Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?
BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!
I'm so glad you thought your argument through with such clarity.
So.. a slug would be better than buckshot because buckshot wouldn't spread enough to increase the chance of a hit? How much is that single slug spreading? You really think you've got a better chance of multiple lethal shots with it vs. #1 buck?
Hydrostatic shock only affects the (single, at most two from a slug) victim, so with even a reasonable spread, hydrostatic shock from buckshot will affect more people than from a slug.
From your description I'm guessing you have a Mossberg, probably a 12ga 500. A very capable gun and very scary in the hands of someone even moderately skilled in its use. You'll also realise that firing a bunch of slugs is going to take its toll on the shooter very quickly - the phrase I believe is "a shotgun kills on one end and wounds on the other". I'd favour #00 or #1 buckshot for maximum devastation in a crowded area with improved capacity for rapid fire, over slugs that make a big boom, tear a big hole in something, and give you a big thump in your shoulder for your troubles. Remember, the ballistic impact (that pesky half emm vee squared) depends on the mass of each projectile (approx 9.38 calibre pellets in #00 buck), not the total mass of the shot, but the recoil depends on the total mass.
Oh, and that more shallow penetration? The slug is gonna tear a big hole, for sure, but at close range it's going right through your target. Those little pellets of buckshot are gonna bounce around and cause massive trauma inside, that's if they don't also punch *multiple* holes through.
And one parting shot (ha!) - I'd take the extra round over the magnum shells, thanks, but to each his own - reloading a 7- or even 8-shell shotgun is no quick task.
You do know 322 is not a rate, right? Neither is 1,704. Taking population into account then, we have rates of 53 million/ 332 =~.6264 knife deaths per 100000 people for England (not the UK, just England), vs 314 million / 1704 =~.5426 deaths per 100000 people for the US.
That's right, you stand a higher chance of being killed in England with a knife than you do in the US.
The reason tickets aren't given out at 1km over the limit is because various factors (tyre pressure, weight of occupants, etc) can affect the accuracy of the speedometer. Also, in the US at least, speedometers can legally register high (tell you you're going 45 when you're only doing 40) but never low (tell you you're doing 35 when in fact you're going 40). This means a cop matching your speed can assume you are actually going less than the displayed speed, but not more. Thus, there is some flexibility above the speed limit.
And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?
Because in this case it delegates the responsibility of what is and what is not porn to the filter providers, instead of being a conversation between parents & children.
I know, I know.. I'm old-fashioned. Now get off my lawn etc.
Yes, gmail, search, G+, gtalk, and android are all free-as-in-beer. Some of them are also free-as-in-speech*. Well, unless you count ad-supported as NOT free.
* I have the source code for Android sitting here on my laptop. Didn't pay a brass razoo for it. Can modify and re-compile it 'til the cows come home. W00t openness!.
There are many reasons to hate Android, but lack of openness is not one of them.
Clearly it is possible even without expensive manufacturing techniques. A car in the US that gets maybe 20 mpg will get near 50mpg in Europe. The same car. I wonder how Ford et al can even stand with the balls they must have to claim such a feat is simply not possible (for technical _or_ financial reasons).
By dint of my state-issued driving license, I have already proven that I am competent to be behind the wheel.
Feel free to argue that the driving test is ridiculously simplistic if you like, but that does not change the fact that according to existing law, I have a right to drive.
"I wonder if he thought I have more PHP experience than I actually do"
and then
"I'd prefer to portray myself as myself, rather than some fictionalized version of myself"..except when it comes to subject-matter knowledge, apparently.
CEO-in-name-only salary: $1,000,000 Actually-runs-the-company-CEO salary: $1. The rest is made up in bonuses and stock, and other "non-salary" compensation.
If the well-to-do are fleeing the city for the suburbs, doesn't that (according to your desirable-to-live-there logic) drive up the prices in the suburbs, forcing the poorly-paid teachers back in to the city?
Well, what really sucks is that Google used to be a champion of "we'll ship it when it's ready", and now they are bound (apparently) by the same "we'll ship it when the schedule determines, regardless of quality" rule as everyone else.
Yup, and its not fraud. Lying and fraud are NOT synonymous. Yes, they are. You can't stop at the first definition in your dictionary. Fraud does not require financial gain as a component (even if it's usually the case, and is part of the first definition in your dictionary). But just maybe the dictionary does not define the law. Try a legal dictionary.
