This is an interesting theory/rumor. There's no way to verify this without someone in Apple speaking out, and that's not likely to happen until USB-C is well adopted. As well adopted it is on cell phones that doesn't mean it can't be abandoned on a whim, it's still fighting for space on desktop computers and even on laptops where adoption is gaining some traction.
I like USB-C very much, it's a large improvement over other ports in this space. One thing that bothers me, and this it mostly an implementation issue than anything, is that I can't just connect two computers by USB-C and expect them to talk to each other. I could do this with Thunderbolt and FireWire. Doing this with Ethernet and serial needed only a crossover cable, at least in early implementations, later Ethernet and serial didn't require even that. Apple supported this kind of networking or master/slave system (depending on the setup or other specifics) going way back, going back to LocalTalk or even earlier. Windows even supported networking on FireWire and other cables. This is not supported on the non-Thunderbolt USB-C computers, and no Windows computer I have seen support such a connection. This is a very non-Apple non-feature. I would like to see this fixed in the future, but again it's largely an implementation issue than a problem with the spec itself as demonstrated by Apple allowing such with their USB-C ThunderBolt systems.
If it has a standard USB on one end, it doesnt need a special apple-only connector on the other end.
Yes it does, if the USB connectors are feature and power limited pieces of shit. I believe that too many people forget what problems Lightning was built to solve.
First came FireWire. Well, maybe I'm digging too far back in time but it seems too few even know what life was like before USB owned everything.
Then came the 30 pin connector. This allowed for not just charging and data like USB but also video and audio. This was not something USB could do, at least not until we had MHL on USB, and other extensions to USB.
Lightning pared down the number of pins from the 30 pin connector by doing away with features no longer in common use, like FireWire and component video. Until last year USB-C didn't even have a standard means to support audio accessories. Until USB-C there was no common port that both supported more than 5 watts of power and fit to the ever slimmer electronics.
It wasn't until last year that USB-C could do everything that Lightning offered years earlier, now that we are finally seeing USB catch up with the Apple designed connectors Apple is adopting USB-C.
What I believe people forget is that USB-C was only published 4 years ago. Maybe with people buying a new phone every year this might seem like a long time ago but there's a lot of hardware out there older than 4 years. If you have a USB-C device that's 2 years old then it is unlikely to support audio out like new USB-C devices. This means to get audio you need a cable that's "USB on one end, stupid on the other".
Here's something comical that I expect to see soon, USB-C to USB-C adapters that support some feature on one end and another on the other end. Expect USB-C with USB 2.0 on one side and USB-C with audio on the other. Or, a USB-C cable with DisplayPort on one end and HDMI on the other. Maybe a USB-C Thunderbolt to USB-C USB 3.2 cable.
USB-C is great so long as the port supports what you expect it to. There are so many optional features to USB-C that people are already tripping over cables and ports not doing what they wanted or expected. It will get worse before it gets better.
I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police". Well, someone did call the police and, if the comments here are to be believed, the police are incompetent, bloodthirsty, both, or worse.
Is it too much to ask for both that we don't rely on the police for everything and when they do come that they are competent, intelligent, and well trained? Remember that the police come from the public. If the police officers never saw a gun until they arrive at the academy then they are going to be poorly trained on the proper use of a firearm. We cannot put the gun genie back in the bottle. Guns exist and the world is better for it.
Let's not forget that, again according to comments here, there is an orangutan in the Oval Office tossing feces all over Twitter. You want him to have all the guns? Remember folks, don't create a government that you are not willing to give to your opposition because your friends might not always be in charge.
I'm all for the government having their warrantless search powers scaled back but I also don't want to live in a world where the police hesitate on responding to a 911 call for help because of getting too many prank calls. This is the old "cry wolf" parable on a modern world. The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.
You need to pick your battles better, this is not one which will gain much traction in painting the police as the "bad guy". This is all on the prank caller and I believe he deserves any punishment he gets, up to life in prison. He knew what he was doing, that it could result in people getting killed, did so repeatedly, and did so on the whim of a few bucks tossed his way.
Any issues of warrantless searches have nothing to do with this case.
Personally, I am glad the EU is looking at mandating connectors. USB-C is clearly the best for most applications.
Government mandates are fine when they choose wisely, the problem is that such wise choices are the exception rather than the rule.
I'd rather see the competing vendors in a given product space get together on certain standards without being coerced to do so by some government. Those of us in the USA might see the best of both worlds when China or EU mandate such standards since we see the products show up here with the low prices and such that comes with such mandates overseas but also the benefit of a vendor or group of vendors creating something better and being able to bring it to market here.
USB-C might be fine now but there will inevitably come a time when it's not. These mandates are fine so long as they allow for an "out" without requiring some lengthy and expensive process to be rid of the mandate. Again, such wisdom from government is rare. This worked well this time but I'd rather not see the government dictating which technology I am allowed to use for any given application.
With so many accessories using lightning port, it would seem more logical to add a USB C port then replace the lightning port.
Can you name a Lightning port accessory that does not already have a "made for mac" equivalent? USB-C has been the only port on Apple laptops for some time now and this has led to the creation of a large number of accessories for them, many made by Apple itself. The only thing I can think of that Apple does not make both a USB-C and Lightning version of a dongle is the audio adapter, and that's easily rectified with introducing such a dongle. This would likely be the last straw on having a 1/8" headphone port on laptops.
Personally I would want mouse support so more apps can become more like their desktop counterparts. Otherwise I would buy a Surface Pro which supports full blown apps and mouse input or other input devices. If your going to call something "pro" Apple. It has to do a lot more then it does.
If you want a laptop with a touch screen then buy one of those. If you want a tablet computer then get one of those. I don't see how the Surface Pro is superior than the Apple since it also lacks both a Lightning port and USB-C.
This is about Apple finally backing down from its proprietary connector and going with the same connector as everybody else.
With the exception of cell phones the adoption of USB-C has been very slow. Only when Apple started putting it on their laptops did it become anything "everybody else" bothered to offer.
But I bet they will find a way to still be incompatible, this is Apple we're talking about.
I'm sure a lot of people will complain about Apple being "incompatible" but it won't be Apple's fault.
There's plenty of articles and videos floating about on how the different USB-C audio accessories are incompatible with different devices. This is the fault of the USB group defining at least two different ways to get audio out of a USB port.
