The irony is that you can do that in like half of European countries, where despite otherwise much more stringent gun controls, silencers are not prohibited (indeed, in many cases they're not regulated at all).
You mean, the ones that are permitted to talk about it, as opposed to being banned from Crimea and otherwise prosecuted for "extremism"?
Of course, the very idea of holding up high the results of a referendum on secession in a country where merely distributing leaflets promoting "separatism" can land you in prison for several years is supremely ironic. At this point, it doesn't really matter what Crimeans think, because joining Russia is a one-way ticket - wanting to get out is a crime.
As I recall, the last big battle in IE vs NN war was over "layers", and that was IE4 vs NN4. NN added a proprietary <layer> element and a bunch of related markup, while IE repurposed <div> by extending CSS (or was it still a draft then? I think CSS 1.0 was already done?). Consequently, you had many websites working only in IE or NN, because they used one approach or the other (some people redid their websites in both, but that was expensive). And from what I recall, I saw way more NN4-only sites back then than I did IE4-only sites. It wasn't until IE5 that "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer" became essentially the default.
But if reality comes to bite Russians by way of a terrorist attack against them due to Putin's actions in Syria then that will be a massive blow to Putin's ability to keep up the tempo.
Given the current public sentiment in Russia, I would actually expect it to rather strengthen Putin's positions by demonstrating to everyone that ISIS really is a threat to Russia and Russians, and thus it needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Note also that the ongoing operation in Syria is nothing like the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan so far, and is modeled more after the various American operations in the past couple of decades - primarily air strikes, boots on the ground mostly to defend the bases, and spec ops operating behind enemy lines. Also, no conscripts. And also, unlike Afghanistan, the operation in Syria is openly acknowledged, televised etc. Basically, it was intended to be a showcase for how strong the Russia has become militarily and geopolitically under Putin, by doing something that heretofore was largely exclusive to US/NATO - successfully military intervening in some country halfway across the world.
You're confusing freedom to speak with freedom to be heard. No-one owes the holocaust deniers or AGW skeptics the right to listen to their malarky, or the right to offer the means of effective communication to them for free. But they should not be prohibited from speaking out on those matters in public and using such means that are at their disposal.
HFT may not be useful to society, but it's irrelevant here. HFT is very useful for the people who do it, and who therefore hire developers to write code to do it better. And those people don't look kindly at overflow bugs that might cost them a fortune.
The fact is, integer overflow is a constant source of bugs, eclipsed only by buffer overflow. Adding things to programming languages that encourage safe handling of overflow is a good thing.
Not necessarily. Modern humans interbred with Neanderthals.
Sure, and white settlers have interbred with Native Americans. and Mongols have interbred with most of Asia. Such interbreeding does not imply a cooperative attitude.
Not everyone is xenophobic.
True, but if you look at the historical record, societies that are tend to thrive at the expense of those that aren't. The latter don't even arise in a strongly competitive environment (such as Europe), and when they do arise in isolation, they last for exactly as long as it takes for one of the xenophobic ones to reach them. The entire history of European colonization is ample illustration of that, but if you want a more narrow example, look up Moriori.
Were you, by chance, confusing it with Windows Installer (MSI) component sharing? If two different installers install the same DLL globally (and register it properly), then it becomes a shared component, such that uninstalling one will still keep it, but uninstalling both will remove it.
At least in case of Chrome, the service isn't privileged - it doesn't have to be, because Chrome is installed per-user by default, so you don't need any special privileges beyond having access to your home directory to upgrade.
The obvious answer is that when this sort of minimum wage becomes universal, and prices rise accordingly, then your work would be devalued if you'd be getting the same payment, and that's the point where you go to your boss and demand a raise. But, again, you don't do it on the basis that this other guy is getting more proportionally to what you get. You do it on the basis that your salary is worth less relative to the cost of living.
(Of course, if companies would just generally index compensation based on some reasonable cost of living metric, this would all be taken care of automatically. And I do think that it's what the workers should push for.)