Ummm... yes? Impersonating a cop gives you power over others you don't deserve. That's a very different crime than stealing someone's identity, or committing bank fraud, which are financial, and those two have very different effects on two very different targets. If you think these should all be equally punished, you are a sociopath. So strippers who dress as cops have power over others they don't deserve? Be careful of blanket statements, for they make you look more of a fool than you clearly are.
You claim that the secondary crime should be the differentiator. I say merely *impersonating* a cop should be illegal, not just as some generic "fraud", but because it's an attempt to gain general power one doesn't have the right to, even if no other crime is committed. Merely stealing an identity, even if you don't commit any other crime, should be illegal, and have a different punishment, and writing a bad check should be illegal as well, etc. the secondary crime *is* the crime.
In any case, any law which makes a tool illegal rather than bad actions performed with the tool is a bad law. Then you have no problem whatsoever with your neighbor (not necessarily your existing neighbor, but any neighbor you may ever have, by choice or not) owning a nuclear bomb? Sarin gas? Or someone keeping dynamite in an apartment building? To make such statements again shows your foolishness. To outlaw the possession of dynamite in a residential area is quite different from outlawing the ownership of dynamite.
The fact is, some tools *should* be illegal or severely restricted. Your sentiment goes too far, it goes from cases where it's true (in general, outlawing a tool *is* foolish), and applies it too broadly (to say outlawing a tool is *always* bad). Outlawing a tool *is* always bad - tools exist to help mankind (why they're called tools, not useless pieces of junk). Outlawing a hammer because it can be used to commit murder is ridiculous.
That's because caller id spoofing ISN'T fraud it is a harmless deception. If you use that deception to illicit an unfair gain then you have committed fraud and would have committed a criminal act without this law. Are you certain of that? Laws are specific things (they have to be), and if Caller ID spoofing does not fall under a current law, then it *won't* necessarily be illegal, even if it is fraud (the money kind you seem to think is the only kind). Go look up fraud in a *legal* dictionary and then re-read your statements.
For example, calls pretending to be from the DNC, which are really from the RNC (this happened during the 2004 election, although I do not know if Caller ID spoofing was involved) had nothing to do, directly (i.e., legally) with money, and instead had to do with political influence.
Is that harmless? What makes you think a direct connection has to be made for something to be legally about money? What makes you think that all crimes have to concern money? The case to which you are alluding was about influence - the gain was from the lie, not from the use of caller ID to achieve it. The same effect could have been had if the caller had said "Hi, This is John Doe from the DNC" in the absence of caller ID. In many cases (at least until recently) the law is concerned with intent, not means. Murdering someone with a knife carries no less a penalty than shooting them, absent any other qualifiers, and in fact no distinction is made except between degrees of intent.
Fine, but what about accidents caused? non-fatal accidents? accidents involving people other than the driver? I'd also like to see data on the times of day that said accidents occur - perhaps drunk-drivers are simply not good at seeing in the dark drunk/or/ sober; and most people drink in the evening, which is also the most dangerous time of day to drive (due to failing light), and... So you see, simply quoting a number or two is not really telling the whole story.
The thing is, Everyone Knows driving while drunk is Teh Evil, and there is big money and lobbists behind (not doing) it. Driving while celled has yet to attract any major attention, and so of course Toyota is going after the big target.
Your computer wasn't bricked. It could boot, and work fine, just not from the source you were using. A bricked device is one that will not boot at all, or boots only to then fail in some spectacular way. Your use of the term in such a consistently erroneous fashion only marks you as a fool.
Because Microsoft has trained the world (or at least, the computer-using part of it) that software is inherently buggy, insecure, untrustworthy, problematic, painful to use, and unreliable.
It's a hellalot quicker to fp everyone you meet than to haul them in to the station. Not suggesting just everyone/would/ be fingerprinted, of course, at least not in the beginning.
Wouldn't that just have been nitriding? - the nitrogen in the blood diffuses into the (hot!) metal. At least that's how my high-school metalwork teacher explained it.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?
BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!
I'm so glad you thought your argument through with such clarity.
So.. a slug would be better than buckshot because buckshot wouldn't spread enough to increase the chance of a hit? How much is that single slug spreading? You really think you've got a better chance of multiple lethal shots with it vs. #1 buck?
Hydrostatic shock only affects the (single, at most two from a slug) victim, so with even a reasonable spread, hydrostatic shock from buckshot will affect more people than from a slug.
