I think Weird Al wrote a song about you... It's called "When I Was Your Age"... You did it and your family did it, and everything's peachy keen and there was never any opportunity cost to any decision made so it must be fitting for everybody in this country, or else they're lazy people scampering away from the Langoliers... Now are we going to get with the program and be a part of the Big Picture?
I've never even paid attention to any loaded chamber indicators. I assume all guns to be loaded until I eject and inspect the chamber to make sure it's clear. And I still won't point it at anything, and will only look up the barrel when I've disassembled for cleaning or other maintenance.
And putting a gun out of reach of a toddler is far easier & cheaper than building a fence around a pool or creating some magical "smart" technology for a gun. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Ignoring the hypothetical scenarios, the question boils down to this: what do we actually gain from all the added complexity that this tech will add to the gun? Is the perceived increase in safety only nominal or is it substantial? Does DRM for a gun make the gun more or less useful? I'd say that that DRM for a gun always makes it less useful, EVEN if it stops a perp from stealing a gun and using it against the owner.
Perhaps we should just start calling a spade a spade here. It's not "smart gun technology", it's DRM for your gun.
If you spent half the time that you did on your sarcasm, you'd have researched this. The special ring spoken about is a specific magnetic device, and it is currently available on certain models of guns. It's not RFID or anything else. Just a simple magnet, and would work on any model made by the same company. (It isn't specific to a certain gun.) Personally, I like to keep magnets away from my computers and handheld devices...
The mouse itself is a trademark, I believe. Therefore it has no statute of limitations on it as long as they maintain that trademark. Perhaps you are referring to the early works that included the certain mouse in them...
Ah, yes, and if you take away all guns then that 2/3 of the homicide pie that you claim just magically disappears, and nobody goes for another deadly instrument to commit homicide...
Perhaps you should be asking the question of "why". And I don't mean the one that leads you to the overly simple answer of "guns are easy to get". We have higher ownership than in the 1990's and half of the overall homicide rate in the USA that we did in the 1990's...
Generally I'm more confident in civilians... You should have seen what the LAPD did to that van with two small ladies who were clearly not Chris Dorner...
The best you can do is mitigate. Just like the best you can do against terrorists is mitigate as well. There will ALWAYS be somebody who murders and ALWAYS be somebody who attempts to terrorize. The difficulty is finding that spot where you don't infringe on normal, law abiding citizens rights while you're mitigating. And I'm putting my money on it that if "smart gun" tech becomes so ubiquitous as for LEO's themselves to use them, then it's only a matter of time where we get a situation where new guns are required to be only smart guns (similar to the post-1986 era rifles not being allowed to be fully automatic). The genie of the gun was let out of the bottle hundreds of years ago. There's no putting him back regardless of what laws are created.
In America we'd [the police] would just invoke Civil Forfeiture and sue/dev/null for piracy (no, 'copyright infringement' is nowhere near politically charged enough). Then let/dev/null prove his innocence...
Obviously you don't follow slackware-current . I just installed that recently, as I'm an old timer, and -current doesn't skeer me. gcc 5.2.0 as of a couple weeks ago...
Even if Zuck truly only kept 1% of this $45,000,000,000 sum, that leaves him still with $450,000,000. The average/. in the USA probably would only have to give away about $800 to $2,500 per year to be counted as giving away 1% of their annual income. How long would it take for that donation to even equal the 1% that Zuck is keeping for himself? And is Zuck really sacrificing anything by only keeping $450,000,000? It's not like he's going to have to give up steak for hot dogs here. And let's not forget about how he has accrued this amount of assets and what kind of slashing-and-burning went on before it and will likely go on after it as he still retains all control. I don't understand why I'm supposed to be all giddy with glee because he made an otherwise empty promise, and regardless of whether he makes good on it or not we will have limited visibility on anyway. 99% PR, 1% action.