Why would how much the other guy get paid affect your worth? You're still getting the same amount, and you're still spending the same on your bills. At best, you could argue that the other guy is not worth that much, but, again, why would you care?
You're basically saying here that you want your worth to be measured not in monetary value, but in economic inequality. In other words, you are deriving your worth from being better off than someone else.
The original compromise that SAF tried to broker with the Manchin-Toomey bill made some sense: what they were trying to pull off there is universal background checks combined with national reciprocity for concealed carry, and a well-defined system to challenge and remove (when justified) legal restrictions on gun ownership on felons, drug users etc after a reasonable time period and after a court review (they're currently banned for life with no recourse in most cases). It sunk because carry reciprocity was rejected by the anti-gun groups.
Um, Oregon has universal background checks, for starters. That alone puts it in the "more restrictive than average" category. Otherwise it's a fairly typical law, with permits for concealed carry, and open carry allowed without permits but with some restrictions.
It would make sense, if gun-free zones weren't on the list of the "common sense gun measures" that are suggested after every killing spree, with an implication that they would somehow solve it.
Push guns underground, and they become much more expensive and risky to buy. Why not just divert all the money and resources in the "war on drugs" into the "war on guns", and it'd be won inside a decade, I reckon.
It won't, really. Guns are actually easier / less dangerous to make than most drugs (that require labs to produce, or farms to grow, or both).
Here is a shotgun that can be made out of two pieces of pipe and a screw, readily available in any hardware store, not requiring any machining skills and minimal assembly. It's single-shot, but it's so cheap to make that a spree killer could easily make a dozen or two, preload them, and just use and discard them one by one.
Here is a book detailing how to make a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun at home, with no machining, out of pipes and other stuff also readily available from any hardware store. Its only deficiency compared to the "real thing" is that it has a smooth bore, not rifled - which will not matter in the least if used at distances under 50 yards or so, or against a crowd. We know that it works because the author has sufficiently made and tested one - and ended up in prison for it, being a UK citizen.
The only thing that can be realistically regulated is ammo. Even then you're looking at modern smokeless powder rounds with primers - cases can be reloaded, and bullets can be cast, and smokeless powder can be made, but primers are complicated. OTOH, black powder cap and ball revolvers are much more low-tech, and yet still quite deadly.
And do you really think a darkened room full of amateur gun owners opening return fire is going to in any way lessen the death toll? Against a gunman with body armour?
It probably would, actually. Even the best armor doesn't make you immune to bullets - penetration or not, all that energy has to go somewhere, and when the bullet hits an armor plate, it's basically translated to a very heavy and rapid punch of the plate against the body. This results in, at the very least, a massive hematoma, and quite possibly in broken ribs, depending on what exactly the round was.
Alternatively, if this is soft armor (e.g. kevlar alone - what police typically use unless it's SWAT), then the bullet actually creates a bump on the other side that can easily be 2-3 inches deep - and if there's body behind the plate, then that's what gets protruded by said bump. There are safety standards that define the maximum size of such bumps, but their point is to make sure the person wearing the armor survives, not that they're not damaged at all.
So yes, several people unloading handguns at the armored shooter at the same time would, at the very least, knock him down and hurt him significantly, possibly enough to buy more time for others to get out of the way, and possibly even to disable and subdue him.
FWIW, the Aurora shooter wasn't actually wearing body armor. He had a plate carrier that was capable of accepting armor plates, but he didn't actually have them in it, using it simply as a load bearing vest. He did have armor on some other parts of the body (head, neck, legs), so it's probably because he was buying things without understanding what they are, and bought a plate carrier thinking that it is armor.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that you can do that in like half of European countries, where despite otherwise much more stringent gun controls, silencers are not prohibited (indeed, in many cases they're not regulated at all).
Collective responsibility is not a part of the Russian mindset
Oh, really?
Even Crimean Tartars are OK with that
You mean, the ones that are permitted to talk about it, as opposed to being banned from Crimea and otherwise prosecuted for "extremism"?