What a lot of the early and most compatible USB-C audio devices did was put a USB 2.0 to audio chip in a small dongle, or in the connector of the headphones. If the tablet or phone supported USB audio devices (and most did) then they worked fine. This cost a few pennies more than just running wires from the on board DAC used for the internal speaker and so people tried different ways to run that to the USB-C connector. If they did this before the audio accessory alternate mode was added to the USB-C spec then they likely didn't work except on the specific device it was designed to support. Even now the audio accessory mode isn't widely supported, with some device makers saving pennies on their devices by not even bothering to support this mode and relying on software, and an external DAC, for audio output beyond the internal speaker.
People complain about Apple being "incompatible" all the time. Well, if this bothers you then don't buy their products. Complaining about this all the time is like some NPC talking all the time on how they don't own a TV, eat only vegan, or take public transportation everywhere they go. USB-C just last year offered all the features that Lightning did in 2012 so it seems Apple finds this is a good time to drop the Lightning connector. With one of the largest companies in the world now supporting the USB-C spec on their tablet computers I can expect these complaints of incompatibilities to fade, because if it doesn't work with Apple then it won't sell well.
Apple only follows the herd? How quickly people forget their history.
The Lightning port came out in 2012 and USB-C was published in 2014 but products didn't appear until at least a year later. Lightning supported more than 5 watts charging, audio, video, and USB data when everyone else was still stuck with the micro USB-B port. Some devices supported MHL output with the micro-B port but this was far from universal.
USB-C didn't offer video at first, that was added later as an alternate mode. Audio accessories from USB-C didn't happen until just last year with some aborted attempts at vendor specific audio devices before that. Because of this USB-C audio will be a mess until enough of the old incompatible devices get tossed so that people can enjoy a truly "universal" experience from the Universal Serial Bus.
If Apple adopts USB-C (which is just a rumor now) then it will be because USB-C finally caught up with what Lightning offered in 2012. USB-C copied the Lightning port features, often poorly at first, and just now surpassed the Lightning in features.
After tearing USB down I will prop it up. USB had enough foresight to allow for extensions to the USB-C feature set to avoid some of the problems with their previous connectors. The alternate mode concept allowed for the use of the port for ThunderBolt, DisplayPort, MHL, and most recently audio accessories, without violating the specification. MHL on USB was a neat hack, but it was a hack. People using USB for power was another hack that the USB group embraced and allowed for standardized and simplified means to draw power later on. I fully expected Apple to leapfrog USB-C with another connector after Lightning, replacing Lightning with something even better than USB-C. I guess Apple found the need to do so unnecessary given that USB-C is now established far more than the many USB-B variants ever were.
Apple hasn't followed the herd, they adopt the fringes and make them the standard. USB-A was a fringe port until Apple adopted it. USB-C was little more than another USB-B variant until Apple put it on their laptops and took advantage of the higher power and alternate modes the new connector offered. After that the herd followed them. Assuming Apple adopts USB-C on their tablets then I expect the "herd" to follow them and adopt the USB-C spec more closely so that audio devices work on Apple just as well as it does on other devices that follow the spec.
Synthetic hydrocarbons are only a good idea if source-to-wheel energy conversion is better battery powered EVs. Right now, things aren't looking too good.
That depends on how you define "better". Synthetic hydrocarbons are already better than plug in electric vehicles because it means no new vehicles, high energy density, existing infrastructure for storage and delivery to end consumers, fast refuel times, and the technology exists today. You can claim that it's not looking good for synthesized hydrocarbons fuels but there's a lot of people that disagree, and I'm among them.
I suggest that instead of just pointing out why you think something won't work that you also provide an alternative.
Trees will eventually decompose.
Yes, they do compose. In between the time the trees die and when they decompose they are storing carbon. Dr. Patrick Moore says growing trees is a very good idea on storing carbon. Dr. Moore has degrees in biology and ecology so I'm going to believe him over some random person posting something on the internet.
We don't have sufficient areas with good growing conditions for trees.
Dr. Moore disagrees. Do you have a better idea? I heard from another person with a PhD that suggests mining basalt and using it as fertilizer as a means to sequester CO2, Dr. Darryl Seimer. Basalt contains lime and when exposed to the air it turns to limestone. Farmers use a lot of lime in their fields to control pH but the most common sources involve producing a lot of CO2. There isn't a lot of basalt mined for lime because it is a very hard rock, but if we can make it economic to mine then that can remove a lot of CO2 from the air.
Oh, and both Dr. Moore and Dr. Seimer believe we need to use nuclear power to stop producing so much CO2. I will take the word from these people that are highly knowledgeable on the topic over so many more that believe we can solve this problem without nuclear power. Science is not something decided by a vote so I don't much care if 99.7% of people say otherwise. Science is base on fact, not popularity. A popular vote for something wrong just means a lot of people are wrong. If someone wants to prove these doctors are wrong then all it takes is one person with better facts.
Compare that to the CO2 emissions from here: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... While the source you gave shows more CO2 from nuclear then from Dr. Malhotra it still shows nuclear power having lower CO2 emissions than hydro and solar, about on par with biomass, and less than double that of the very low CO2 from wind. Dr. Malhotra shows data with nuclear lower than all the above but your source doesn't change the primary point I make, that nuclear power is a very low CO2 emitter and therefore it would be wise to make it part of the solution to lowering our carbon footprint.
I accept the facts you provided on CO2 emissions, despite your claim otherwise. I accept them wholeheartedly because they prove the very point I was making.
I'd address your sources' claims on the safety of nuclear power if they made any. All I got from them is that nuclear power has not been proven safe, which is very different than proving nuclear power unsafe. This is an obvious lie because safety studies have been done and Dr. Malhotra had cited them on his website, which is shown on the link I provided. Given that nuclear power has been shown to be quite safe, and again a very low CO2 emitter, then it would be wise to use as much of it as we can while continuing to develop solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever else shows to be promising.
To claim I refuse any facts given me first requires that someone provide facts. I cannot refuse what was not offered. I accept your data on CO2 because it shows nothing I didn't already know, that nuclear power has CO2 that is as low as any other energy source that has been called "zero carbon". Of course nuclear power is not truly zero carbon but then neither is solar or wind, I only claim that if "zero carbon" applies to solar then it also applies to nuclear.
Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED! Therefore I should never have to hear of global warming ever again. We solved all our global warming problems with natural gas and solar power.
One common joke about most any culture seems to be how much they drink alcohol. It doesn't necessarily have to be a nationality but that's a common delineation, it also works for distinctions along religious or cultural lines. Take your pick of some segment of the global population and you'll find a joke about how much they drink.
Here's one: Why should you invite two Baptists when going on a fishing trip? Because if you invite only one then he'll drink all your beer.
The truth is that humans drink a lot of alcohol, all over the world.
Get over your love of nuclear power. It is a shit bird. Leave solar be, it will save us.
