Wow, sounds like a bunch of liberals trying to hijack the museum to turn it into a political exhibit, and when people are questioning that, they go nuts and cry to sympathetic media like slashdot....
And I guarantee my well-maintained Mustang will get better mileage than the banged-up Prius' I already see running around on half-inflated tires, alignment way off, etc, etc..
Wow, that's impressive. You're currently beating 40mpg in a Mustang?
So, her charicature of a spineless leech of a human is useless simply because she said it?
Essentially, yes. One may as well quote Marx (a noted racist) when discussing the economic pitfalls of modern-day Africa. It isn't merely that she wrote a caricature, it is that the idea itself is a straw man to begin with, she uses this idea to push an agenda, and finally that her agenda has been thoroughly discredited on historical, scientific, and philosophical grounds. If you want to score an intellectual point, invoking Rand is not the way to do it.
Her philosophy doesn't do much for me, but her critique of Socialism seems accurate.
Socialism is not a monolithic political ideology so any particular characterization is useless. Beyond that, Rand's ideas about it don't fit ANY of the major flavors of socialism, even those of her own day.
Well, I had my head bitten off a few weeks ago by slashdotter's who insisted that children should be exposed to extreme violence as quickly as possible (I had suggested on holding off with getting them to play Halo etc until they were more mature) as apparently bears would eat them if they didn't (you thing I'm kidding, but look through the archives!)
You probably got your "head bitten off" by people who understand that there is an enormous difference between sitting at a computer/television and using a mouse/keyboard/controller to simulate war fantasies and being physically present to witness and/or be the victim of a violent event.
If you prefer we could simply delete the entire page on residue class-wise affine groups and then you'll never be troubled by having to read it.
If the subject matter requires access to the academic literature just to comprehend what it actually is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. As a grad student myself who constantly uses the literature and finds Wikipedia essentially useless, I say that scientists who deliberately write expert-only articles in Wikipedia are in fact abusing its resources and should instead publish their articles as peer-reviewed technical notes or better yet as textbooks.
Trying to convert it into a layman's explanation, given the concepts involved, is a distinctly non-trivial task and requires a lot of work.
Writing clearly is always more difficult than reading the final result.
It is something -- though it seems perhaps you would prefer nothing?
I'm all for an experts-only Wiki article existing, so long as the cognitive path between "general layperson" and "100% comprehension" is fully present too. Three years ago I found the engineering articles I needed in Wiki almost entirely worthless; looking back on some of the articles now, they have clearly been beefed up and are almost what I could have used back then.
However, I would prefer nothing (no article at all) over "so dense that only a grad student with full access to textbooks and the literature could figure it out." And I support any Wiki admin who decides to delete articles wholesale whose author(s) can't be bothered to actually clarify their statements.
The Wikipedia is meant for informational purposes. NOT for presenting introductory material. If an introduction is needed there are tonnes of 1st year texts.
I disagree. Wikipedia is meant to be the jumping-off place for all accumulated human knowledge; relying on the existence of 3rd-party texts -- most of which do NOT have their information on the Internet -- severely limits the usefulness of Wikipedia for everyone. The science articles I have tried to use in Wikipedia have knowledge barriers both at the intro and the advanced levels, requiring one to have both textbooks and access to the journals. In other words, to understand or participate in our shared scientific heritage requires one to be either a university student or a university employee.
I'm a graduate student studying quantum chemistry. In the process of getting to this point I had to take over the last three years thermodynamics (classical + statistical), fluid mechanics, heat transfer, reaction kinetics, and some math (PDE + perturbation theory). I found Wikipedia essentially useless during these three years, because the articles either assume I already know the topic sufficiently well (which makes it pointless to look them up in the first place) or they use terms specific to different branches of science/engineering such that it is not obvious which terms are synonymous with those in my textbooks. (Fortunately I made it a habit to visit every used bookstore I pass and now have probably a hundred books covering these subjects.)
That said, I think the bulk of the problems with Wikipedia science articles are actually problems within the disciplines themselves. Until scientists have a real incentive to make their actual work more public -- by using accessible journals and making their software truly FOSS -- we will see more of the same Balkanization.
Probably my favorite feature of Linux is the/proc filesystem.