No, please, stop moving to Austin. We're seeing property values increasing at around 7-12% per year for quite some time now. I give it about another 5-7 years before it's unlivable.
Back around 2000 Sprint (then SprintPCS) had no contracts at all, but indeed the costs of the phones were higher than their competitors at the time iirc. It was one of the things that I liked the best about SprintPCS at that time, and though I've mostly stuck with them over the years (all the companies rip you off, it's just a matter of how they pluck your goose), I'm glad to see that we'll be getting back to having the option of a higher capital expense with lower monthlies as a result.
That heavily depends on the military in question and the circumstances. Not to invoke Godwin here or anything, but that was a recurring theme among rank-and-file when it came to the engineered destruction of around 12,000,000 lives in mass executions and graves at the hands of Nazis and their sympathizers during WWII. "Just following orders" is equivalent to saying "I'm just a robot and incapable of independent thought". How is that any different than an insanity plea which indicates that you do not have the mental capacity to tell the difference between good and bad?
Sure, as a lowly soldier you're less likely to receive seriously harsh punishment as [hopefully] your personal involvement is limited and some legal issues might not be known to you. But in some militaries - and this I know for a *fact* - you are NOT to obey a known illegal order even if that order comes from the Chief of Staff himself.
Citation and clarification please. Which part is a "myth' and wrong? I get the impression that you are not knowledgeable in the various forms of ammunition available for the various types of commonly owned guns.
On a side note, I've had the opportunity to try to purchase some REO properties in my region. It turns out a lot of the forces buying up REO properties from HUD and the banks are groups like "Selene Real Mortgage Opportunity Fund" (SRMOF) and those like them, and they are by-and-large driven by the same folks who brought us the 2008 crash. In other words, they're double-dipping in the communal sauce.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Weird Al wrote a song about you... It's called "When I Was Your Age"... You did it and your family did it, and everything's peachy keen and there was never any opportunity cost to any decision made so it must be fitting for everybody in this country, or else they're lazy people scampering away from the Langoliers... Now are we going to get with the program and be a part of the Big Picture?
I wouldn't put anything of value in a $100 safe, and certainly not a firearm.
Why, is she a cow?
I've never even paid attention to any loaded chamber indicators. I assume all guns to be loaded until I eject and inspect the chamber to make sure it's clear. And I still won't point it at anything, and will only look up the barrel when I've disassembled for cleaning or other maintenance.
And putting a gun out of reach of a toddler is far easier & cheaper than building a fence around a pool or creating some magical "smart" technology for a gun. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Ignoring the hypothetical scenarios, the question boils down to this: what do we actually gain from all the added complexity that this tech will add to the gun? Is the perceived increase in safety only nominal or is it substantial? Does DRM for a gun make the gun more or less useful? I'd say that that DRM for a gun always makes it less useful, EVEN if it stops a perp from stealing a gun and using it against the owner.
Perhaps we should just start calling a spade a spade here. It's not "smart gun technology", it's DRM for your gun.
94.56% of all statistics are made up!
If you spent half the time that you did on your sarcasm, you'd have researched this. The special ring spoken about is a specific magnetic device, and it is currently available on certain models of guns. It's not RFID or anything else. Just a simple magnet, and would work on any model made by the same company. (It isn't specific to a certain gun.) Personally, I like to keep magnets away from my computers and handheld devices...
The mouse itself is a trademark, I believe. Therefore it has no statute of limitations on it as long as they maintain that trademark. Perhaps you are referring to the early works that included the certain mouse in them...
Ah, yes, and if you take away all guns then that 2/3 of the homicide pie that you claim just magically disappears, and nobody goes for another deadly instrument to commit homicide...
Perhaps you should be asking the question of "why". And I don't mean the one that leads you to the overly simple answer of "guns are easy to get". We have higher ownership than in the 1990's and half of the overall homicide rate in the USA that we did in the 1990's...