That's good to hear. So, now everyone will shut up about global warming then? If solar will save us then the problem is solved. Yep, all problems on global warming are solved. The debate is over. No need to bring up global warming again. I will never ever have to hear about global warming again, because solar power has solved the problem.
Everyone hear that? We've solved the global warming problem. So, don't bring it up ever again.
If someone does bring it up again then I will bring up nuclear power again, because that must mean the problem has not in fact been solved and therefore we should consider solutions other than solar power.
But I won't have to bring up nuclear power ever again because we've solved the problem. Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED!!
Solar is in the news a lot because it's easy to implement on a personal scale.
Maybe I'm nit picking here but this is not the kind of solar that can be implemented on a personal scale. This new material is only helpful on solar thermal systems, and not the kind used for household water heaters either.
I think that you'll see a lot more articles over the next 5 to 10 years concerning the development of tidal and wave powered generators. These would be particularly beneficial in North-East US/Canada where NIMBY is stalling the installation/expansion of offshore wind farms.
Tidal and wave power have problems with silt in the water causing incredible wear on systems. If it's not the technical problems that sink tidal and wave power then it will be a different kind of NIMBY that don't want to see fish habitats getting disturbed or something.
Another thing is that if global warming is a problem that needs a solution RIGHT NOW then we need nuclear power. Tidal, wave, solar, and whatever else they are working on, won't come to market for at least a decade. If we start building nuclear power plants today then they can come online before they finish any tidal power project. There are are at least a dozen nuclear power license applications the NRC is sitting on right now, if they pulled their thumbs from their asses and issued the permits then we'd see nuclear power come online faster than any tidal project could.
If we can wait for this new solar power technology to save us all then global warming must not be all that pressing of a problem. If it is a problem that needs to be solved RIGHT NOW then build some nuclear power plants already.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population. If that's the bar to clear to claim tribal ancestry then it means she's not even close to being unique in her claims.
All Warren produced was a DNA test with inconclusive results, based on DNA from south american DNA samples. If she has a native american ancestor then it is not Cherokee as she claimed. She opened the door to ridicule with her claims in the first place, she could have dropped it and people likely would have forgotten about it in time. She proved her own lie with her DNA test, and now it will not go away.
With this stuff you could make a really hot solar oven.
But what are you going to cook in it?
Carbon dioxide. It says so in the article.
My guess though is that they'll "cook" salts, melt some salts to the point they flow like water and they make very nice heat transfer materials for running brayton cycle turbines. These turbines can react quickly to changing power output demands, are quite small for the power output compared to other heat engines, and the salt works well for thermal storage over many hours if kept in a proper storage tank. All good stuff for replacing natural gas and oil to make electricity.
Another application I can think of is to make hydrogen from the water for synthesizing fuels and fertilizers, as well as make some desalinated water as a byproduct for use in municipal water supplies.
Also in the article is the potential use in making better natural gas and nuclear power plants. This is good stuff for energy production, finding something to "cook" is the least of the problems.
One problem here is that both natural gas and nuclear plants also rely on heat exchangers, and there's no reason this material can't be used to boost their efficiency, too.
I don't see a problem here.
In fact such materials with such varied uses should be seen as a very good thing. Right now solar is the new pink... or something. Solar is fashionable. Solar power is getting a lot of backing right now from government funding, private funding, and just general popularity. With that there is leverage to divert some of that funding to this materials research. If they can get the people in natural gas and nuclear convinced it will help them too then they can secure more funding.
Solar power is expensive, they admit this in the article. Solar power is intermittent, again they admit this in the article. Solar power takes a lot of land and other resources. Solar also requires a favorable geography and climate to compete. These do not apply to nuclear and natural gas. I thought the goal was to find viable alternatives to coal power to improve air quality, provide reliable energy, and reduce CO2. The goal should not be making solar power viable, since there are other means to replace coal.
They've taken their eyes off the prize. This should not be about making solar power the winner, it should be about making coal the loser. The fashion might be solar right now but I'm guessing that the future of solar won't be so bright as technology advances. This is one example of a technology that might actually kill solar competitiveness. Should this technology prove workable then it will be applied everywhere it can, and that might not help solar power in the long run.
If you want to make a useful gun (i.e. capable of hitting a target you aim at), you want a rifled barrel. Otherwise the bullet will tumble and go off in random directions.
If your goal is to cause death and panic in a large crowd then I can imagine such loss of accuracy is tolerable. This would be especially true if it means lowering the chances of being caught. Another reason one might not be concerned about accuracy is if the target is so close that there is no possibility of missing. If you are having a gunfight in an elevator then the lack of rifling on the barrel of your pistol is not going to matter.
And the mill you want to use probably weighs 1-2 tons, runs on 3-phase power, and costs thousands of dollars used. Maybe a skilled gunsmith can use a 150 pound machine tool to make a useful firearm, but I wouldn't be able to.
That might be true if your concern is mass production. For someone that just wants to make one rifle, to perhaps a dozen or so, for the purposes of keeping things on the down low then a 150 pound mill will do fine. It will certainly take more time and patience but I'm not sure it would necessarily take any more skill.
Even so, let's assume someone wants to take it up a notch or two. There's still some very nice milling machines that are new for under $3000 that are very capable, with used mills bringing prices down or capability up. A split phase 240 volt circuit that would be common in garages and sheds for things like hobby welders, EV chargers, or other such things, could get someone a 5 HP motor on the mill easily. Getting even a 15HP mill would not be all that out of the ordinary for a serious hobbyist or light industrial shop, and still not need 3 phase service. This would be not much larger than what I described before, about the size of a kitchen refrigerator. It might be far heavier but still in the range that it could be moved by a common pickup truck and a few strong guys to lift into place. Even if this is heavier than what a bunch of guys can lift off a truck there's options. People move heavy stuff all the time, renting a tractor or forklift for moving a mill off a truck and into a workshop won't be too difficult or raise suspicions.
There's enough of these mills floating about that they can be picked up relatively cheaply, that owning one is not going to be all that suspicious, and not need crazy wiring or make crazy noise to operate.
Finally, the one thing you CAN do is find out what brand of gun was likely the firing weapon. Different brands of guns use different numbers of lands and grooves, with different chirality, and different twists. If you can match those, you can (maybe) ID a brand... but not a specific gun.
Isn't that what I said? I'm pretty sure that's what I said. You'll get at best a make and model, not a specific firearm, but even that much information can say a lot if there's some other information to go with it.
Too bad that the program didn't fly, makes perfect sense to address illegal firearms possession. Anyone know why it faded out?