Want to know how many and how fast your CPUs are? In Linux, cat/proc/cpuinfo . For all other Unixes, use some proprietary administration application that might not run as a normal user or might require X11.
I can also find CPU temperature, battery status, memory usage, network stats, low-level network settings, and gazillions other things. Most other Unixes don't report that data at all necessitating third-party hardware or one must write custom ioctl client code.
You seem to think that this means merging all the protocols into one joint TCP connection.
I think that because that is what you actually said. If you meant something different you should have said something different.
If you meant to say that protocols should not span multiple ports, then you're not asking for anything that isn't already implemented. FTP is dead due to the cleartext passwords, so people now use HTTP and SCP/SFTP to move files around.
Let's fix the broken protocols and move forward. While we can use HTTP for many file transfer needs, a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go. Then a firewall can be simple in operation and probably more secure as a result.
Oh yeah, route everything through a single TCP connection. That will make a firewall MUCH easier to implement! It will only need to examine the payload of every packet to figure out which ones are email, which are file transfer, which are P2P, which are key exchange, which are time sync, etc...
GPA is the result of a large, 4-5 year project that this person accomplished. It included doing boring grunt work, as well as learning exciting new stuff and the GPA is the most objective index you have of the result of that project.
No, GPA is not the result of a "project". Not even in graduate school, where the bulk of the work is in fact a project (thesis or dissertation). GPA is the result of a "grind", a long series of classes, some interesting, many not, that we all have to get through in order to obtain the piece of paper that ensures our resumes are not immediately trashed. It is a rite of passage, either a grueling crapfest or a 4+ year party depending on your parents' willingness to spend.
Now, if school really WAS a project, one in which the results could be immediately shown after graduation, and if GPA was really a measure of one's results, then GPA would be a great indicator of potential success. As it is now, no way.
One of my friends is a manager with a Fortune-10 company. He was on a recruiting trip with his manager and two other team leads. At lunch, the discussion revolved around GPA criteria: the 2nd-line manager loved to hire 3.8+ GPAs. My friend and the team leads pointed out that by that criteria, none of them would have been hired by their boss, and all of them are the highest performers in the unit. I suspect it is this way in many other places.
You're right, Access was version 2.0 when Office was at version 4.3. It's been so long since I did Access that I had forgotten. However, I do remember that Access 2.0 -> Access 95 was easy, but Access 97 introduced huge changes and a 2.0 -> 97 port was an ordeal if you had any complexity at all in your forms and reports.
This is not 'every two to three years'. It's pretty much double that.
Who cares if it is 2-3 years or 6-8 years? The point is the same: by the time you get rather familiar with a Microsoft API or platform and develop a few decent projects in it, they introduce a new release that often requires a lot of work to move to. The languages they have seriously broken are mainly the VB family. But the APIs, gee there are an awful lot to pick from.
Also, VB is not a toy language to those of us who make our living using it.
I wasn't the one who originally said VB was a toy language. (Although as far as language features go, it is rather lacking.) Nonetheless, I have written my own VB 6.x stuff and it was the right tool for those jobs. I refused to move to VB.NET which is supposedly 5 years old already.
Please note that nobody can just sit on something for 14 years.
The Unixes did. curses, X11, sockets, IPC: all of these APIs are 15-20 years old and still in wide use today. Perl 4.x code from 1993 generally runs OK under Perl 5.8.8 in 2007.
Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft should have retained all backwards compatibility for that long?
Well, yeah. Minor changes to incorporate new technologies (ala Winsock 1.1 -> Winsock 2.x) are OK, but seriously breaking a platform while providing little in return (ala Access 2.0 -> Access 97) isn't.
Note also that most of Microsoft's problems with broken platforms wouldn't even be problems if one could easily install multiple versions of their products on the same system. Try having three versions of Office on a Windows 98 system; I honestly don't even know if that's possible with some combinations. In contrast, I've had three versions of IBM DB2 installed on a single AIX system with no trouble at all, and multiple versions of libc, zlib, freetype, mpich, etc.
Shit happens, but you fix it. I don't know about you, but that's my job.
My job is to use supercomputers to develop new materials. Fixing stuff that didn't need to break in the first place is a waste of time.
White male is not a valid classification, the color and gender of those people is not relevent.
