But why do people object to the principle behind it?
Because there are some state laws on the books that mandate 'smart gun' technology be provided on all weapons sold once it becomes 'available'. So that means (in the extreme) when one manufacturer offers a single weapon model with 'smart' technology, nobody may sell anything else. Offering one 'smart' target range plinking.22 could effectively shut down a state's retail market.
Given the shortcomings of the technology, some people might want to wait a while until the bugs are ironed out and the reliability improves. Early adopters might be willing to be beta testers, but people who's lives depend on a weapon's reliability will not be given that option under current laws.
What about the psychological damage of the details of your life falling into the hands of someone you'd rather not want having them? Freedom of association also includes the right to choose not to associate with someone.
... at STP. Somehow, I doubt that viable fusion weapons design involves tying party balloons full of D2 to the side of the trigger weapon*. In fact, I think all current designs use Lithium instead of D2.
There's a reason we haven't finished them off in all this time.
I'd like to think that we don't go around 'finishing off' weaker countries just for the heck of it. Because this thinking only justifies Kim's level of paranoia and arms development.
I'm perfectly happy to stand by while the two Koreas only glare at each other over the DMZ. We are there with our armed forces only to assist in the defense of an ally should it be needed.
How do you allow normal, not-crazy, law abiding citizens reasonable access to firearms and keep crazy people and criminals from getting them?
Good question. On the surface, background checks seem like a reasonable approach. But it turns out that they are just a foot in the door for gun registration. Very little effort is put into maintaining the blacklists of prohibited buyers. Most of the effort spent is on tracking who owns which gun.
Theoretically, I should be able to walk into a gun show, have an electronic background check done and then buy whatever I want at that show without leaving a paper trail of my purchases. But my state has had an unofficial practice for years of storing all gun sales records and recently passed an initiative to retroactively make this legal.
this supreme court (as of 2015) has intepreted the amendment in a specific way (which is favorable to their views for now). Another supreme court in the future (with a different political composition) could decide to interpret the amendment in a way that makes gun control legit.
Not as likely as you think. Supreme Courts are hesitant to reverse rulings of their predecessors.
Because the kid has the iPad with an email client set up. So when the query comes through from the fraud department, the kid just answers, "All is well. Pay it."
Yes and no. Practice helps. People who drink a lot learn to compensate for impaired reaction times and can seem normal to the untrained eye. But the impairment, particularly as it affects involuntary muscle control, is quite predictable for a wide range of subjects.
You can drive more slowly, leave a greater following distance behind other traffic and stay in the left lane. But if something unexpected happens, your reactions are messed up, no matter how well you think you can hold your booze.
That is not likely. The breath test works based on the alcohol that crosses the lungs' alveoli membrane from the bloodstream into the airway. Where would the high levels in her breath come from (unless she belched a load of ethanol vapors up from her intestines).
I have been on the receiving end of the misogynistic "swinging dicks"
And that's not necessarily misogyny. It's a jerk sizing you up to see which buttons he can push to manipulate you. The tactics come out of a playbook that generalizes how women behave and how to game them. There will be a different page for other men, depending on how he sizes them up. You will perceive being treated differently than men, because he believes that this is what works.
The root cause is that the jerk wants to get his way. And if management can't keep people on track to accomplish a task and can't sit on or fire people that misbehave, it's their problem.
Men are taught to shut up and take it if they're lower status,
You are assuming an organization with no social norms for proper behavior. And in that sort of context, 'status' is no longer determined by the title on the office door, but who the toughest son-of-a-bitch is. Within a company, management sets down rules for both rank and conduct. Conduct both of a superior as well as a subordinate. And I would have a difficult time believing that asshattery is approved policy at any work place. So if management is not capable of enforcing rules of conduct between employees, then the whole upper/lower status thing also goes out the window. And the biggest toughest jerk, not the CEO, runs the company.
Women are taught to ask others to retaliate for them
I've sen quite a few 'men' resort to this as well. And this is also discouraged at well run companies as creating a hostile work environment (no matter which gender does it). It is also a violation of my profession's code of ethics and can (and has) led to the suspension of PE licenses.
If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
But there were no classified markings to strip originally.
The whole retroactive classification thing is tricky and can lead to some major problems. People with clearances are prohibited from accessing classified information. Technically, even if they pick up the New York Times and read some of Edward Snowden's data dump, they can be violating rules. Even though the presence of that information is already in a public forum and its presence isn't their doing. Now, retroactively classify something and expect cleared people to 'unsee' the data, or take it back if they sent it on? Nope. Not going to happen.
the tech world is full of socially challenged asshats.
The tech world IS full of socially challenged asshats. Particularly the open source world, where the concept of firing someone, or even referring them to some remedial training really doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
But why do people object to the principle behind it?
Because there are some state laws on the books that mandate 'smart gun' technology be provided on all weapons sold once it becomes 'available'. So that means (in the extreme) when one manufacturer offers a single weapon model with 'smart' technology, nobody may sell anything else. Offering one 'smart' target range plinking .22 could effectively shut down a state's retail market.