I remember hearing about this program too, but in Virginia instead of New York. What ended the program, again as I recall, was three things.
First was that this was a federal program to prosecute criminals for felon in possession and similar federal crimes and so the local governments saw this as federal over reach on local matters. Even though the program was successful the local government was seeing their authority to police their jurisdiction as they wished being diluted. The early success was celebrated but in time this became unpopular and the federal government was pressured to stop.
Second, the state laws changed on concealed carry. Even though this was a state law and did nothing on catching criminals violating federal law, what did happen was that the law abiding citizen was more likely to be armed. Prior to this change in 1990 or so the state allowed sheriffs to "may issue", meaning the sheriff could deny a permit for any reason or no reason at all. After the change the state had licenses to carry a concealed weapon as "shall issue", which is much like getting a driver license, if you pass all the checks along the way they had to issue a license. Criminals discovered that they could not go about their criminal ways so easily any more as it could mean getting shot by a law abiding citizen.
Third, and this is an almost funny part, the criminals simply stopped carrying guns. This didn't mean they stopped stealing, raping, and dealing drugs, it just meant they strong armed people or carried some other weapons. They learned that carrying a firearm was the fast track to a federal court that held no mercy, so they stopped carrying firearms so they'd be put in the state system that had overcrowded prisons, overworked parole officers, and therefore lenient sentences and little oversight upon release.
The program was tried out in Virginia because the proximity to DC meant that a lot of federal employees were seeing the effects of this crime where they lived. It worked to take things down a notch but the reasons I gave meant it was temporary and as far as I know only tried in a couple other places, at least as a federal program. States and cities tried similar tactics and they worked well as long as they were swift and fierce on punishment. If they got "squishy" on enforcement, because of rising costs and/or loss of public support, then it meant the crime just went back up again.
Um, okay. Let's go with this and see where it takes us.
Some may not realize they're not allowed to own a gun. They get tagged with some felony, ten or twenty years go by, the neighborhood they live in goes bad, so they decide to buy a gun. The background check catches this case.
How would there be any ambiguity on this? Did the person happen to forget the 12 months minimum they spent in prison?
I have an idea on how to clear this up, anyone declared unfit to own a firearm should be held in a prison or other confinement. This is what is going to have to happen at some point if the threats of 3D printed firearms come true. Anyone with enough resources to obtain a big screen TV will be able to obtain a machine capable of producing multiple firearms. If you want to keep such people from getting a firearm then keep them confined.
I used to think this idea of having a list of "prohibited persons" was a good idea, now it seems rather silly. It's not like people need a gun to do harm to another. This is especially true if the criminal never used a firearm in the first place to get on this list. We'll let a known arsonist buy gasoline and matches but not buy a gun, where's the logic in that?
Some may know they can't own a gun, but are too lazy to find/use a black market connection. So they go to the gun store and hope their name was left off the list. The background check catches this case.
Um, so we have background checks to catch the stupid criminals? We inconvenience millions of law abiding citizens, create piles of paperwork, create large federal agencies to make sure everyone's "papers are in order", only to catch a handful of idiots? How about we just let them buy the gun because the next thing such an idiot would do is hold up a donut shop while a dozen cops are getting coffee.
Yeah, nobody likes waiting in line at the DMV to re-up on their license, license plate, etc. It doesn't mean we should hand out licenses to anybody who shows up at the counter.
I don't like the idea of being assumed to be a criminal for wanting to buy a rifle and having to prove my innocence to the government before the store is allowed to sell it to me. If you want to keep criminals from getting guns then keep the criminals in prison once they are caught. If the person is deemed suited for return to society after their "time out" in prison then let them buy a gun too. Again, we'll let a known arsonist buy gasoline and matches but not buy a gun as the laws are written today. There's no logic in these gun laws, so get rid of them. If we don't simply get rid of them then there will be a time in the not too distant future where such laws are rendered pointless by technology.
Two pieces of pipe and a nail and you can create a shotgun that can cut anyone in half.
Or blow a hole through "bullet proof" glass.
Most windows at banks and drug stores will be rated to hold up to handguns and small rifles. A 12 gauge slug carries a lot of energy in a small enough area to punch a hole in such glass. There's enough YouTube videos on this to prove it to yourself. Depending on the armored car or such they might be rated to take a.50 BMG and therefore shrug off a shot from a 12 gauge.
A quick look online tells me a mill capable of producing firearm parts would weigh about 150 pounds, and not be much bigger than a common kitchen stove, dishwasher, or perhaps refrigerator. Even if I'm off a bit on the size and weight there's plenty of very capable mills small and light enough that someone with a pickup truck and 3 or 4 guys can move with little difficulty.
make a lot of noise,
Not really. I've seen them in operation and they don't make much more noise than other typical household appliances. Cheap dishwashers make more noise.
and can be difficult to purchase in person using cash without looking suspicious.
I don't know about that. Depending on the neighborhood there can be lots of people that buy $1000 products with cash, and perhaps much more than $1000. It might raise suspicions but it can be easily dismissed with a comment on being paid for a job with cash and a desire to come home with a new tool instead of making the trip to a bank. This would be especially less suspicious if buying used, where the sale is "as is" and no warranty would be assumed. People like to buy new with a credit card or check as it leaves a paper trail to verify date of purchase and such to make such claims, if there is no warranty then such desires go out the window.
I've seen "grey market" home improvement projects done where the people involved want to avoid the hassle of permits for putting in kitchen cabinets or something equally trivial. By paying for the work in cash there's the "discount" of keeping everything off the books and no tax man needs to know anything. This is further kept off the books with a tool coming home instead of an unexplained deposit in a bank account. A mill has lots of uses and so buying one would raise no more suspicions than purchasing a table saw or dust collector with cash. The people selling the tools know the deal here and they will over time see enough of this happening that they will know that things might not always be totally kosher on where the money came from but there's not going to be enough to make a big deal out of it.
Also, what makes you think they even care if it is rifled?
I'm pretty sure the lack of rifling is a feature, not a bug. Different manufacturers use different kinds of rifling, so if the projectile survives impact well enough that the rifling is even partially intact then the investigators can track things back to certain makes and models. Having a complete lack of rifling means leaving less evidence to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
I found the article you (very likely) referred to:
https://daringfireball.net/lin...
This is an interesting theory/rumor. There's no way to verify this without someone in Apple speaking out, and that's not likely to happen until USB-C is well adopted. As well adopted it is on cell phones that doesn't mean it can't be abandoned on a whim, it's still fighting for space on desktop computers and even on laptops where adoption is gaining some traction.
