What they're complaining about is that they have to actively police YouTube for their content to issue takedown notices. They want Google to shoulder that financial burden.
There is no distinction between SIG MCX, and any other semi-automatic rifle. They all let you " easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second", and most of them accept detachable magazines of essentially unlimited capacity.
Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle" (at least not by any existing definitions), yet it could do everything MCX did.
If you don't have a problem with people owning Mini-14s, then there's no objective reason why they shouldn't be able to own MCX.
If you do have a problem with people owning either, then you want a full ban on semi-autos. Which is fine, but then please don't confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon".
I guess what I'm really saying is that you'd get a lot more people to listen if you said "let's improve the licensing and background check system like in Czech Republic", instead of "let's enact an assault weapon ban, or ban all semi-autos outright, like in Australia". The latter elicits an immediate knee-jerk reaction, and for a good reason.
And it really doesn't help when prominent Democrat politicians - Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi etc - all cite Australia as the role model. It basically validates all the NRA tinfoil hat rants about how the gubmint is coming for their guns, because, well, Australian system has gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback" - but that's just a PR-friendly label for the same exact thing) at its core. It's exactly what they did in 1996.
I agree that NRA is nutty and there's little logic there. But mainstream gun control proposals coming from the left are also largely devoid of reason, or constitutionally suspect (such as that whole terrorist watchlist thing - and don't take my word for it, see what ACLU has to say).
So it becomes a shouting match with little place for logic and facts. And in the meantime, those of us who would prefer some reasonable legislation are left without a place to go. I dropped my NRA membership 4 years ago because I couldn't associate with that organization in good conscience; but when I see the usually reasonable Sanders go on a rant about "assault weapons", I can only facepalm.
The other thing is, existing gun laws have many places that are badly in the need of reform, and this could be done in a quid pro quo basis to satisfy both sides. For example, silencers are currently heavily regulated, with a $200 tax for manufacture and then every transfer, fingerprinting, and a waiting period of several months for ATF to process it all. Does it need to be that way? UK - you know, that place with some of the most draconian gun laws in Europe - lets you buy silencers easily, and they don't have any problems with that. And it cuts down on noise - good for people who shoot, to avoid hearing damage, and good for those who happen to be in the vicinity, for the same reason and to minimize nuisance aspects. So, why not just treat them same as any other firearm, and drop all the special restrictions? And package it in a bill that does so, and introduces universal background checks on federal level for all gun transactions. I bet you could get quite a few Republicans in Congress to vote for such a thing.
Similar stuff can be done with legislation around short-barreled rifles, and quite a few other things.
The problem is that it requires people who actually know what they're talking about to come together and discuss it from both sides. And there's a distinct lack of such. On the left, most people who want gun control - including politicians who actually write laws - have literally no clue. On the right, it's not really all that much better - you have those Republican politicians frying bacon on their ARs as a publicity stunt, but they still have no idea how that AR works, or what laws regulate it.
"It you can carry it, you can own it" doesn't sound like such a great idea.
It's the literal definition of "arms" as applied to weapons. Though I do stand corrected - it's more like "if you can use it while holding it". So scratch mortars off that list - but RPGs stay;)
As far as checks go, look at what Czech do. It's a European country that, in terms of their gun laws and culture, is probably the closest to US - they have no "assault weapon" bans, no magazine capacity limits, and shall-issue concealed carry; and plenty of civilian-owned firearms. And one mass shooting incident in 20 years of having such an arrangement (and another one that was stopped before it became "mass"). But, they have a fairly extensive licensing and background check system:
There aren't many. Unlike most gun control laws, the prohibition on mixing guns and drinking dates way back to 19th century, and similar laws for other weapons existed before then. Basically, it is something that was born of repeated experience with the kind of fuckery that happens when you let young males carry weapons, get drunk, and start a fight.
Consequently, unlike the more recent legislation (a good chunk of it dates to Jim Crow, ironically; have a look at this map as of 1986 - the states that are red prohibited both open and concealed carry of firearms - notice any geographic patterns?), the idea of repealing those laws didn't exactly have much popular support, even among NRA etc.