White and male are perfectly valid classifications, else the words themselves would not exist. And white as a 'race' (a social division) most certainly exists: one only has to head to the KKK website or google for "whiteness studies" to see people refer to it. Better than that would be to google for "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a decent essay about whiteness.
However, since you do not acknowledge that you live in a social world and hence none of the benefits of being white or male even exist, there is no point in responding to the rest of your post.
No, it's not. It's racist to assume that while ISN'T a race, that whiteness does NOT immediately provide privilege. Please, by all means continue to refer to yourself as white and a member of the white race.
I'm also broke, I want all that economic advantage they use to justify hiring a minority (which consists of EVERY other group/gender) over me.
Sorry, white males have insisted for centuries that they lived in a merit-based society that justified their disproportionate social and economic power. Now their white male descendants have to pay the piper. I was broke too once. But I do not blame the black or female students just out of college for it, because unlike them I've still got more access to better-paying jobs than they do.
Anecdote: I knew two people right out of college who got their first real jobs at Fortune-10 companies. After four years, one of them had purchased a car, a truck, a house, and eliminated almost 70% of his college debt. The other purchased a car, a townhouse, a wedding, and put about $130,000 in the bank. One was white with an MIS degree, one was black with a CS degree, both were similarly skilled, with the white one having the "easier" and supposedly less valuable degree. However, the white one got "set" for life because he "fit in" to the culture of his company so well that they gave him a once-in-a-lifetime type opportunity to save about $200,000 in three years. The white one is now a manager at age 30, the black one is a senior developer at age 31. The plural of anecdote is not data, yet I cannot imagine ANY similar circumstances that the black developer could have similarly benefitted from.
Out of curiosity: do you think this happens because the women in Kuwait are socially advantaged, or because they are expected to be home more than men are? As in, are they even ABLE to work as much as men are?
For a former patent examiner I am quite surprised that you don't know the history of IBM's monopolies in both mainframe and PC computing, and the fact that they used their patent portfolio very aggressively to protect those monopolies. Though AFAIK they were never convicted of legal monopoly status.
It took serious money for Compaq to reverse-engineer their BIOS enough to run MSDOS on their first PC clone. For years afterward there were various BIOSes that had differing levels of compatibility with the IBM PC BIOS such that applications were listed to run only on "100% IBM compatible" PCs.
Why do you anti-gun people keep pulling that one out?
And where did I ever say I was anti-gun? Are you illiterate as well as presumptuous?
Do you really believe it? This isn't the movies; the bad guy can't "use the Force" to grab a gun.
What I really believe is that the pro-gun zealots are coming out of the woodwork within minutes of this story posting when WE DON'T FUCKING NOW WHAT EVEN HAPPENED and turning this event into a political hack job.
If you like guns, then good for you. I don't FUCKING CARE about YOU and YOUR GUNS. Got that? Can you really get that? This story is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is NOT ABOUT YOUR GUNS.
As I recall it only took a couple of guys with some simple box cutters to kill 3000+ people, so what would a gun ban do?
We must be seeing different sites, because most of the comments I see modded up are of the "this is what happens when we ban guns, only bad guys have them, and Democrats and liberalz suck".
Regardless, here is MY solution: guns are allowed everywhere, of any kind. Automatic, rifles, bazookas, I don't care anyone. However, all guns are required to be colored hot pink with embedded glitter and have ribbons hanging off the handle. Possession of a gun illegally colored something else or missing the ribbons is automatic life imprisonment.
I think we would see an immediate drop in gun fatalities both in the cities and on hunting ranges everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, sounds like a bunch of liberals trying to hijack the museum to turn it into a political exhibit, and when people are questioning that, they go nuts and cry to sympathetic media like slashdot....
Reality has a liberal bias.
And I guarantee my well-maintained Mustang will get better mileage than the banged-up Prius' I already see running around on half-inflated tires, alignment way off, etc, etc..
Wow, that's impressive. You're currently beating 40mpg in a Mustang?
So, her charicature of a spineless leech of a human is useless simply because she said it?
Essentially, yes. One may as well quote Marx (a noted racist) when discussing the economic pitfalls of modern-day Africa. It isn't merely that she wrote a caricature, it is that the idea itself is a straw man to begin with, she uses this idea to push an agenda, and finally that her agenda has been thoroughly discredited on historical, scientific, and philosophical grounds. If you want to score an intellectual point, invoking Rand is not the way to do it.
