. At the risk of repeating others, Welcome to the Department of Health, run by the DMV. Also, I'm fairly sure that the collapse of government finances likely to result from this boondongle will impact the middle class far more than those evil Rich Guys. More harm and not help. 3) Only true if you agree with Obama's definition of the "rich" starting at 250,000 a year and only for the next year anyway. It's a campaign trick and nothing else. Besides, taxes will have to sky rocket to pay for ACA and save medicare/medicaid from collapse. 4) The stimulus has not been proven to do a damned thing except run the debt ever higher.
I'm not confused at all. You're just seeing benefits where none exist and blind to the costs of providing all those "benefits".
You forget that the president has very limited powers in what he can do. Primarily, a president affects change by proposing legislation, but he needs a congress that will approve it.
Even in the first 2 years, when the democrats controlled both the house and senate, it was difficult to get things done because the Senate republicans would filibuster almost everything.
I have no doubt Obama would LIKE to help the middle class, I just doubt he can get it done with a congress hell bent on blocking everything he tries to do.
I'm not forgetting it at all. Sometimes it seems I'm one of the few people I know that remember it no matter who is in the White House. That said, not a single thing proposed nor enacted would help the middle class and nearly every single thing would severely hurt them in the long run.
One cannot blame the Republicans for Obama's economically destructive agenda.
They think Obama's past 4 years has been about strengthening the middle class, and they want 4 more years of it. War is peace, y'know.
QFT.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact? Given he's done exactly nothing to help the middle class and lots to do drastic harm to them, your position is extremely weak.
To wit: Deficits and debt on a scale the world has never seen with no end in sight, exploding entitlement programs with never ending commitments and nothing but a desire to further expand them. Exactly how does that help the "middle class"? Who do you think is going to be paying for this or are you just assuming that we'll just soak the rich for all of it?
Hope and Change my ass.
If one of the licence requirements of Android was an unlocked bootloader from the start, and an inbuilt (optional, but on by default) periodic check for updates, perhaps the ecosystem could be streamlined. I don't know. I just feel that right now it's almost silly that so few Android users are on the current, bugfixed, high quality ICS despite the fact that they almost certainly could be and would be having a better experience as a result.
Ecosystem to Ecosystem you've got a valid point. The abandonment of phones by carriers (seems to be mainly a US thing. Though, I could be wrong) in the Android Ecosystem is a serious issue. That said, I'm not sure if a full ecosystem to ecosystem comparison is valid in this instance. For the longest time in the US market the iPhone was an AT&T phone. Single model, single carrier. Based on that exclusivity Apple was able to gain the majority control of the device, something which up to this point was generally not the case and still isn't. That is the single reason iOS updates are as good as they are. Once they had that for a period of time it was pretty hard for Verizon to demand full control. So, now you're at two carriers and still only a handful of active models.
This is far more analogous to the Nexus subsection of the overall Android ecosystem. I'm sure you may feel that I'm cherry picking, however I believe it is valid in this case. I'm not sure Google could, with the open source nature of Android, make the demands you're suggesting without destroying that open source nature and doing serious damage to the rest of the ecosystem. Whether that is desirable or not is a separate question and I'm also not debating whether your suggestions are good ones or not (they are).
Locked boot loaders suck. Locked phones suck. True for iOS and for Android. However, as has been said before the vast vast majority of people don't seem to give a damn. If they did, they really would be buying the GNEX from either Google directly or from VZW (as I did). Sales says they aren't. The GNEX is doing well but certainly not as well as the SGSIII is likely to.
By your standard, I have no right to marry again (let alone have a kid) and you would perhaps suggest me to do software development (presumably open source for free). Have you ever thought marrying, having kids and a family are fundamental rights of a human (and even an animal)?
You seem to have had a regrettable series of events. That said...
Do you have the right to make that choice? Sure, absolutely. Self-determination and all that. However, with that right comes the requirement to deal with the consequences of that choice. You have absolutely no right to externalize those consequences by demanding the State provide you with the means to exercise that right or support you or your children. If you cannot support them, for whatever reason, you shouldn't intentionally have them.
To put it another way, you have the right to choose as long as you're willing and able to deal with the consequences of that choice yourself. You don't have the right to effectively enslave others through the machinations of the State to support you and yours after having made the decision. Saying you didn't mean to have children at this time doesn't change that fact. Your choice, your responsibility.
Well, first: Apple has innovated a LOTTA bit; and
You know, this gets tossed around as gospel quite a lot and accepted as such. So I'm curious... name these massive innovations.
For the purposes of this:
Nothing they bought from someone else and merely integrated, that isn't innovation.
Nothing they copied from someone else either directly nor with slight to middling tweaks, that also isn't innovation.
No citing merely dropping or adopting technology before someone else. While that is laudable, it by definition isn't innovation. It is merely adoption.
No cases of "it was implemented somewhere else, now it is in in iOS/OSX so now it is innovation".
What does that leave?
Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.
Score 5: Insightful??? Really?
And without a scintilla of evidence, too.
Nice, slashdot mods. Nice.
And you'd call attempting to seize control of the smartphone and tablet markets by claiming that any product which resembles yours and has certain base features which has loads of prior art what? Even if we presume there is infringement, was there an offer of licensing? Of settlement? Nope.
"Remove them from the market. We'd rather not compete with something that is better than us."
It's cool, Apple will come out with another iPhone with a somewhat better processor and screen. Also, perhaps some more memory. Certain groups of people will proclaim it the best there is and could be and a revolution in the space.
You have a short memory. Apple is no worse than MS has been. That may be faint praise, but it's justifiable.
Not at all. I very well remember MSFT's actions. They are living memory for me, as it were. However, I don't recall them suing everyone in existence (which is to say in the same market as them) and attempting to force them out of the market over such trivial things. They at least tried, sorta, to innovate and compete. As opposed to innovating a little bit and then suing anyone who catches up with them and surpasses them.
Also, MSFT usually went for licensing fees instead of bans from the market.
Americans make beer?
Come on now, even the French make better beer (Louis Pasteur was the inventor of modern Lager).
You're out of date on your jokes. American beer (not the macrobrews) is quite good these days. Have to find someone else's beer to make fun of. :)
If this gets upheld, Apple will be able to get an injunction on every Android phone because this is a core OS feature. I'd say that affects consumers. Plus, it seems like there's a pretty good chance that Google could find some patent between theirs and Motorola's that applies to the iPhone, which could lead to a counter ban. Maybe (hopefully) it won't get that far, but this is the patent armageddon that people have been worrying about with all these lawsuits.
On the contrary, this is exactly what needs to happen. Google should search their patents and find every single one that could apply to every single Apple device. Once they've built their case they should, without a seconds warning, nuke Apple with everything. Seek injunctions against Apple's entire business. Once granted, bring them to the table to sort all this stupidity out.
It's either that or everyone but Apple suffers a death of a thousand cuts.
Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.