I like USB-C very much, it's a large improvement over other ports in this space. One thing that bothers me, and this it mostly an implementation issue than anything, is that I can't just connect two computers by USB-C and expect them to talk to each other. I could do this with Thunderbolt and FireWire. Doing this with Ethernet and serial needed only a crossover cable, at least in early implementations, later Ethernet and serial didn't require even that. Apple supported this kind of networking or master/slave system (depending on the setup or other specifics) going way back, going back to LocalTalk or even earlier. Windows even supported networking on FireWire and other cables. This is not supported on the non-Thunderbolt USB-C computers, and no Windows computer I have seen support such a connection. This is a very non-Apple non-feature. I would like to see this fixed in the future, but again it's largely an implementation issue than a problem with the spec itself as demonstrated by Apple allowing such with their USB-C ThunderBolt systems.
If it has a standard USB on one end, it doesnt need a special apple-only connector on the other end.
Yes it does, if the USB connectors are feature and power limited pieces of shit. I believe that too many people forget what problems Lightning was built to solve.
First came FireWire. Well, maybe I'm digging too far back in time but it seems too few even know what life was like before USB owned everything.
Then came the 30 pin connector. This allowed for not just charging and data like USB but also video and audio. This was not something USB could do, at least not until we had MHL on USB, and other extensions to USB.
Lightning pared down the number of pins from the 30 pin connector by doing away with features no longer in common use, like FireWire and component video. Until last year USB-C didn't even have a standard means to support audio accessories. Until USB-C there was no common port that both supported more than 5 watts of power and fit to the ever slimmer electronics.
It wasn't until last year that USB-C could do everything that Lightning offered years earlier, now that we are finally seeing USB catch up with the Apple designed connectors Apple is adopting USB-C.
What I believe people forget is that USB-C was only published 4 years ago. Maybe with people buying a new phone every year this might seem like a long time ago but there's a lot of hardware out there older than 4 years. If you have a USB-C device that's 2 years old then it is unlikely to support audio out like new USB-C devices. This means to get audio you need a cable that's "USB on one end, stupid on the other".
Here's something comical that I expect to see soon, USB-C to USB-C adapters that support some feature on one end and another on the other end. Expect USB-C with USB 2.0 on one side and USB-C with audio on the other. Or, a USB-C cable with DisplayPort on one end and HDMI on the other. Maybe a USB-C Thunderbolt to USB-C USB 3.2 cable.
USB-C is great so long as the port supports what you expect it to. There are so many optional features to USB-C that people are already tripping over cables and ports not doing what they wanted or expected. It will get worse before it gets better.
I see a lot of anger in the comments so far directed towards the police, not just the officers in this swat incident but generally. Well, think of this the next time there's another call to hand over all our guns to the government because, "you can just call the police". Well, someone did call the police and, if the comments here are to be believed, the police are incompetent, bloodthirsty, both, or worse.
Is it too much to ask for both that we don't rely on the police for everything and when they do come that they are competent, intelligent, and well trained? Remember that the police come from the public. If the police officers never saw a gun until they arrive at the academy then they are going to be poorly trained on the proper use of a firearm. We cannot put the gun genie back in the bottle. Guns exist and the world is better for it.
Let's not forget that, again according to comments here, there is an orangutan in the Oval Office tossing feces all over Twitter. You want him to have all the guns? Remember folks, don't create a government that you are not willing to give to your opposition because your friends might not always be in charge.
Now, return to your cop bashing.
I'm all for the government having their warrantless search powers scaled back but I also don't want to live in a world where the police hesitate on responding to a 911 call for help because of getting too many prank calls. This is the old "cry wolf" parable on a modern world. The police had cause to come to the house, they had a call for help and the caller provided an address. This is in effect their warrant.
You need to pick your battles better, this is not one which will gain much traction in painting the police as the "bad guy". This is all on the prank caller and I believe he deserves any punishment he gets, up to life in prison. He knew what he was doing, that it could result in people getting killed, did so repeatedly, and did so on the whim of a few bucks tossed his way.
Any issues of warrantless searches have nothing to do with this case.
Personally, I am glad the EU is looking at mandating connectors. USB-C is clearly the best for most applications.
Government mandates are fine when they choose wisely, the problem is that such wise choices are the exception rather than the rule.
I'd rather see the competing vendors in a given product space get together on certain standards without being coerced to do so by some government. Those of us in the USA might see the best of both worlds when China or EU mandate such standards since we see the products show up here with the low prices and such that comes with such mandates overseas but also the benefit of a vendor or group of vendors creating something better and being able to bring it to market here.
USB-C might be fine now but there will inevitably come a time when it's not. These mandates are fine so long as they allow for an "out" without requiring some lengthy and expensive process to be rid of the mandate. Again, such wisdom from government is rare. This worked well this time but I'd rather not see the government dictating which technology I am allowed to use for any given application.
With so many accessories using lightning port, it would seem more logical to add a USB C port then replace the lightning port.
Can you name a Lightning port accessory that does not already have a "made for mac" equivalent? USB-C has been the only port on Apple laptops for some time now and this has led to the creation of a large number of accessories for them, many made by Apple itself. The only thing I can think of that Apple does not make both a USB-C and Lightning version of a dongle is the audio adapter, and that's easily rectified with introducing such a dongle. This would likely be the last straw on having a 1/8" headphone port on laptops.
Personally I would want mouse support so more apps can become more like their desktop counterparts. Otherwise I would buy a Surface Pro which supports full blown apps and mouse input or other input devices. If your going to call something "pro" Apple. It has to do a lot more then it does.
If you want a laptop with a touch screen then buy one of those. If you want a tablet computer then get one of those. I don't see how the Surface Pro is superior than the Apple since it also lacks both a Lightning port and USB-C.
You should probably talk to a physician about that, not post it on a technology blog.
This is about Apple finally backing down from its proprietary connector and going with the same connector as everybody else.
With the exception of cell phones the adoption of USB-C has been very slow. Only when Apple started putting it on their laptops did it become anything "everybody else" bothered to offer.
But I bet they will find a way to still be incompatible, this is Apple we're talking about.
I'm sure a lot of people will complain about Apple being "incompatible" but it won't be Apple's fault.
There's plenty of articles and videos floating about on how the different USB-C audio accessories are incompatible with different devices. This is the fault of the USB group defining at least two different ways to get audio out of a USB port.
