No. Their predecessors like the old Chinese Hand-Cannon were designed for killing and destroying. I won't argue that. However, target rifles for example, have evolved from that base goal.
As well they are not necessarily destroying targets either. For example, these which the projectile only makes noise and some motion.
I'm sorry that your only experience with firearms has involved killing, or that your only firearms experience is that which has been fed to you by the TV.
No, they are designed to accelerate a metal projectile to high speeds with an accurate vector. What the intent of that action is has nothing to do with it.
All that says is that the government has a responsibility to make sure there are militias and that they are properly equipped and trained. It says nothing about them being an army instead of a militia.
... and let's not forget that the whole point of the amendment is to make sure that citizens can defend the country if the government is not able to, as well as resist the government if necessary.
This threat is basically the final enforcement option of the constitution. Without something like that, it might as well have been written on toilet paper.
They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.
How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.
I've seen multiple-kilobyte posts before. Slashdot truncates it on initial display with a 'read more' link appended to the end, that shows the full post.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Their predecessors like the old Chinese Hand-Cannon were designed for killing and destroying. I won't argue that. However, target rifles for example, have evolved from that base goal.
As well they are not necessarily destroying targets either. For example, these which the projectile only makes noise and some motion.
I'm sorry that your only experience with firearms has involved killing, or that your only firearms experience is that which has been fed to you by the TV.
That was terrible. And hilarious.
By being a 19-year-old boy?
If he's mere feet away from it, the other signal would have to be quite strong to stomp on it (presuming the same power level is used)
Why bother? Just overpower (jam) the signal and who knows what happens...
No, they are designed to accelerate a metal projectile to high speeds with an accurate vector. What the intent of that action is has nothing to do with it.
So what, you want your kitchen knives and tools to be regulated while you're at it?
A model or replica wouldn't be functional. This was.
It was not a toy helicopter. It was an unmanned helicopter. There is a major difference.
You seem to have a funny definition of "directly overhead" and "out of control."
IT would love to, but upper management doesn't want to hear it.
Well no wonder our law is so fucked up...
All that says is that the government has a responsibility to make sure there are militias and that they are properly equipped and trained. It says nothing about them being an army instead of a militia.
... and let's not forget that the whole point of the amendment is to make sure that citizens can defend the country if the government is not able to, as well as resist the government if necessary.
This threat is basically the final enforcement option of the constitution. Without something like that, it might as well have been written on toilet paper.
They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.
How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.
Smells like a virus or malware could have ballooned those large figures.
Can you repeat that? I was busy marveling at how excellent a name "Nuclear Trashmen" would be for a punk band.
I think we'd all be amused watching you try.
Oh? You're sure about that? That's a pretty big claim to make without presenting any evidence (or even any reasoning)
That's what I just said?
It's not self-aggrandizing when other people are doing the aggrandizing.
Oh look, more "X but on a Y!" patents. So innovative.
AFAIK an app could execute binaries that it packages. They just execute within that user's context. It doesn't have to be done via the JVM.
You don't even need to do the whole device. Apps run as their own user, so all you need to do is grab files owned by that user.
The only way around this is for an app to use 'su' to escalate it's privileges, which requires a rooted device.
I've seen multiple-kilobyte posts before. Slashdot truncates it on initial display with a 'read more' link appended to the end, that shows the full post.
Avoid United while you're at it. I hear they break guitars.