When a group seeks to undermine your rights, it's not a big push all at once.
I don't see any rights being undermined here at all. I don't believe playing college football is a right, nor do I remember being able to collect scholarships being a right.
When someone starts actually infringing on non-imaginary rights, please call back and we can talk.
Again, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. If I thought you could reduce politics to simple geometry, your arguments would be persuasive, but I don't. We can leave it at that - it's something reasonable people can disagree about, I think.
I guess I'm not sure where the sarcasm is coming from. As I've said a couple of times, I'm not making any claims about this safety system in particular - it seems overcomplicated and roundabout - I'm just saying that some kind of biometric ID on a gun that would prevent it's firing from an unauthorized person in a transparent way is a nice thing to be able to have in a lot of cases. It'd sure make me feel better about home security if I didn't have to have the trigger lock on the shotgun - I always worry that I won't be able to remove fast when I need to.
So I guess it's not really that important then.
Enjoy collecting fat athletic scholarships and getting an easy ride through college? Don't post on Facebook, porblem sloved. This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is denying them the right to post pix of themselves drunk and shirtless on facebook, they're denying them the 'right' to a free ride through school, which - last time I checked - wasn't actually a right at all.
Probably because they want to wait for one that they think works well, rather than have someone tell them they have to use one of the available broken versions?
yeah, man, totally. Letting people work stuff out on their own has worked out pretty well in bastions of freedom such as Burma, Cambodia and North Korea. If those people really wanted to stop starving to death, they'd have done something about it, the lazy bums.
I agree that the idea of encrypted ammo seems to be sort of a round-about way of solving a problem. As I posted before, it seems like the appropriate place for safety measures of this type is in the gun itself. That said, perhaps you want to retrofit this sort of safety onto a gun you cannot modify for whatever reason.
That said, something of this sort - rfid, biometric, what have you - is far prefereable to a trigger lock or something. If I need a gun, I am likely to need it now, not in the 30 seconds it takes me to find the key and jigger the lock off. And of course, that goes double for police officers.
And of course, it has to be simple and reliable. While this particular application seems over-the-top, who knows how it'll actually pan out if/when production samples arrive.
So, either a lot of persons must have moderate opinions that move a little further towards the left in order to counter the advent of a few extremist right opinions or a few persons must adopt extremist left opinions - in order to maintain the general status quo of the balance of opinion.
I deny that in the case that someone adopts a position at X that I have to adopt the -X postition to somehow 'balance them out.' I believe that I will simply fix my position at what I actually believe in, say Y, and stay there.
If you're simply saying that as people try to shift public policy away from my position that I must try to assert my position more often and in more effective ways, then we agree. I'm only drawing the distinction because I've heard intelligent people contend that the best way to get what you want politically is to push for a position far in excess of what you actually want, on the assumption that you'll simply compromise away the excess that you don't want and be left with everything you actually wanted. And they always present the idea as though they had come up with the cleverest idea since remote control TVs.
They still have to empty the meters. People can still pay by coin in case they (gasp) don't have a cellphone.
it's pretty convenient if you remember that it rains pretty much all winter long in Vancouver and that you can get pretty wet standing there digging around for dimes as opposed to getting inside and then phoning in.
It's not a misnomer at all. It is more convenient for you and the city (or someone) has to pay more in credit card processing costs.
being able to put more time on your parking meter without running out to the curb in the rain sounds pretty fucking convenient to me. I pay a fee for convenience. Therefore it is a convenience fee. I don't see how this is confusing for anyone.
Well, clearly no one wants to use something that's broken. I know this thread is filled with people who are all convinced that this can't possibly work blah blah blah, but no one really knows for sure what the reliability or security will actually be.
That said, yes, police have been asking for a long time for guns that will only fire while the owner is holding them. A significant fraction of officer fatalities are due to being shot with their own guns.
I mean, not that I think this is the best solution to that problem - I tend to think that the technology should live in the gun, not the ammo. I'm just sayin' is all.
exactly. A 50-year old woman cannot be expected to "put up her dukes" and fight for her purse. She could, however, be expected to use a gun. Or pepper spray. Either is fine by me. But the idea that we should simply return to the 'good old days' where the weak must submit to the strong is pretty unattractive.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. I think the situation is more complex than a simple balancing act where in order to fight crazies you have to become crazy. I think you can simply stand by your beliefs, and do so in a reasonable, calm manner, and persevere.
oh no college athletes might not get to collect fat scholarships and post on facebook about how hammered they got last saturday? JESUS CHRIST, IT IS A GODDAMN TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!!!
ok, well, I guess I'll just continue to maintain my position that it's a -lot- worse. I don't see how asking kids to leave their goddamn cellphones at home for summer camp is asking too much. Frankly, it's probably good for them to ditch the phone at home for a few weeks.
I guess I'll just disagree with that. Public opinion is not a simple balance beam, and this notion that you must meet extreme with extreme simply creates an increasingly divisive political 'arms race.'