Given the shortcomings of the technology, some people might want to wait a while until the bugs are ironed out and the reliability improves. Early adopters might be willing to be beta testers, but people who's lives depend on a weapon's reliability will not be given that option under current laws.
Hint: It doesn't always have to be monetary.
What about the psychological damage of the details of your life falling into the hands of someone you'd rather not want having them? Freedom of association also includes the right to choose not to associate with someone.
Nope. I don't want the Republicans tracking my porn or the Democrats tracking my guns and money.
which is flat-out unconstitutional.
The Constitution is a mere impediment to the current administration's agendas. So I'd rather they not have a list.
A mole of hydrogen is 22.4 liters
*OK. So this is North Korea. You could be right.
the FCC would likely have a problem
Airbus sells in a lot of markets not under FCC jurisdiction. And with more permissive laws covering jamming.
There's a reason we haven't finished them off in all this time.
I'd like to think that we don't go around 'finishing off' weaker countries just for the heck of it. Because this thinking only justifies Kim's level of paranoia and arms development.
I'm perfectly happy to stand by while the two Koreas only glare at each other over the DMZ. We are there with our armed forces only to assist in the defense of an ally should it be needed.
No problem. We've already got Lennart Poettering working on the drivers.
The burglars will just schedule their home invasions for the times that Microsoft pushes out a new Windows 10 update.
How do you allow normal, not-crazy, law abiding citizens reasonable access to firearms and keep crazy people and criminals from getting them?
Good question. On the surface, background checks seem like a reasonable approach. But it turns out that they are just a foot in the door for gun registration. Very little effort is put into maintaining the blacklists of prohibited buyers. Most of the effort spent is on tracking who owns which gun.
Theoretically, I should be able to walk into a gun show, have an electronic background check done and then buy whatever I want at that show without leaving a paper trail of my purchases. But my state has had an unofficial practice for years of storing all gun sales records and recently passed an initiative to retroactively make this legal.
this supreme court (as of 2015) has intepreted the amendment in a specific way (which is favorable to their views for now). Another supreme court in the future (with a different political composition) could decide to interpret the amendment in a way that makes gun control legit.
Not as likely as you think. Supreme Courts are hesitant to reverse rulings of their predecessors.
Your only option is to have your own email server at home which requires encryption on both ends.
Hillary? Is that you?
Because the kid has the iPad with an email client set up. So when the query comes through from the fraud department, the kid just answers, "All is well. Pay it."
Alcohol affects everyone differently.
Yes and no. Practice helps. People who drink a lot learn to compensate for impaired reaction times and can seem normal to the untrained eye. But the impairment, particularly as it affects involuntary muscle control, is quite predictable for a wide range of subjects.
You can drive more slowly, leave a greater following distance behind other traffic and stay in the left lane. But if something unexpected happens, your reactions are messed up, no matter how well you think you can hold your booze.
That is not likely. The breath test works based on the alcohol that crosses the lungs' alveoli membrane from the bloodstream into the airway. Where would the high levels in her breath come from (unless she belched a load of ethanol vapors up from her intestines).
I have been on the receiving end of the misogynistic "swinging dicks"
And that's not necessarily misogyny. It's a jerk sizing you up to see which buttons he can push to manipulate you. The tactics come out of a playbook that generalizes how women behave and how to game them. There will be a different page for other men, depending on how he sizes them up. You will perceive being treated differently than men, because he believes that this is what works.
The root cause is that the jerk wants to get his way. And if management can't keep people on track to accomplish a task and can't sit on or fire people that misbehave, it's their problem.
I'll bet some of those same geezers would scream if they came after their 2nd Amendment rights.
And I'm sure you will point out the moment someone applies that label to a specific individual rather than in the abstract.
Great minds discuss ideas,
average minds discuss events,
small minds discuss people.
Men are taught to shut up and take it if they're lower status,
You are assuming an organization with no social norms for proper behavior. And in that sort of context, 'status' is no longer determined by the title on the office door, but who the toughest son-of-a-bitch is. Within a company, management sets down rules for both rank and conduct. Conduct both of a superior as well as a subordinate. And I would have a difficult time believing that asshattery is approved policy at any work place. So if management is not capable of enforcing rules of conduct between employees, then the whole upper/lower status thing also goes out the window. And the biggest toughest jerk, not the CEO, runs the company.
Women are taught to ask others to retaliate for them
I've sen quite a few 'men' resort to this as well. And this is also discouraged at well run companies as creating a hostile work environment (no matter which gender does it). It is also a violation of my profession's code of ethics and can (and has) led to the suspension of PE licenses.
Until someone scrubs the hard drive.
If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
But there were no classified markings to strip originally.
The whole retroactive classification thing is tricky and can lead to some major problems. People with clearances are prohibited from accessing classified information. Technically, even if they pick up the New York Times and read some of Edward Snowden's data dump, they can be violating rules. Even though the presence of that information is already in a public forum and its presence isn't their doing. Now, retroactively classify something and expect cleared people to 'unsee' the data, or take it back if they sent it on? Nope. Not going to happen.
the tech world is full of socially challenged asshats.
The tech world IS full of socially challenged asshats. Particularly the open source world, where the concept of firing someone, or even referring them to some remedial training really doesn't exist.