Of course, the very idea of holding up high the results of a referendum on secession in a country where merely distributing leaflets promoting "separatism" can land you in prison for several years is supremely ironic. At this point, it doesn't really matter what Crimeans think, because joining Russia is a one-way ticket - wanting to get out is a crime.
If you use more then 5 tabs open something is wrong and you should learn about bookmarks
"You're holding it wrong."
No, we're not. We're holding it the way it's most convenient. Also, fuck you and your head-above-the-clouds UX horse.
As I recall, the last big battle in IE vs NN war was over "layers", and that was IE4 vs NN4. NN added a proprietary <layer> element and a bunch of related markup, while IE repurposed <div> by extending CSS (or was it still a draft then? I think CSS 1.0 was already done?). Consequently, you had many websites working only in IE or NN, because they used one approach or the other (some people redid their websites in both, but that was expensive). And from what I recall, I saw way more NN4-only sites back then than I did IE4-only sites. It wasn't until IE5 that "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer" became essentially the default.
But if reality comes to bite Russians by way of a terrorist attack against them due to Putin's actions in Syria then that will be a massive blow to Putin's ability to keep up the tempo.
Given the current public sentiment in Russia, I would actually expect it to rather strengthen Putin's positions by demonstrating to everyone that ISIS really is a threat to Russia and Russians, and thus it needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Note also that the ongoing operation in Syria is nothing like the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan so far, and is modeled more after the various American operations in the past couple of decades - primarily air strikes, boots on the ground mostly to defend the bases, and spec ops operating behind enemy lines. Also, no conscripts. And also, unlike Afghanistan, the operation in Syria is openly acknowledged, televised etc. Basically, it was intended to be a showcase for how strong the Russia has become militarily and geopolitically under Putin, by doing something that heretofore was largely exclusive to US/NATO - successfully military intervening in some country halfway across the world.
You're confusing freedom to speak with freedom to be heard. No-one owes the holocaust deniers or AGW skeptics the right to listen to their malarky, or the right to offer the means of effective communication to them for free. But they should not be prohibited from speaking out on those matters in public and using such means that are at their disposal.
HFT may not be useful to society, but it's irrelevant here. HFT is very useful for the people who do it, and who therefore hire developers to write code to do it better. And those people don't look kindly at overflow bugs that might cost them a fortune.
The fact is, integer overflow is a constant source of bugs, eclipsed only by buffer overflow. Adding things to programming languages that encourage safe handling of overflow is a good thing.
Most forums don't ban "microaggressions".
You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that Windows supports symlinks, even though it's been 9 years now.
Have you ever heard of the black-or-white fallacy?
(Or is it considered too racially insensitive to bring it up these days?)
Not necessarily. Modern humans interbred with Neanderthals.
Sure, and white settlers have interbred with Native Americans. and Mongols have interbred with most of Asia. Such interbreeding does not imply a cooperative attitude.
Not everyone is xenophobic.
True, but if you look at the historical record, societies that are tend to thrive at the expense of those that aren't. The latter don't even arise in a strongly competitive environment (such as Europe), and when they do arise in isolation, they last for exactly as long as it takes for one of the xenophobic ones to reach them. The entire history of European colonization is ample illustration of that, but if you want a more narrow example, look up Moriori.
It's true about the diseases, but some settlers have also used them as a weapon deliberately - "gifting" infected items like blankets.
It doesn't matter what you call them, it's still censorship.
You can use symlinks - it just means you have to do your own refcounting for the DLL to know when it should be deleted.
Were you, by chance, confusing it with Windows Installer (MSI) component sharing? If two different installers install the same DLL globally (and register it properly), then it becomes a shared component, such that uninstalling one will still keep it, but uninstalling both will remove it.
At least in case of Chrome, the service isn't privileged - it doesn't have to be, because Chrome is installed per-user by default, so you don't need any special privileges beyond having access to your home directory to upgrade.
The obvious answer is that when this sort of minimum wage becomes universal, and prices rise accordingly, then your work would be devalued if you'd be getting the same payment, and that's the point where you go to your boss and demand a raise. But, again, you don't do it on the basis that this other guy is getting more proportionally to what you get. You do it on the basis that your salary is worth less relative to the cost of living.