Nevertheless, here's a recent example to the contrary. More will probably follow in the usual places where you'd expect them.
Personally, I have no problem with ban on carry in establishments where people get drunk, provided that the appropriate signs are mandated by law, so that no-one could do that by mistake (and yes, I do carry).
You know, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion that one has to sign up for militia service (complete with a couple weeks of basic training, and then regular annual call-ups for exercises and refresher training, like they do it in Switzerland) in order to own an assault rifle. But if we do it, then we should go all the way, and let people who are in the program own the full spectrum of man-portable military arms, as per Miller SCOTUS decision. Which means full auto firearms (including belt-fed machine guns), RPGs, mortars, body armor etc. That would actually be pretty close to what the original intent was.
Everyone else gets access to handguns for personal protection (maybe even with mag cap limits - it's not like you would seriously need more than 10 rounds in any remotely realistic self-defense scenario), and bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns for hunting. No semi-autos.
Yes, it is very twisted. And we should keep it that way. The more twisted it is, the easier it is to get rid of it later.
Whereas, if we do ban guns to people on the list, later on, when it comes up for repeal, you can bet that plenty of Democrats will vote to keep it because "otherwise bad people will have guns". And so it will stay.
I've read that homosexual relationships between Afghani men and boys are surprisingly common in Afghanistan, although forbidden and not entirely consensual.
Any political ideology that devolves into cult of personality or of a party (most Soviet states had at least the latter, and in many cases both) is, essentially, religious in nature. You can look at North Korea to see the culmination of that.
So there is just no way that returning multiple pictures of arrested children is in any way representative of reality.
Google is not meant to be representative of reality. It's an Internet search engine - its purpose is to be representative of the Internet.
And if it so happens that most online photos that can be described as "three black teenagers" are mugshots, then that's exactly what Google should be showing.
As far as fixing this, the onus is on all the websites that publish those images (I'd imagine it's mostly news sites).
Not everything is intended to explain something. Many-worlds doesn't really explain anything over Copenhagen, for example, but it's still interesting to ponder the possibilities.
imagine "a computer simulation where no greater simulation can be conceived".
I don't see how this is required for Musk's postulate to hold true. Anselm was trying to prove the existence of a "perfect" (omnipresent, omnipotent etc) god. Musk is merely saying that we may be in a simulation that is "good enough" for us to not notice - he's not saying that it's perfect.
There is a big difference between the language, and the library. In any sane ecosystem (where things aren't deprecated and removed every six months), libraries keep working for a very long time - so it is viable to fork one and just use it. Having to fork the compiler and the rest of the toolchain (IDEs etc) is a lot more work.
You're only under "corporate control" if the library you're using is 1) maintained entirely by a single corporate entity, and 2) is not open source.
Boost, for example, is entirely open source and lacks any centralized control. Qt has a company behind it, but the source is LGPL, so you can always fork if you need to. And so on.
Pragmatically speaking, unless you use OS APIs directly (like, say, Win32), it's very hard to lock yourself in with C++.
Because Julia is a language focused on a very specific thing, and that very specific thing is not UI and other stuff that is common in a typical desktop or mobile app.
Your C++ experience seems to be very dated. These days, you can easily write very complicated C++ programs using solely the standard library and Boost.
The standard library may be small, but why does it mean that you have to use "unofficial extensions"? You find and use third-party libraries, and your portability is only limited by them - and there is no shortage of portable libraries for practically any purpose for C++. Heck, Qt alone covers 99% of what you'd typically want to do.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What they're complaining about is that they have to actively police YouTube for their content to issue takedown notices. They want Google to shoulder that financial burden.
Swiss also speak a language that's more German than what the Germans speak.
"Assault weapon" is not well-defined. It is a term that didn't exist until the first AWB, and it was defined by the lawyers who wrote it.
It is not the same as "assault rifle".