Generally I'm more confident in civilians... You should have seen what the LAPD did to that van with two small ladies who were clearly not Chris Dorner...
The best you can do is mitigate. Just like the best you can do against terrorists is mitigate as well. There will ALWAYS be somebody who murders and ALWAYS be somebody who attempts to terrorize. The difficulty is finding that spot where you don't infringe on normal, law abiding citizens rights while you're mitigating. And I'm putting my money on it that if "smart gun" tech becomes so ubiquitous as for LEO's themselves to use them, then it's only a matter of time where we get a situation where new guns are required to be only smart guns (similar to the post-1986 era rifles not being allowed to be fully automatic). The genie of the gun was let out of the bottle hundreds of years ago. There's no putting him back regardless of what laws are created.
In America we'd [the police] would just invoke Civil Forfeiture and sue /dev/null for piracy (no, 'copyright infringement' is nowhere near politically charged enough). Then let /dev/null prove his innocence...
Obviously you don't follow slackware-current . I just installed that recently, as I'm an old timer, and -current doesn't skeer me. gcc 5.2.0 as of a couple weeks ago...
I know a good Umgah joke:
Q: What do you get when you cross deuterium pellet terrawatt laser and ancient earth leader from Asian steppes?
A: KHAN FUSION!
Even if Zuck truly only kept 1% of this $45,000,000,000 sum, that leaves him still with $450,000,000. The average /. in the USA probably would only have to give away about $800 to $2,500 per year to be counted as giving away 1% of their annual income. How long would it take for that donation to even equal the 1% that Zuck is keeping for himself? And is Zuck really sacrificing anything by only keeping $450,000,000? It's not like he's going to have to give up steak for hot dogs here. And let's not forget about how he has accrued this amount of assets and what kind of slashing-and-burning went on before it and will likely go on after it as he still retains all control. I don't understand why I'm supposed to be all giddy with glee because he made an otherwise empty promise, and regardless of whether he makes good on it or not we will have limited visibility on anyway. 99% PR, 1% action.
No, please, stop moving to Austin. We're seeing property values increasing at around 7-12% per year for quite some time now. I give it about another 5-7 years before it's unlivable.
Seriously, Slashdot should look into the development of such a system...
I suddenly hear a ghost of the past.... its name is Lexmark...
Back around 2000 Sprint (then SprintPCS) had no contracts at all, but indeed the costs of the phones were higher than their competitors at the time iirc. It was one of the things that I liked the best about SprintPCS at that time, and though I've mostly stuck with them over the years (all the companies rip you off, it's just a matter of how they pluck your goose), I'm glad to see that we'll be getting back to having the option of a higher capital expense with lower monthlies as a result.
Nanu nanu!
That heavily depends on the military in question and the circumstances. Not to invoke Godwin here or anything, but that was a recurring theme among rank-and-file when it came to the engineered destruction of around 12,000,000 lives in mass executions and graves at the hands of Nazis and their sympathizers during WWII. "Just following orders" is equivalent to saying "I'm just a robot and incapable of independent thought". How is that any different than an insanity plea which indicates that you do not have the mental capacity to tell the difference between good and bad?
Sure, as a lowly soldier you're less likely to receive seriously harsh punishment as [hopefully] your personal involvement is limited and some legal issues might not be known to you. But in some militaries - and this I know for a *fact* - you are NOT to obey a known illegal order even if that order comes from the Chief of Staff himself.
Citation and clarification please. Which part is a "myth' and wrong? I get the impression that you are not knowledgeable in the various forms of ammunition available for the various types of commonly owned guns.
On a side note, I've had the opportunity to try to purchase some REO properties in my region. It turns out a lot of the forces buying up REO properties from HUD and the banks are groups like "Selene Real Mortgage Opportunity Fund" (SRMOF) and those like them, and they are by-and-large driven by the same folks who brought us the 2008 crash. In other words, they're double-dipping in the communal sauce.