(Of course, if companies would just generally index compensation based on some reasonable cost of living metric, this would all be taken care of automatically. And I do think that it's what the workers should push for.)
Why would how much the other guy get paid affect your worth? You're still getting the same amount, and you're still spending the same on your bills. At best, you could argue that the other guy is not worth that much, but, again, why would you care?
You're basically saying here that you want your worth to be measured not in monetary value, but in economic inequality. In other words, you are deriving your worth from being better off than someone else.
The original compromise that SAF tried to broker with the Manchin-Toomey bill made some sense: what they were trying to pull off there is universal background checks combined with national reciprocity for concealed carry, and a well-defined system to challenge and remove (when justified) legal restrictions on gun ownership on felons, drug users etc after a reasonable time period and after a court review (they're currently banned for life with no recourse in most cases). It sunk because carry reciprocity was rejected by the anti-gun groups.
Um, Oregon has universal background checks, for starters. That alone puts it in the "more restrictive than average" category. Otherwise it's a fairly typical law, with permits for concealed carry, and open carry allowed without permits but with some restrictions.
It would make sense, if gun-free zones weren't on the list of the "common sense gun measures" that are suggested after every killing spree, with an implication that they would somehow solve it.
Christ in a biscuit. GP means guns that put out deadly fire at a high rate.
You still need to define what "deadly fire" and "high rate" is. Does a .22 lever-action qualifies? That is a stereotypical kid gun, BTW.
Push guns underground, and they become much more expensive and risky to buy. Why not just divert all the money and resources in the "war on drugs" into the "war on guns", and it'd be won inside a decade, I reckon.
It won't, really. Guns are actually easier / less dangerous to make than most drugs (that require labs to produce, or farms to grow, or both).
Here is a shotgun that can be made out of two pieces of pipe and a screw, readily available in any hardware store, not requiring any machining skills and minimal assembly. It's single-shot, but it's so cheap to make that a spree killer could easily make a dozen or two, preload them, and just use and discard them one by one.
Here is a book detailing how to make a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun at home, with no machining, out of pipes and other stuff also readily available from any hardware store. Its only deficiency compared to the "real thing" is that it has a smooth bore, not rifled - which will not matter in the least if used at distances under 50 yards or so, or against a crowd. We know that it works because the author has sufficiently made and tested one - and ended up in prison for it, being a UK citizen.
The only thing that can be realistically regulated is ammo. Even then you're looking at modern smokeless powder rounds with primers - cases can be reloaded, and bullets can be cast, and smokeless powder can be made, but primers are complicated. OTOH, black powder cap and ball revolvers are much more low-tech, and yet still quite deadly.
And do you really think a darkened room full of amateur gun owners opening return fire is going to in any way lessen the death toll? Against a gunman with body armour?
It probably would, actually. Even the best armor doesn't make you immune to bullets - penetration or not, all that energy has to go somewhere, and when the bullet hits an armor plate, it's basically translated to a very heavy and rapid punch of the plate against the body. This results in, at the very least, a massive hematoma, and quite possibly in broken ribs, depending on what exactly the round was.
Alternatively, if this is soft armor (e.g. kevlar alone - what police typically use unless it's SWAT), then the bullet actually creates a bump on the other side that can easily be 2-3 inches deep - and if there's body behind the plate, then that's what gets protruded by said bump. There are safety standards that define the maximum size of such bumps, but their point is to make sure the person wearing the armor survives, not that they're not damaged at all.
So yes, several people unloading handguns at the armored shooter at the same time would, at the very least, knock him down and hurt him significantly, possibly enough to buy more time for others to get out of the way, and possibly even to disable and subdue him.
FWIW, the Aurora shooter wasn't actually wearing body armor. He had a plate carrier that was capable of accepting armor plates, but he didn't actually have them in it, using it simply as a load bearing vest. He did have armor on some other parts of the body (head, neck, legs), so it's probably because he was buying things without understanding what they are, and bought a plate carrier thinking that it is armor.