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any rights being undermined here at all. I don't believe playing college football is a right, nor do I remember being able to collect scholarships being a right.
When someone starts actually infringing on non-imaginary rights, please call back and we can talk.
Again, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. If I thought you could reduce politics to simple geometry, your arguments would be persuasive, but I don't. We can leave it at that - it's something reasonable people can disagree about, I think.
ok?
I guess I'm not sure where the sarcasm is coming from. As I've said a couple of times, I'm not making any claims about this safety system in particular - it seems overcomplicated and roundabout - I'm just saying that some kind of biometric ID on a gun that would prevent it's firing from an unauthorized person in a transparent way is a nice thing to be able to have in a lot of cases. It'd sure make me feel better about home security if I didn't have to have the trigger lock on the shotgun - I always worry that I won't be able to remove fast when I need to.
So I guess it's not really that important then. Enjoy collecting fat athletic scholarships and getting an easy ride through college? Don't post on Facebook, porblem sloved. This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is denying them the right to post pix of themselves drunk and shirtless on facebook, they're denying them the 'right' to a free ride through school, which - last time I checked - wasn't actually a right at all.
are you kidding me?
Probably because they want to wait for one that they think works well, rather than have someone tell them they have to use one of the available broken versions?
This sentence confuses me. Someone's gotta. Unless you're one of those "everything is ok depending on how you look at it" types.
yeah, man, totally. Letting people work stuff out on their own has worked out pretty well in bastions of freedom such as Burma, Cambodia and North Korea. If those people really wanted to stop starving to death, they'd have done something about it, the lazy bums.
Sure do. Dear Rest Of The World: SEND MORE DRUGS.
have a bitchin' summer!
Thanks for doing the security analysis for us. We appreciate your hard work and excellent documentation.
Your Pal,
Wen
That said, something of this sort - rfid, biometric, what have you - is far prefereable to a trigger lock or something. If I need a gun, I am likely to need it now, not in the 30 seconds it takes me to find the key and jigger the lock off. And of course, that goes double for police officers.
And of course, it has to be simple and reliable. While this particular application seems over-the-top, who knows how it'll actually pan out if/when production samples arrive.
The motorcyle people? I dunno, a friend of mine broke his ankle kick-starting one.
I deny that in the case that someone adopts a position at X that I have to adopt the -X postition to somehow 'balance them out.' I believe that I will simply fix my position at what I actually believe in, say Y, and stay there.
If you're simply saying that as people try to shift public policy away from my position that I must try to assert my position more often and in more effective ways, then we agree. I'm only drawing the distinction because I've heard intelligent people contend that the best way to get what you want politically is to push for a position far in excess of what you actually want, on the assumption that you'll simply compromise away the excess that you don't want and be left with everything you actually wanted. And they always present the idea as though they had come up with the cleverest idea since remote control TVs.
it's pretty convenient if you remember that it rains pretty much all winter long in Vancouver and that you can get pretty wet standing there digging around for dimes as opposed to getting inside and then phoning in.
It's not a misnomer at all. It is more convenient for you and the city (or someone) has to pay more in credit card processing costs.
What makes him an asshole? Because he took a job giving out tickets to people who knowingly break the law? How old are you, twelve?
being able to put more time on your parking meter without running out to the curb in the rain sounds pretty fucking convenient to me. I pay a fee for convenience. Therefore it is a convenience fee. I don't see how this is confusing for anyone.
Well, clearly no one wants to use something that's broken. I know this thread is filled with people who are all convinced that this can't possibly work blah blah blah, but no one really knows for sure what the reliability or security will actually be.
That said, yes, police have been asking for a long time for guns that will only fire while the owner is holding them. A significant fraction of officer fatalities are due to being shot with their own guns.
I mean, not that I think this is the best solution to that problem - I tend to think that the technology should live in the gun, not the ammo. I'm just sayin' is all.
exactly. A 50-year old woman cannot be expected to "put up her dukes" and fight for her purse. She could, however, be expected to use a gun. Or pepper spray. Either is fine by me. But the idea that we should simply return to the 'good old days' where the weak must submit to the strong is pretty unattractive.
Because you're a police officer or homeowner who would rather not be shot with his own gun.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. I think the situation is more complex than a simple balancing act where in order to fight crazies you have to become crazy. I think you can simply stand by your beliefs, and do so in a reasonable, calm manner, and persevere.
oh no college athletes might not get to collect fat scholarships and post on facebook about how hammered they got last saturday? JESUS CHRIST, IT IS A GODDAMN TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!!!
ok, well, I guess I'll just continue to maintain my position that it's a -lot- worse. I don't see how asking kids to leave their goddamn cellphones at home for summer camp is asking too much. Frankly, it's probably good for them to ditch the phone at home for a few weeks.
I guess I'll just disagree with that. Public opinion is not a simple balance beam, and this notion that you must meet extreme with extreme simply creates an increasingly divisive political 'arms race.'