There is no distinction between SIG MCX, and any other semi-automatic rifle. They all let you " easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second", and most of them accept detachable magazines of essentially unlimited capacity.
Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle" (at least not by any existing definitions), yet it could do everything MCX did.
If you don't have a problem with people owning Mini-14s, then there's no objective reason why they shouldn't be able to own MCX.
If you do have a problem with people owning either, then you want a full ban on semi-autos. Which is fine, but then please don't confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon".
I guess what I'm really saying is that you'd get a lot more people to listen if you said "let's improve the licensing and background check system like in Czech Republic", instead of "let's enact an assault weapon ban, or ban all semi-autos outright, like in Australia". The latter elicits an immediate knee-jerk reaction, and for a good reason.
And it really doesn't help when prominent Democrat politicians - Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi etc - all cite Australia as the role model. It basically validates all the NRA tinfoil hat rants about how the gubmint is coming for their guns, because, well, Australian system has gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback" - but that's just a PR-friendly label for the same exact thing) at its core. It's exactly what they did in 1996.
I agree that NRA is nutty and there's little logic there. But mainstream gun control proposals coming from the left are also largely devoid of reason, or constitutionally suspect (such as that whole terrorist watchlist thing - and don't take my word for it, see what ACLU has to say).
So it becomes a shouting match with little place for logic and facts. And in the meantime, those of us who would prefer some reasonable legislation are left without a place to go. I dropped my NRA membership 4 years ago because I couldn't associate with that organization in good conscience; but when I see the usually reasonable Sanders go on a rant about "assault weapons", I can only facepalm.
The other thing is, existing gun laws have many places that are badly in the need of reform, and this could be done in a quid pro quo basis to satisfy both sides. For example, silencers are currently heavily regulated, with a $200 tax for manufacture and then every transfer, fingerprinting, and a waiting period of several months for ATF to process it all. Does it need to be that way? UK - you know, that place with some of the most draconian gun laws in Europe - lets you buy silencers easily, and they don't have any problems with that. And it cuts down on noise - good for people who shoot, to avoid hearing damage, and good for those who happen to be in the vicinity, for the same reason and to minimize nuisance aspects. So, why not just treat them same as any other firearm, and drop all the special restrictions? And package it in a bill that does so, and introduces universal background checks on federal level for all gun transactions. I bet you could get quite a few Republicans in Congress to vote for such a thing.
Similar stuff can be done with legislation around short-barreled rifles, and quite a few other things.
The problem is that it requires people who actually know what they're talking about to come together and discuss it from both sides. And there's a distinct lack of such. On the left, most people who want gun control - including politicians who actually write laws - have literally no clue. On the right, it's not really all that much better - you have those Republican politicians frying bacon on their ARs as a publicity stunt, but they still have no idea how that AR works, or what laws regulate it.
"It you can carry it, you can own it" doesn't sound like such a great idea.
It's the literal definition of "arms" as applied to weapons. Though I do stand corrected - it's more like "if you can use it while holding it". So scratch mortars off that list - but RPGs stay ;)
As far as checks go, look at what Czech do. It's a European country that, in terms of their gun laws and culture, is probably the closest to US - they have no "assault weapon" bans, no magazine capacity limits, and shall-issue concealed carry; and plenty of civilian-owned firearms. And one mass shooting incident in 20 years of having such an arrangement (and another one that was stopped before it became "mass"). But, they have a fairly extensive licensing and background check system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There aren't many. Unlike most gun control laws, the prohibition on mixing guns and drinking dates way back to 19th century, and similar laws for other weapons existed before then. Basically, it is something that was born of repeated experience with the kind of fuckery that happens when you let young males carry weapons, get drunk, and start a fight.
Consequently, unlike the more recent legislation (a good chunk of it dates to Jim Crow, ironically; have a look at this map as of 1986 - the states that are red prohibited both open and concealed carry of firearms - notice any geographic patterns?), the idea of repealing those laws didn't exactly have much popular support, even among NRA etc.