Her philosophy doesn't do much for me, but her critique of Socialism seems accurate.
Socialism is not a monolithic political ideology so any particular characterization is useless. Beyond that, Rand's ideas about it don't fit ANY of the major flavors of socialism, even those of her own day.
Ellsworth Toohey would be proud of those cretins.
Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.
Well, I had my head bitten off a few weeks ago by slashdotter's who insisted that children should be exposed to extreme violence as quickly as possible (I had suggested on holding off with getting them to play Halo etc until they were more mature) as apparently bears would eat them if they didn't (you thing I'm kidding, but look through the archives!)
You probably got your "head bitten off" by people who understand that there is an enormous difference between sitting at a computer/television and using a mouse/keyboard/controller to simulate war fantasies and being physically present to witness and/or be the victim of a violent event.
Jumping in...
If you prefer we could simply delete the entire page on residue class-wise affine groups and then you'll never be troubled by having to read it.
If the subject matter requires access to the academic literature just to comprehend what it actually is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. As a grad student myself who constantly uses the literature and finds Wikipedia essentially useless, I say that scientists who deliberately write expert-only articles in Wikipedia are in fact abusing its resources and should instead publish their articles as peer-reviewed technical notes or better yet as textbooks.
Trying to convert it into a layman's explanation, given the concepts involved, is a distinctly non-trivial task and requires a lot of work.
Writing clearly is always more difficult than reading the final result.
It is something -- though it seems perhaps you would prefer nothing?
I'm all for an experts-only Wiki article existing, so long as the cognitive path between "general layperson" and "100% comprehension" is fully present too. Three years ago I found the engineering articles I needed in Wiki almost entirely worthless; looking back on some of the articles now, they have clearly been beefed up and are almost what I could have used back then.
However, I would prefer nothing (no article at all) over "so dense that only a grad student with full access to textbooks and the literature could figure it out." And I support any Wiki admin who decides to delete articles wholesale whose author(s) can't be bothered to actually clarify their statements.
The Wikipedia is meant for informational purposes. NOT for presenting introductory material. If an introduction is needed there are tonnes of 1st year texts.
I disagree. Wikipedia is meant to be the jumping-off place for all accumulated human knowledge; relying on the existence of 3rd-party texts -- most of which do NOT have their information on the Internet -- severely limits the usefulness of Wikipedia for everyone. The science articles I have tried to use in Wikipedia have knowledge barriers both at the intro and the advanced levels, requiring one to have both textbooks and access to the journals. In other words, to understand or participate in our shared scientific heritage requires one to be either a university student or a university employee.
I'm a graduate student studying quantum chemistry. In the process of getting to this point I had to take over the last three years thermodynamics (classical + statistical), fluid mechanics, heat transfer, reaction kinetics, and some math (PDE + perturbation theory). I found Wikipedia essentially useless during these three years, because the articles either assume I already know the topic sufficiently well (which makes it pointless to look them up in the first place) or they use terms specific to different branches of science/engineering such that it is not obvious which terms are synonymous with those in my textbooks. (Fortunately I made it a habit to visit every used bookstore I pass and now have probably a hundred books covering these subjects.)
That said, I think the bulk of the problems with Wikipedia science articles are actually problems within the disciplines themselves. Until scientists have a real incentive to make their actual work more public -- by using accessible journals and making their software truly FOSS -- we will see more of the same Balkanization.
Probably my favorite feature of Linux is the /proc filesystem.
/proc/cpuinfo . For all other Unixes, use some proprietary administration application that might not run as a normal user or might require X11.
Want to know how many and how fast your CPUs are? In Linux, cat
I can also find CPU temperature, battery status, memory usage, network stats, low-level network settings, and gazillions other things. Most other Unixes don't report that data at all necessitating third-party hardware or one must write custom ioctl client code.
You seem to think that this means merging all the protocols into one joint TCP connection.
I think that because that is what you actually said. If you meant something different you should have said something different.
If you meant to say that protocols should not span multiple ports, then you're not asking for anything that isn't already implemented. FTP is dead due to the cleartext passwords, so people now use HTTP and SCP/SFTP to move files around.
