Maybe there's some special class which does, but I don't see any reference to explosives or propellants in the (admittedly non-authoritative) wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
There is reference to one advantage for railguns being "eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives in a tank or naval weapons platform."
They seem to be fine, at least under firearms laws. There is an "any other weapon" class, and a "destructive device" class, but both require either use of an explosive/propellant or a barrel, so neither covers a railgun. The regs were purposely written to exclude airguns (bb/pellet), hence the explosive/propellant requirement.
There is no federal requirement to register a firearm (with limited exception, like fully automatic rifles - machine guns). State laws vary. For most states, there's no registration requirement.
It's perfectly legal to manufacture a weapon for personal use. I can't cite a reference, since there's no law or regulation which specifically says you may. You'll have to cite something which says it's illegal, and you won't find anything.
" If my son annoys on my other son with Aspergers, the other son may turn and punch the annoying one. "
Non-autistic kids do the same thing.
" I don't think that anyone would say that he didn't "go nuts"."
That's pedantic. My response was quite plainly to a claim that he was "clearly mentally ill," and that's not clear at all. Toxicology results haven't even been completed. It's not uncommon for Aspies to have prescriptions for Ritalin, which has been linked to violent and psychotic behavior.
That's not clear at all. He had autism spectrum disorder, which is a developmental, not mental, issue. There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, which links autism to violence. Certainly, people look for answers as to why someone would do these sorts of things, and "he was nuts" is an obvious, knee-jerk, reaction. That doesn't make it so.
OK, we're done. You've admitted that high capacity magazines have a legitimate purpose. That's self defense, and it doesn't change whether you're a civilian or a soldier.
He used a car to drive there. You'll be turning your's in shortly, right, Mr. Disingenuous? And of course, you'd never use fertilizer, or consume food it was grown with, since that was used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. And, you don't use electricity, right, since much of it comes from fissionable material, which was used to kill 200,000 people?
Will you be writing your congressmen, asking that the military be banned from using high capacity magazines, since they have no legitimate purpose?
Whoosh. There's no need for Google to trust a private CA, in the general case. It could be trusted on a per gmail account basis - it's not really Google trusting, but the gmail user. Any security issues would have exactly zero impact on Google. The technology isn't hard.
And there is a reason for that, despite your claim - security.
"your time has to be of quite a low value if it's easier/cheaper to run your own CA and distribute certificates"
Or, you're a large organization and running your own CA means saving $30 x (large number N) per year. Or, you're aware that getting a "real" cert is no guarantee of security.
"you should really get a recognised SSL certificate if you want to offer SSL protected services, otherwise you're only getting half the benefit of SSL connections - you get encryption but not authentication."
No, it's perfectly reasonable to run your own CA, as an individual or an organization, distribute your CA cert to those using the service, and go merrily on your encrypted and authenticated way.
Except for Google, who provides no mechanism to associate a private CA cert, or the public side of a self signed one, with a gmail account.
you can disable using SSL in Gmail by unchecking 'Always use a secure connection (SSL) when retrieving mail on the Accounts and Import tab in your Mail settings. However, this means that your password and email will not be protected while sent over the Internet, so we don't recommend disabling this.
so, instead of using SSL for it's encryption capabilities (Google is now forcing authentication as a bundle), some users will have to leave the connection wide open. Now, I realize that self-signed certs still leave an opportunity for MITM attacks, but something is better than nothing. Google could have cached self signed certs, and notified the user if they changed, which would have at least made MITM interception apparent. They could have made this level of SSL authentication configurable. They could allow users to upload a private CA cert, or the public side of an SS cert. But they didn't. They just changed to "all or nothing," which will push many users to "nothing."
In the UK, for 2008/9, the rate of homicide by "sharp object" (knives, dirks, daggers, etc. I assume) was 39% (from some Home Office report). In the US (2005), it was 12.8%. (from some US Bureau of Justice report)
The (knife) murder rate in the UK is over 3 times larger than in the US.
You don't follow the news much, do you? Not long ago, there was this uprising in the middle east, called "the Arab Spring..." It's still going on. There are a few dead/deposed tyrants who now wish they had had better gun control, even though they had government scale weapons to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there's some special class which does, but I don't see any reference to explosives or propellants in the (admittedly non-authoritative) wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
There is reference to one advantage for railguns being "eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives in a tank or naval weapons platform."
They seem to be fine, at least under firearms laws. There is an "any other weapon" class, and a "destructive device" class, but both require either use of an explosive/propellant or a barrel, so neither covers a railgun. The regs were purposely written to exclude airguns (bb/pellet), hence the explosive/propellant requirement.