Nevertheless, here's a recent example to the contrary. More will probably follow in the usual places where you'd expect them.
Personally, I have no problem with ban on carry in establishments where people get drunk, provided that the appropriate signs are mandated by law, so that no-one could do that by mistake (and yes, I do carry).
You know, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion that one has to sign up for militia service (complete with a couple weeks of basic training, and then regular annual call-ups for exercises and refresher training, like they do it in Switzerland) in order to own an assault rifle. But if we do it, then we should go all the way, and let people who are in the program own the full spectrum of man-portable military arms, as per Miller SCOTUS decision. Which means full auto firearms (including belt-fed machine guns), RPGs, mortars, body armor etc. That would actually be pretty close to what the original intent was.
Everyone else gets access to handguns for personal protection (maybe even with mag cap limits - it's not like you would seriously need more than 10 rounds in any remotely realistic self-defense scenario), and bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns for hunting. No semi-autos.
Sounds good to you?
Yes, it is very twisted. And we should keep it that way. The more twisted it is, the easier it is to get rid of it later.
Whereas, if we do ban guns to people on the list, later on, when it comes up for repeal, you can bet that plenty of Democrats will vote to keep it because "otherwise bad people will have guns". And so it will stay.
I've read that homosexual relationships between Afghani men and boys are surprisingly common in Afghanistan, although forbidden and not entirely consensual.
Recent data on the subject.
Any political ideology that devolves into cult of personality or of a party (most Soviet states had at least the latter, and in many cases both) is, essentially, religious in nature. You can look at North Korea to see the culmination of that.
So "Gamergate" is all about SJWs then, rather than "ethics in game journalism"?
Way to make OP's point for him.
So there is just no way that returning multiple pictures of arrested children is in any way representative of reality.
Google is not meant to be representative of reality. It's an Internet search engine - its purpose is to be representative of the Internet.
And if it so happens that most online photos that can be described as "three black teenagers" are mugshots, then that's exactly what Google should be showing.
As far as fixing this, the onus is on all the websites that publish those images (I'd imagine it's mostly news sites).
If anything, it has been the other way around - Xbox interface keeps getting changed to whatever was then-up-to-date on Windows PCs.
What made you believe that you can't still keep using your PC for "actual WORK", whatever that is?
Are you familiar with the concept of skyboxes?
Not everything is intended to explain something. Many-worlds doesn't really explain anything over Copenhagen, for example, but it's still interesting to ponder the possibilities.
Was Elon's statement intended to explain anything, though?
imagine "a computer simulation where no greater simulation can be conceived".
I don't see how this is required for Musk's postulate to hold true. Anselm was trying to prove the existence of a "perfect" (omnipresent, omnipotent etc) god. Musk is merely saying that we may be in a simulation that is "good enough" for us to not notice - he's not saying that it's perfect.
There is a big difference between the language, and the library. In any sane ecosystem (where things aren't deprecated and removed every six months), libraries keep working for a very long time - so it is viable to fork one and just use it. Having to fork the compiler and the rest of the toolchain (IDEs etc) is a lot more work.
You're only under "corporate control" if the library you're using is 1) maintained entirely by a single corporate entity, and 2) is not open source.
Boost, for example, is entirely open source and lacks any centralized control. Qt has a company behind it, but the source is LGPL, so you can always fork if you need to. And so on.
Pragmatically speaking, unless you use OS APIs directly (like, say, Win32), it's very hard to lock yourself in with C++.
Because Julia is a language focused on a very specific thing, and that very specific thing is not UI and other stuff that is common in a typical desktop or mobile app.
Your C++ experience seems to be very dated. These days, you can easily write very complicated C++ programs using solely the standard library and Boost.
The standard library may be small, but why does it mean that you have to use "unofficial extensions"? You find and use third-party libraries, and your portability is only limited by them - and there is no shortage of portable libraries for practically any purpose for C++. Heck, Qt alone covers 99% of what you'd typically want to do.
Rust doesn't try to actively present itself as stable and production-ready, though.