Let's fix the broken protocols and move forward. While we can use HTTP for many file transfer needs, a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go. Then a firewall can be simple in operation and probably more secure as a result.
Oh yeah, route everything through a single TCP connection. That will make a firewall MUCH easier to implement! It will only need to examine the payload of every packet to figure out which ones are email, which are file transfer, which are P2P, which are key exchange, which are time sync, etc...
This might be far fetched but how far off is it to use these filesystems as a revision control system replacement ?
We should probably ask some VMS users about that. They had a versioned filesystem 20 years ago.
GPA is the result of a large, 4-5 year project that this person accomplished. It included doing boring grunt work, as well as learning exciting new stuff and the GPA is the most objective index you have of the result of that project.
No, GPA is not the result of a "project". Not even in graduate school, where the bulk of the work is in fact a project (thesis or dissertation). GPA is the result of a "grind", a long series of classes, some interesting, many not, that we all have to get through in order to obtain the piece of paper that ensures our resumes are not immediately trashed. It is a rite of passage, either a grueling crapfest or a 4+ year party depending on your parents' willingness to spend.
Now, if school really WAS a project, one in which the results could be immediately shown after graduation, and if GPA was really a measure of one's results, then GPA would be a great indicator of potential success. As it is now, no way.
One of my friends is a manager with a Fortune-10 company. He was on a recruiting trip with his manager and two other team leads. At lunch, the discussion revolved around GPA criteria: the 2nd-line manager loved to hire 3.8+ GPAs. My friend and the team leads pointed out that by that criteria, none of them would have been hired by their boss, and all of them are the highest performers in the unit. I suspect it is this way in many other places.
You're right, Access was version 2.0 when Office was at version 4.3. It's been so long since I did Access that I had forgotten. However, I do remember that Access 2.0 -> Access 95 was easy, but Access 97 introduced huge changes and a 2.0 -> 97 port was an ordeal if you had any complexity at all in your forms and reports.
This is not 'every two to three years'. It's pretty much double that.
Who cares if it is 2-3 years or 6-8 years? The point is the same: by the time you get rather familiar with a Microsoft API or platform and develop a few decent projects in it, they introduce a new release that often requires a lot of work to move to. The languages they have seriously broken are mainly the VB family. But the APIs, gee there are an awful lot to pick from.
Also, VB is not a toy language to those of us who make our living using it.
I wasn't the one who originally said VB was a toy language. (Although as far as language features go, it is rather lacking.) Nonetheless, I have written my own VB 6.x stuff and it was the right tool for those jobs. I refused to move to VB.NET which is supposedly 5 years old already.
Please note that nobody can just sit on something for 14 years.
The Unixes did. curses, X11, sockets, IPC: all of these APIs are 15-20 years old and still in wide use today. Perl 4.x code from 1993 generally runs OK under Perl 5.8.8 in 2007.
Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft should have retained all backwards compatibility for that long?
Well, yeah. Minor changes to incorporate new technologies (ala Winsock 1.1 -> Winsock 2.x) are OK, but seriously breaking a platform while providing little in return (ala Access 2.0 -> Access 97) isn't.
Note also that most of Microsoft's problems with broken platforms wouldn't even be problems if one could easily install multiple versions of their products on the same system. Try having three versions of Office on a Windows 98 system; I honestly don't even know if that's possible with some combinations. In contrast, I've had three versions of IBM DB2 installed on a single AIX system with no trouble at all, and multiple versions of libc, zlib, freetype, mpich, etc.
Shit happens, but you fix it. I don't know about you, but that's my job.
My job is to use supercomputers to develop new materials. Fixing stuff that didn't need to break in the first place is a waste of time.
Yawn. Example?
Access 4.0 -> Access 97 -> Access 2000
VB 3.x -> VB 6.x -> VB.Net
Excel 97 VBA -> Excel XP VBA
And of course the master example (it's an API, not a language, but still): DDE -> OLE -> OLE 2.0 -> ActiveX
(e.g. remember those big sized OK-buttons a big green check icon inside).
I believe that was Borland's ObjectWindows Library (OWL), an early competitor to MFC.
White male is not a valid classification, the color and gender of those people is not relevent.
White and male are perfectly valid classifications, else the words themselves would not exist. And white as a 'race' (a social division) most certainly exists: one only has to head to the KKK website or google for "whiteness studies" to see people refer to it. Better than that would be to google for "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a decent essay about whiteness.
