I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?
At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.
The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.
What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.
If we were going to put computers in control of nukes we would have done it long ago with ICBMs. I don't think there's any appetite for nuclear armed autonomous drones.
Yes. The USN has already demonstrated deployment of Aeroenvironment's Switchblade drone from a Trident submarine. It sort of a cross between a drone and a cruise missile. It can loiter fifteen minutes after launch and has a tiny three pound warhead for attacking slow-moving targets.
What's changed is the studios have reduced the plot to a three act formula. If you think all the movies you've been to in awhile are the same underneath the details, well, you're right:
[O]nce you know the formula, the seams begin to show. Movies all start to seem the same, and many scenes start to feel forced and arbitrary, like screenplay Mad Libs. Why does Kirk get dressed down for irresponsibility by Admiral Pike early in Star Trek Into Darkness? Because someone had to deliver the theme to the main character. Why does Gina Carano's sidekick character defect to the villain's team for no reason whatsoever almost exactly three-quarters of the way through Fast & Furious 6? Because it's the all-is-lost moment, so everything needs to be in shambles for the heroes. Why does Gerard Butler's character in Olympus Has Fallen suddenly call his wife after a climactic failed White House assault three-quarters of the way through? Because the second act always ends with a quiet moment of reflection--the dark night of the soul.
The studios have decided they have a winning formula and they're going to stick with it. It would probably be okay if only one or two movies a year were made this way, but when they're all made this way it's going to be a commercial loser at some point.
Yep. I'm considering a wheel gun for my nightstand instead of an automatic because they don't jam. I sure as hell am not going to buy something that's going to add to the complexity of my gun.
There are also those who argue that you shouldn't wear your seat-belt because it may prevent you from getting out if your car in on fire. (I'm not making this up!) Both arguments are equally stupid, and for the same reasons.
This is a terrible analogy. A "smart gun" is much more complicated than a seat belt and will fail occasionally. They don't provide any benefit over a trigger lock, either.
No you can't. There's no way you can know what was going on in his mind. Of course he could have been involved in combat if that's what he really wanted, but so what? That's not the same thing as saying he joined the guard to avoid it.
And frankly, Lurch's record is nothing anyone could be proud of. There's not a lot of honor in getting three little scratches (at least one of which was self-inflicted) and calling it a day after two months of combat duty.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea the laws of supply and demand have been repealed in just this one industry is a rather difficult proposition to swallow.
The problem with the skilled trades is it's difficult to keep on keepin' on when you reach late middle age. There are a lot of guys who just can't work anymore by their mid 50s.
Not like your job prospects are great as an old IT guy, but at least you can still do the work if you can find a job.
Bullshit. The most egregious gougers are nonprofit institutions. The whole "private college" thing is a PR smoke screen for colleges administrators who hire their friends for $400k diversity jobs.
Drone pilot vs chopper pilot: chopper pilot costs more
A tiny bit. Not much, actually. There's not a lot of call for civilian chopper pilots, and the army trains thousands of them.
Drone size vs chopper size: well, pretty obvious (unless someone for some ludicrous reason comes up with a chopper-sized drone)
Drone noise vs chopper noise: there's a reason you didn't disagree with this;)
You can do surveillance from up to ten kilometers away, depending on what sensors you have. Nobody will see or hear a helicopter that far away, and if they did they'd assume it was on some other business.
Initial cost: Sure, you can get a top-of-the-line drone for $50,000, and you can get a bargain basement chopper for $80,000... but we're talking about what's actually used by the FBI for surveillance here. Observation helicopters don't come cheap. Drones aren't weaponized.
You're way off on these numbers. The kinds of drones they actually use for surveillance cost more than a million dollars before you add the sensor package. The cheaper ones are mostly just toys - they don't have the payload or power to be of much use. On the other hand, a chopper costs about $500k, and will run up to about $3m with all the latest equipment. That's about what the drone will cost for the same capability.
TCO: Once you roll in maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc. we shouldn't even be raising this as a debatable issue. Helicopters are known for being one of the highest-cost highest-maintenance vehicles in existence (next to aircraft carriers an the like).
Yes, helicopters cost a lot to maintain. But drones crash more often and have to be replaced. Based on the military's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan TCO for the cheaper drones (and by that I mean in the million dollar range) is about 2/3 what they spend on manned aircraft devoted to the same task. Then again, they decided not to retire the U-2 because it was cheaper to operate than the (expensive) RQ-4.
Not quite sure why you took issue with cost, even in that out of context quote.
Because if they aren't markedly cheaper, the government won't have more incentive to use drones than they already use helicopters. People are worried the feds are going to blanket the skies with drones and watch everybody going about their daily business. In the short term this just isn't going to happen. They're too expensive.
Now, having said that let me say in the long run it seems like the cost of drones will come down considerably. But who knows? There are lots of things that were supposed to be much cheaper eventually and turned out not to be, like nuclear power or high speed rail.
Claiming that an economically sovereign government like the US can't pay their obligations is laughable. It isn't like the US debt is denominated in gold or foreign currency.
There's a limit to the amount you can do to inflate away your debt. If you go overboard you get hyperinflation, which causes all sorts of extra problems. Of courser they will print as much as they can, but it won't be enough, even for current obligations.
The entire budget of NASA, from it's inception up to the current day, has been equivalent to (ready for this?) 2 years of the US military's budget. Think about that, and try not to weep.
I don't see the relevance. We need a military. We don't need NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?