What a lot of the early and most compatible USB-C audio devices did was put a USB 2.0 to audio chip in a small dongle, or in the connector of the headphones. If the tablet or phone supported USB audio devices (and most did) then they worked fine. This cost a few pennies more than just running wires from the on board DAC used for the internal speaker and so people tried different ways to run that to the USB-C connector. If they did this before the audio accessory alternate mode was added to the USB-C spec then they likely didn't work except on the specific device it was designed to support. Even now the audio accessory mode isn't widely supported, with some device makers saving pennies on their devices by not even bothering to support this mode and relying on software, and an external DAC, for audio output beyond the internal speaker.
People complain about Apple being "incompatible" all the time. Well, if this bothers you then don't buy their products. Complaining about this all the time is like some NPC talking all the time on how they don't own a TV, eat only vegan, or take public transportation everywhere they go. USB-C just last year offered all the features that Lightning did in 2012 so it seems Apple finds this is a good time to drop the Lightning connector. With one of the largest companies in the world now supporting the USB-C spec on their tablet computers I can expect these complaints of incompatibilities to fade, because if it doesn't work with Apple then it won't sell well.
Apple only follows the herd? How quickly people forget their history.
The Lightning port came out in 2012 and USB-C was published in 2014 but products didn't appear until at least a year later. Lightning supported more than 5 watts charging, audio, video, and USB data when everyone else was still stuck with the micro USB-B port. Some devices supported MHL output with the micro-B port but this was far from universal.
USB-C didn't offer video at first, that was added later as an alternate mode. Audio accessories from USB-C didn't happen until just last year with some aborted attempts at vendor specific audio devices before that. Because of this USB-C audio will be a mess until enough of the old incompatible devices get tossed so that people can enjoy a truly "universal" experience from the Universal Serial Bus.
If Apple adopts USB-C (which is just a rumor now) then it will be because USB-C finally caught up with what Lightning offered in 2012. USB-C copied the Lightning port features, often poorly at first, and just now surpassed the Lightning in features.
After tearing USB down I will prop it up. USB had enough foresight to allow for extensions to the USB-C feature set to avoid some of the problems with their previous connectors. The alternate mode concept allowed for the use of the port for ThunderBolt, DisplayPort, MHL, and most recently audio accessories, without violating the specification. MHL on USB was a neat hack, but it was a hack. People using USB for power was another hack that the USB group embraced and allowed for standardized and simplified means to draw power later on. I fully expected Apple to leapfrog USB-C with another connector after Lightning, replacing Lightning with something even better than USB-C. I guess Apple found the need to do so unnecessary given that USB-C is now established far more than the many USB-B variants ever were.
Apple hasn't followed the herd, they adopt the fringes and make them the standard. USB-A was a fringe port until Apple adopted it. USB-C was little more than another USB-B variant until Apple put it on their laptops and took advantage of the higher power and alternate modes the new connector offered. After that the herd followed them. Assuming Apple adopts USB-C on their tablets then I expect the "herd" to follow them and adopt the USB-C spec more closely so that audio devices work on Apple just as well as it does on other devices that follow the spec.
Synthetic hydrocarbons are only a good idea if source-to-wheel energy conversion is better battery powered EVs. Right now, things aren't looking too good.
That depends on how you define "better". Synthetic hydrocarbons are already better than plug in electric vehicles because it means no new vehicles, high energy density, existing infrastructure for storage and delivery to end consumers, fast refuel times, and the technology exists today. You can claim that it's not looking good for synthesized hydrocarbons fuels but there's a lot of people that disagree, and I'm among them.
Efficiency of photosynthesis is low.
I suggest that instead of just pointing out why you think something won't work that you also provide an alternative.
Trees will eventually decompose.
Yes, they do compose. In between the time the trees die and when they decompose they are storing carbon. Dr. Patrick Moore says growing trees is a very good idea on storing carbon. Dr. Moore has degrees in biology and ecology so I'm going to believe him over some random person posting something on the internet.
We don't have sufficient areas with good growing conditions for trees.
Dr. Moore disagrees. Do you have a better idea? I heard from another person with a PhD that suggests mining basalt and using it as fertilizer as a means to sequester CO2, Dr. Darryl Seimer. Basalt contains lime and when exposed to the air it turns to limestone. Farmers use a lot of lime in their fields to control pH but the most common sources involve producing a lot of CO2. There isn't a lot of basalt mined for lime because it is a very hard rock, but if we can make it economic to mine then that can remove a lot of CO2 from the air.
Oh, and both Dr. Moore and Dr. Seimer believe we need to use nuclear power to stop producing so much CO2. I will take the word from these people that are highly knowledgeable on the topic over so many more that believe we can solve this problem without nuclear power. Science is not something decided by a vote so I don't much care if 99.7% of people say otherwise. Science is base on fact, not popularity. A popular vote for something wrong just means a lot of people are wrong. If someone wants to prove these doctors are wrong then all it takes is one person with better facts.
From your source I find this:
Under the current conditions the specific CO2 emission of nuclear power is roughly 80-130 gram CO2/kWh.
https://www.stormsmith.nl/i05....
Compare that to the CO2 emissions from here: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
While the source you gave shows more CO2 from nuclear then from Dr. Malhotra it still shows nuclear power having lower CO2 emissions than hydro and solar, about on par with biomass, and less than double that of the very low CO2 from wind. Dr. Malhotra shows data with nuclear lower than all the above but your source doesn't change the primary point I make, that nuclear power is a very low CO2 emitter and therefore it would be wise to make it part of the solution to lowering our carbon footprint.
I accept the facts you provided on CO2 emissions, despite your claim otherwise. I accept them wholeheartedly because they prove the very point I was making.
I'd address your sources' claims on the safety of nuclear power if they made any. All I got from them is that nuclear power has not been proven safe, which is very different than proving nuclear power unsafe. This is an obvious lie because safety studies have been done and Dr. Malhotra had cited them on his website, which is shown on the link I provided. Given that nuclear power has been shown to be quite safe, and again a very low CO2 emitter, then it would be wise to use as much of it as we can while continuing to develop solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever else shows to be promising.
To claim I refuse any facts given me first requires that someone provide facts. I cannot refuse what was not offered. I accept your data on CO2 because it shows nothing I didn't already know, that nuclear power has CO2 that is as low as any other energy source that has been called "zero carbon". Of course nuclear power is not truly zero carbon but then neither is solar or wind, I only claim that if "zero carbon" applies to solar then it also applies to nuclear.
Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED! Therefore I should never have to hear of global warming ever again. We solved all our global warming problems with natural gas and solar power.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
They drink. A lot.
One common joke about most any culture seems to be how much they drink alcohol. It doesn't necessarily have to be a nationality but that's a common delineation, it also works for distinctions along religious or cultural lines. Take your pick of some segment of the global population and you'll find a joke about how much they drink.