There is no federal requirement to register a firearm (with limited exception, like fully automatic rifles - machine guns). State laws vary. For most states, there's no registration requirement.
It's perfectly legal to manufacture a weapon for personal use. I can't cite a reference, since there's no law or regulation which specifically says you may. You'll have to cite something which says it's illegal, and you won't find anything.
The Defense Department disagrees.
"how can you make the determination that he definately had no other issues?"
I made no such claim.
" If my son annoys on my other son with Aspergers, the other son may turn and punch the annoying one. "
Non-autistic kids do the same thing.
" I don't think that anyone would say that he didn't "go nuts"."
That's pedantic. My response was quite plainly to a claim that he was "clearly mentally ill," and that's not clear at all. Toxicology results haven't even been completed. It's not uncommon for Aspies to have prescriptions for Ritalin, which has been linked to violent and psychotic behavior.
"Adam was very clearly mentally ill."
That's not clear at all. He had autism spectrum disorder, which is a developmental, not mental, issue. There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, which links autism to violence. Certainly, people look for answers as to why someone would do these sorts of things, and "he was nuts" is an obvious, knee-jerk, reaction. That doesn't make it so.
OK, we're done. You've admitted that high capacity magazines have a legitimate purpose. That's self defense, and it doesn't change whether you're a civilian or a soldier.
He used a car to drive there. You'll be turning your's in shortly, right, Mr. Disingenuous? And of course, you'd never use fertilizer, or consume food it was grown with, since that was used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. And, you don't use electricity, right, since much of it comes from fissionable material, which was used to kill 200,000 people?
Will you be writing your congressmen, asking that the military be banned from using high capacity magazines, since they have no legitimate purpose?
"celebs aren't crazy"
+1 funny
No one has ever been injured by a high capacity magazine (well, maybe a pinched finger).
Whoosh. There's no need for Google to trust a private CA, in the general case. It could be trusted on a per gmail account basis - it's not really Google trusting, but the gmail user. Any security issues would have exactly zero impact on Google. The technology isn't hard.
And there is a reason for that, despite your claim - security.
+1
"What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? "
Sport and fun. What's the use of a snowboard? Other than sport and fun, they serve no legitimate purpose.
Nice selective quoting there, Bunky.
"your time has to be of quite a low value if it's easier/cheaper to run your own CA and distribute certificates"
Or, you're a large organization and running your own CA means saving $30 x (large number N) per year. Or, you're aware that getting a "real" cert is no guarantee of security.
"you should really get a recognised SSL certificate if you want to offer SSL protected services, otherwise you're only getting half the benefit of SSL connections - you get encryption but not authentication."
No, it's perfectly reasonable to run your own CA, as an individual or an organization, distribute your CA cert to those using the service, and go merrily on your encrypted and authenticated way.
Except for Google, who provides no mechanism to associate a private CA cert, or the public side of a self signed one, with a gmail account.
No, it doesn't. According to Google:
so, instead of using SSL for it's encryption capabilities (Google is now forcing authentication as a bundle), some users will have to leave the connection wide open. Now, I realize that self-signed certs still leave an opportunity for MITM attacks, but something is better than nothing. Google could have cached self signed certs, and notified the user if they changed, which would have at least made MITM interception apparent. They could have made this level of SSL authentication configurable. They could allow users to upload a private CA cert, or the public side of an SS cert. But they didn't. They just changed to "all or nothing," which will push many users to "nothing."
That in no way improves security.
I said "rate," but to be clear, it's really the percentage of homicides which use that weapon.
In the UK, for 2008/9, the rate of homicide by "sharp object" (knives, dirks, daggers, etc. I assume) was 39% (from some Home Office report). In the US (2005), it was 12.8%. (from some US Bureau of Justice report)
The (knife) murder rate in the UK is over 3 times larger than in the US.
Killers will use whatever weapon is at hand.
"The offer of FREE BEER was a common incentive to attend your local militia gathering."
Then someone confused "free, as in beer" with "free, as in libre," and we had a revolution!
You don't follow the news much, do you? Not long ago, there was this uprising in the middle east, called "the Arab Spring..." It's still going on. There are a few dead/deposed tyrants who now wish they had had better gun control, even though they had government scale weapons to use.
That's silly. Cisco certainly has warehouses full of arms and legs, which is what they charge their enterprise customers, but kidneys? No.
If "yesterday" for you is September, you're not keeping up.