However, since you do not acknowledge that you live in a social world and hence none of the benefits of being white or male even exist, there is no point in responding to the rest of your post.
But go ahead and think that it's easy, then the real question is since there's so much money made by stock traders why aren't you doing it?
Because I would rather do a job I like than one that makes me more money.
99% of all Kuwaiti women have servants that do everything with the exception of sex.
Are all these servants male? Or are you implicitly limiting all of this analysis to a specific class, e.g. middle class and above?
Its even racist if I refer to MY OWN RACE/GENDER.
No, it's not. It's racist to assume that while ISN'T a race, that whiteness does NOT immediately provide privilege. Please, by all means continue to refer to yourself as white and a member of the white race.
I'm also broke, I want all that economic advantage they use to justify hiring a minority (which consists of EVERY other group/gender) over me.
Sorry, white males have insisted for centuries that they lived in a merit-based society that justified their disproportionate social and economic power. Now their white male descendants have to pay the piper. I was broke too once. But I do not blame the black or female students just out of college for it, because unlike them I've still got more access to better-paying jobs than they do.
Anecdote: I knew two people right out of college who got their first real jobs at Fortune-10 companies. After four years, one of them had purchased a car, a truck, a house, and eliminated almost 70% of his college debt. The other purchased a car, a townhouse, a wedding, and put about $130,000 in the bank. One was white with an MIS degree, one was black with a CS degree, both were similarly skilled, with the white one having the "easier" and supposedly less valuable degree. However, the white one got "set" for life because he "fit in" to the culture of his company so well that they gave him a once-in-a-lifetime type opportunity to save about $200,000 in three years. The white one is now a manager at age 30, the black one is a senior developer at age 31. The plural of anecdote is not data, yet I cannot imagine ANY similar circumstances that the black developer could have similarly benefitted from.
Out of curiosity: do you think this happens because the women in Kuwait are socially advantaged, or because they are expected to be home more than men are? As in, are they even ABLE to work as much as men are?
Not trolling, I just don't know.
And again I repeat, in the current world, not the world of almost 20-30 years ago, what monopoly does IBM have?
Besides mainframes, not much.
Except that this thread is about how monopolizers abuse the patent system. That IBM did so for years is relevant to this discussion.
Can you please tell me what monopoly IBM has?
For a former patent examiner I am quite surprised that you don't know the history of IBM's monopolies in both mainframe and PC computing, and the fact that they used their patent portfolio very aggressively to protect those monopolies. Though AFAIK they were never convicted of legal monopoly status.
It took serious money for Compaq to reverse-engineer their BIOS enough to run MSDOS on their first PC clone. For years afterward there were various BIOSes that had differing levels of compatibility with the IBM PC BIOS such that applications were listed to run only on "100% IBM compatible" PCs.
Damn, I wish I had mod points to raise this up.
And in the time I took to hit reply you've already got two other responses trying to change the subject rather than acknowledge the discrimination.
Why do you anti-gun people keep pulling that one out?
And where did I ever say I was anti-gun? Are you illiterate as well as presumptuous?
Do you really believe it? This isn't the movies; the bad guy can't "use the Force" to grab a gun.
What I really believe is that the pro-gun zealots are coming out of the woodwork within minutes of this story posting when WE DON'T FUCKING NOW WHAT EVEN HAPPENED and turning this event into a political hack job.
If you like guns, then good for you. I don't FUCKING CARE about YOU and YOUR GUNS. Got that? Can you really get that? This story is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is NOT ABOUT YOUR GUNS.
As I recall it only took a couple of guys with some simple box cutters to kill 3000+ people, so what would a gun ban do?
We must be seeing different sites, because most of the comments I see modded up are of the "this is what happens when we ban guns, only bad guys have them, and Democrats and liberalz suck".
Regardless, here is MY solution: guns are allowed everywhere, of any kind. Automatic, rifles, bazookas, I don't care anyone. However, all guns are required to be colored hot pink with embedded glitter and have ribbons hanging off the handle. Possession of a gun illegally colored something else or missing the ribbons is automatic life imprisonment.
I think we would see an immediate drop in gun fatalities both in the cities and on hunting ranges everywhere.