Here's one:
Why should you invite two Baptists when going on a fishing trip? Because if you invite only one then he'll drink all your beer.
The truth is that humans drink a lot of alcohol, all over the world.
Get over your love of nuclear power. It is a shit bird. Leave solar be, it will save us.
That's good to hear. So, now everyone will shut up about global warming then? If solar will save us then the problem is solved. Yep, all problems on global warming are solved. The debate is over. No need to bring up global warming again. I will never ever have to hear about global warming again, because solar power has solved the problem.
Everyone hear that? We've solved the global warming problem. So, don't bring it up ever again.
If someone does bring it up again then I will bring up nuclear power again, because that must mean the problem has not in fact been solved and therefore we should consider solutions other than solar power.
But I won't have to bring up nuclear power ever again because we've solved the problem. Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED!!
Solar is in the news a lot because it's easy to implement on a personal scale.
Maybe I'm nit picking here but this is not the kind of solar that can be implemented on a personal scale. This new material is only helpful on solar thermal systems, and not the kind used for household water heaters either.
I think that you'll see a lot more articles over the next 5 to 10 years concerning the development of tidal and wave powered generators. These would be particularly beneficial in North-East US/Canada where NIMBY is stalling the installation/expansion of offshore wind farms.
Tidal and wave power have problems with silt in the water causing incredible wear on systems. If it's not the technical problems that sink tidal and wave power then it will be a different kind of NIMBY that don't want to see fish habitats getting disturbed or something.
Another thing is that if global warming is a problem that needs a solution RIGHT NOW then we need nuclear power. Tidal, wave, solar, and whatever else they are working on, won't come to market for at least a decade. If we start building nuclear power plants today then they can come online before they finish any tidal power project. There are are at least a dozen nuclear power license applications the NRC is sitting on right now, if they pulled their thumbs from their asses and issued the permits then we'd see nuclear power come online faster than any tidal project could.
If we can wait for this new solar power technology to save us all then global warming must not be all that pressing of a problem. If it is a problem that needs to be solved RIGHT NOW then build some nuclear power plants already.
If 1/1024th ancestry makes Warren a native american then so is roughly half of the USA population. If that's the bar to clear to claim tribal ancestry then it means she's not even close to being unique in her claims.
All Warren produced was a DNA test with inconclusive results, based on DNA from south american DNA samples. If she has a native american ancestor then it is not Cherokee as she claimed. She opened the door to ridicule with her claims in the first place, she could have dropped it and people likely would have forgotten about it in time. She proved her own lie with her DNA test, and now it will not go away.
With this stuff you could make a really hot solar oven.
But what are you going to cook in it?
Carbon dioxide. It says so in the article.
My guess though is that they'll "cook" salts, melt some salts to the point they flow like water and they make very nice heat transfer materials for running brayton cycle turbines. These turbines can react quickly to changing power output demands, are quite small for the power output compared to other heat engines, and the salt works well for thermal storage over many hours if kept in a proper storage tank. All good stuff for replacing natural gas and oil to make electricity.
Another application I can think of is to make hydrogen from the water for synthesizing fuels and fertilizers, as well as make some desalinated water as a byproduct for use in municipal water supplies.
Also in the article is the potential use in making better natural gas and nuclear power plants. This is good stuff for energy production, finding something to "cook" is the least of the problems.
One problem here is that both natural gas and nuclear plants also rely on heat exchangers, and there's no reason this material can't be used to boost their efficiency, too.
I don't see a problem here.
In fact such materials with such varied uses should be seen as a very good thing. Right now solar is the new pink... or something. Solar is fashionable. Solar power is getting a lot of backing right now from government funding, private funding, and just general popularity. With that there is leverage to divert some of that funding to this materials research. If they can get the people in natural gas and nuclear convinced it will help them too then they can secure more funding.
Solar power is expensive, they admit this in the article. Solar power is intermittent, again they admit this in the article. Solar power takes a lot of land and other resources. Solar also requires a favorable geography and climate to compete. These do not apply to nuclear and natural gas. I thought the goal was to find viable alternatives to coal power to improve air quality, provide reliable energy, and reduce CO2. The goal should not be making solar power viable, since there are other means to replace coal.
They've taken their eyes off the prize. This should not be about making solar power the winner, it should be about making coal the loser. The fashion might be solar right now but I'm guessing that the future of solar won't be so bright as technology advances. This is one example of a technology that might actually kill solar competitiveness. Should this technology prove workable then it will be applied everywhere it can, and that might not help solar power in the long run.
If you want to make a useful gun (i.e. capable of hitting a target you aim at), you want a rifled barrel. Otherwise the bullet will tumble and go off in random directions.
If your goal is to cause death and panic in a large crowd then I can imagine such loss of accuracy is tolerable. This would be especially true if it means lowering the chances of being caught. Another reason one might not be concerned about accuracy is if the target is so close that there is no possibility of missing. If you are having a gunfight in an elevator then the lack of rifling on the barrel of your pistol is not going to matter.
And the mill you want to use probably weighs 1-2 tons, runs on 3-phase power, and costs thousands of dollars used. Maybe a skilled gunsmith can use a 150 pound machine tool to make a useful firearm, but I wouldn't be able to.
That might be true if your concern is mass production. For someone that just wants to make one rifle, to perhaps a dozen or so, for the purposes of keeping things on the down low then a 150 pound mill will do fine. It will certainly take more time and patience but I'm not sure it would necessarily take any more skill.
Even so, let's assume someone wants to take it up a notch or two. There's still some very nice milling machines that are new for under $3000 that are very capable, with used mills bringing prices down or capability up. A split phase 240 volt circuit that would be common in garages and sheds for things like hobby welders, EV chargers, or other such things, could get someone a 5 HP motor on the mill easily. Getting even a 15HP mill would not be all that out of the ordinary for a serious hobbyist or light industrial shop, and still not need 3 phase service. This would be not much larger than what I described before, about the size of a kitchen refrigerator. It might be far heavier but still in the range that it could be moved by a common pickup truck and a few strong guys to lift into place. Even if this is heavier than what a bunch of guys can lift off a truck there's options. People move heavy stuff all the time, renting a tractor or forklift for moving a mill off a truck and into a workshop won't be too difficult or raise suspicions.
There's enough of these mills floating about that they can be picked up relatively cheaply, that owning one is not going to be all that suspicious, and not need crazy wiring or make crazy noise to operate.
Finally, the one thing you CAN do is find out what brand of gun was likely the firing weapon. Different brands of guns use different numbers of lands and grooves, with different chirality, and different twists. If you can match those, you can (maybe) ID a brand... but not a specific gun.