At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.
The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.
What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.
People working professionally as editors shouldn't be making this mistake.
If that were the goal SOSUS-style sensor nets would be far cheaper and more effective.
If we were going to put computers in control of nukes we would have done it long ago with ICBMs. I don't think there's any appetite for nuclear armed autonomous drones.
Yes. The USN has already demonstrated deployment of Aeroenvironment's Switchblade drone from a Trident submarine. It sort of a cross between a drone and a cruise missile. It can loiter fifteen minutes after launch and has a tiny three pound warhead for attacking slow-moving targets.
Submersible drones are used almost entirely for mine clearing. There are much cheaper ways to destroy ships.
Sure, but no gas, so it's okay.
What's changed is the studios have reduced the plot to a three act formula. If you think all the movies you've been to in awhile are the same underneath the details, well, you're right:
The studios have decided they have a winning formula and they're going to stick with it. It would probably be okay if only one or two movies a year were made this way, but when they're all made this way it's going to be a commercial loser at some point.
Green Lantern certainly flopped.
Yep. I'm considering a wheel gun for my nightstand instead of an automatic because they don't jam. I sure as hell am not going to buy something that's going to add to the complexity of my gun.
This is a terrible analogy. A "smart gun" is much more complicated than a seat belt and will fail occasionally. They don't provide any benefit over a trigger lock, either.
Not for children, they aren't.
No, not yet. But now the lobbying starts. You're not against safety... are you?
No you can't. There's no way you can know what was going on in his mind. Of course he could have been involved in combat if that's what he really wanted, but so what? That's not the same thing as saying he joined the guard to avoid it.
And frankly, Lurch's record is nothing anyone could be proud of. There's not a lot of honor in getting three little scratches (at least one of which was self-inflicted) and calling it a day after two months of combat duty.
Right, right. Because you know what he was thinking when he joined the guard by the very act of joining the guard.
...and joined the National Guard to avoid actual combat service.
This is what I love about Bush detractors. Somehow you guys can read his mind.
As usual, any kind of clinical use of this stem cell stuff is "ten years away". These guys are as bad as fusion researchers.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea the laws of supply and demand have been repealed in just this one industry is a rather difficult proposition to swallow.
Sure, but the prevailing wages are lower if you flood the market with qualified people.
The problem with the skilled trades is it's difficult to keep on keepin' on when you reach late middle age. There are a lot of guys who just can't work anymore by their mid 50s.
Not like your job prospects are great as an old IT guy, but at least you can still do the work if you can find a job.
Bullshit. The most egregious gougers are nonprofit institutions. The whole "private college" thing is a PR smoke screen for colleges administrators who hire their friends for $400k diversity jobs.
Not only is it a waste of resources - it's inefficient, and by that I mean a sailing ship the same size carries more cargo and moves twice as fast.
Drone pilot vs chopper pilot: chopper pilot costs more
A tiny bit. Not much, actually. There's not a lot of call for civilian chopper pilots, and the army trains thousands of them.
Drone size vs chopper size: well, pretty obvious (unless someone for some ludicrous reason comes up with a chopper-sized drone)
Drone noise vs chopper noise: there's a reason you didn't disagree with this ;)
You can do surveillance from up to ten kilometers away, depending on what sensors you have. Nobody will see or hear a helicopter that far away, and if they did they'd assume it was on some other business.
Initial cost: Sure, you can get a top-of-the-line drone for $50,000, and you can get a bargain basement chopper for $80,000... but we're talking about what's actually used by the FBI for surveillance here. Observation helicopters don't come cheap. Drones aren't weaponized.
You're way off on these numbers. The kinds of drones they actually use for surveillance cost more than a million dollars before you add the sensor package. The cheaper ones are mostly just toys - they don't have the payload or power to be of much use. On the other hand, a chopper costs about $500k, and will run up to about $3m with all the latest equipment. That's about what the drone will cost for the same capability.
TCO: Once you roll in maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc. we shouldn't even be raising this as a debatable issue. Helicopters are known for being one of the highest-cost highest-maintenance vehicles in existence (next to aircraft carriers an the like).
Yes, helicopters cost a lot to maintain. But drones crash more often and have to be replaced. Based on the military's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan TCO for the cheaper drones (and by that I mean in the million dollar range) is about 2/3 what they spend on manned aircraft devoted to the same task. Then again, they decided not to retire the U-2 because it was cheaper to operate than the (expensive) RQ-4.
Not quite sure why you took issue with cost, even in that out of context quote.
Because if they aren't markedly cheaper, the government won't have more incentive to use drones than they already use helicopters. People are worried the feds are going to blanket the skies with drones and watch everybody going about their daily business. In the short term this just isn't going to happen. They're too expensive.
Now, having said that let me say in the long run it seems like the cost of drones will come down considerably. But who knows? There are lots of things that were supposed to be much cheaper eventually and turned out not to be, like nuclear power or high speed rail.
Claiming that an economically sovereign government like the US can't pay their obligations is laughable. It isn't like the US debt is denominated in gold or foreign currency.
There's a limit to the amount you can do to inflate away your debt. If you go overboard you get hyperinflation, which causes all sorts of extra problems. Of courser they will print as much as they can, but it won't be enough, even for current obligations.
The entire budget of NASA, from it's inception up to the current day, has been equivalent to (ready for this?) 2 years of the US military's budget. Think about that, and try not to weep.
I don't see the relevance. We need a military. We don't need NASA.