Isn't that what I said? I'm pretty sure that's what I said. You'll get at best a make and model, not a specific firearm, but even that much information can say a lot if there's some other information to go with it.
Too bad that the program didn't fly, makes perfect sense to address illegal firearms possession. Anyone know why it faded out?
I remember hearing about this program too, but in Virginia instead of New York. What ended the program, again as I recall, was three things.
First was that this was a federal program to prosecute criminals for felon in possession and similar federal crimes and so the local governments saw this as federal over reach on local matters. Even though the program was successful the local government was seeing their authority to police their jurisdiction as they wished being diluted. The early success was celebrated but in time this became unpopular and the federal government was pressured to stop.
Second, the state laws changed on concealed carry. Even though this was a state law and did nothing on catching criminals violating federal law, what did happen was that the law abiding citizen was more likely to be armed. Prior to this change in 1990 or so the state allowed sheriffs to "may issue", meaning the sheriff could deny a permit for any reason or no reason at all. After the change the state had licenses to carry a concealed weapon as "shall issue", which is much like getting a driver license, if you pass all the checks along the way they had to issue a license. Criminals discovered that they could not go about their criminal ways so easily any more as it could mean getting shot by a law abiding citizen.
Third, and this is an almost funny part, the criminals simply stopped carrying guns. This didn't mean they stopped stealing, raping, and dealing drugs, it just meant they strong armed people or carried some other weapons. They learned that carrying a firearm was the fast track to a federal court that held no mercy, so they stopped carrying firearms so they'd be put in the state system that had overcrowded prisons, overworked parole officers, and therefore lenient sentences and little oversight upon release.
The program was tried out in Virginia because the proximity to DC meant that a lot of federal employees were seeing the effects of this crime where they lived. It worked to take things down a notch but the reasons I gave meant it was temporary and as far as I know only tried in a couple other places, at least as a federal program. States and cities tried similar tactics and they worked well as long as they were swift and fierce on punishment. If they got "squishy" on enforcement, because of rising costs and/or loss of public support, then it meant the crime just went back up again.
Yes, but not all criminals are the same.
Um, okay. Let's go with this and see where it takes us.
Some may not realize they're not allowed to own a gun. They get tagged with some felony, ten or twenty years go by, the neighborhood they live in goes bad, so they decide to buy a gun. The background check catches this case.
How would there be any ambiguity on this? Did the person happen to forget the 12 months minimum they spent in prison?
I have an idea on how to clear this up, anyone declared unfit to own a firearm should be held in a prison or other confinement. This is what is going to have to happen at some point if the threats of 3D printed firearms come true. Anyone with enough resources to obtain a big screen TV will be able to obtain a machine capable of producing multiple firearms. If you want to keep such people from getting a firearm then keep them confined.
I used to think this idea of having a list of "prohibited persons" was a good idea, now it seems rather silly. It's not like people need a gun to do harm to another. This is especially true if the criminal never used a firearm in the first place to get on this list. We'll let a known arsonist buy gasoline and matches but not buy a gun, where's the logic in that?
Some may know they can't own a gun, but are too lazy to find/use a black market connection. So they go to the gun store and hope their name was left off the list. The background check catches this case.
Um, so we have background checks to catch the stupid criminals? We inconvenience millions of law abiding citizens, create piles of paperwork, create large federal agencies to make sure everyone's "papers are in order", only to catch a handful of idiots? How about we just let them buy the gun because the next thing such an idiot would do is hold up a donut shop while a dozen cops are getting coffee.
Yeah, nobody likes waiting in line at the DMV to re-up on their license, license plate, etc.
It doesn't mean we should hand out licenses to anybody who shows up at the counter.
I don't like the idea of being assumed to be a criminal for wanting to buy a rifle and having to prove my innocence to the government before the store is allowed to sell it to me. If you want to keep criminals from getting guns then keep the criminals in prison once they are caught. If the person is deemed suited for return to society after their "time out" in prison then let them buy a gun too. Again, we'll let a known arsonist buy gasoline and matches but not buy a gun as the laws are written today. There's no logic in these gun laws, so get rid of them. If we don't simply get rid of them then there will be a time in the not too distant future where such laws are rendered pointless by technology.
Two pieces of pipe and a nail and you can create a shotgun that can cut anyone in half.
Or blow a hole through "bullet proof" glass.
Most windows at banks and drug stores will be rated to hold up to handguns and small rifles. A 12 gauge slug carries a lot of energy in a small enough area to punch a hole in such glass. There's enough YouTube videos on this to prove it to yourself. Depending on the armored car or such they might be rated to take a .50 BMG and therefore shrug off a shot from a 12 gauge.
Milling is fairly easy,
True.
and yet the machines are big,
A quick look online tells me a mill capable of producing firearm parts would weigh about 150 pounds, and not be much bigger than a common kitchen stove, dishwasher, or perhaps refrigerator. Even if I'm off a bit on the size and weight there's plenty of very capable mills small and light enough that someone with a pickup truck and 3 or 4 guys can move with little difficulty.
make a lot of noise,
Not really. I've seen them in operation and they don't make much more noise than other typical household appliances. Cheap dishwashers make more noise.
and can be difficult to purchase in person using cash without looking suspicious.
I don't know about that. Depending on the neighborhood there can be lots of people that buy $1000 products with cash, and perhaps much more than $1000. It might raise suspicions but it can be easily dismissed with a comment on being paid for a job with cash and a desire to come home with a new tool instead of making the trip to a bank. This would be especially less suspicious if buying used, where the sale is "as is" and no warranty would be assumed. People like to buy new with a credit card or check as it leaves a paper trail to verify date of purchase and such to make such claims, if there is no warranty then such desires go out the window.
I've seen "grey market" home improvement projects done where the people involved want to avoid the hassle of permits for putting in kitchen cabinets or something equally trivial. By paying for the work in cash there's the "discount" of keeping everything off the books and no tax man needs to know anything. This is further kept off the books with a tool coming home instead of an unexplained deposit in a bank account. A mill has lots of uses and so buying one would raise no more suspicions than purchasing a table saw or dust collector with cash. The people selling the tools know the deal here and they will over time see enough of this happening that they will know that things might not always be totally kosher on where the money came from but there's not going to be enough to make a big deal out of it.
Also, what makes you think they even care if it is rifled?
I'm pretty sure the lack of rifling is a feature, not a bug. Different manufacturers use different kinds of rifling, so if the projectile survives impact well enough that the rifling is even partially intact then the investigators can track things back to certain makes and models. Having a complete lack of rifling means leaving less evidence to work with.