From your description I'm guessing you have a Mossberg, probably a 12ga 500. A very capable gun and very scary in the hands of someone even moderately skilled in its use. You'll also realise that firing a bunch of slugs is going to take its toll on the shooter very quickly - the phrase I believe is "a shotgun kills on one end and wounds on the other". I'd favour #00 or #1 buckshot for maximum devastation in a crowded area with improved capacity for rapid fire, over slugs that make a big boom, tear a big hole in something, and give you a big thump in your shoulder for your troubles. Remember, the ballistic impact (that pesky half emm vee squared) depends on the mass of each projectile (approx 9 .38 calibre pellets in #00 buck), not the total mass of the shot, but the recoil depends on the total mass.
Oh, and that more shallow penetration? The slug is gonna tear a big hole, for sure, but at close range it's going right through your target. Those little pellets of buckshot are gonna bounce around and cause massive trauma inside, that's if they don't also punch *multiple* holes through.
And one parting shot (ha!) - I'd take the extra round over the magnum shells, thanks, but to each his own - reloading a 7- or even 8-shell shotgun is no quick task.
You do know 322 is not a rate, right? Neither is 1,704. Taking population into account then, we have rates of 53 million/ 332 =~ .6264 knife deaths per 100000 people for England (not the UK, just England), vs 314 million / 1704 =~ .5426 deaths per 100000 people for the US.
That's right, you stand a higher chance of being killed in England with a knife than you do in the US.
Your point being what, again?
Uh huh, and which world would that be?
You are clearly not a driver.
The reason tickets aren't given out at 1km over the limit is because various factors (tyre pressure, weight of occupants, etc) can affect the accuracy of the speedometer. Also, in the US at least, speedometers can legally register high (tell you you're going 45 when you're only doing 40) but never low (tell you you're doing 35 when in fact you're going 40). This means a cop matching your speed can assume you are actually going less than the displayed speed, but not more. Thus, there is some flexibility above the speed limit.
And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?
Because in this case it delegates the responsibility of what is and what is not porn to the filter providers, instead of being a conversation between parents & children.
I know, I know.. I'm old-fashioned. Now get off my lawn etc.
Facebook is a poor implementation* != social networks are the problem.
* For the sake of argument, at least.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, gmail, search, G+, gtalk, and android are all free-as-in-beer. Some of them are also free-as-in-speech*. Well, unless you count ad-supported as NOT free.
* I have the source code for Android sitting here on my laptop. Didn't pay a brass razoo for it. Can modify and re-compile it 'til the cows come home. W00t openness!.
There are many reasons to hate Android, but lack of openness is not one of them.
Clearly it is possible even without expensive manufacturing techniques. A car in the US that gets maybe 20 mpg will get near 50mpg in Europe. The same car. I wonder how Ford et al can even stand with the balls they must have to claim such a feat is simply not possible (for technical _or_ financial reasons).
By dint of my state-issued driving license, I have already proven that I am competent to be behind the wheel.
Feel free to argue that the driving test is ridiculously simplistic if you like, but that does not change the fact that according to existing law, I have a right to drive.
"I wonder if he thought I have more PHP experience than I actually do"
and then
"I'd prefer to portray myself as myself, rather than some fictionalized version of myself" ..except when it comes to subject-matter knowledge, apparently.
CEO-in-name-only salary: $1,000,000
Actually-runs-the-company-CEO salary: $999,999.99
-or-
CEO-in-name-only salary: $1,000,000
Actually-runs-the-company-CEO salary: $1. The rest is made up in bonuses and stock, and other "non-salary" compensation.
Your suggestion is not really practical.
If the well-to-do are fleeing the city for the suburbs, doesn't that (according to your desirable-to-live-there logic) drive up the prices in the suburbs, forcing the poorly-paid teachers back in to the city?
Well, what really sucks is that Google used to be a champion of "we'll ship it when it's ready", and now they are bound (apparently) by the same "we'll ship it when the schedule determines, regardless of quality" rule as everyone else.
If it's wrong, it's not a grey area.
Is that harmless? What makes you think a direct connection has to be made for something to be legally about money? What makes you think that all crimes have to concern money? The case to which you are alluding was about influence - the gain was from the lie, not from the use of caller ID to achieve it. The same effect could have been had if the caller had said "Hi, This is John Doe from the DNC" in the absence of caller ID. In many cases (at least until recently) the law is concerned with intent, not means. Murdering someone with a knife carries no less a penalty than shooting them, absent any other qualifiers, and in fact no distinction is made except between degrees of intent.
You're paying for the guy on the phone, when the circuit goes down, to say "yessir, it'll be up in less than 10 minutes". And mean it.
Fine, but what about accidents caused? non-fatal accidents? accidents involving people other than the driver? I'd also like to see data on the times of day that said accidents occur - perhaps drunk-drivers are simply not good at seeing in the dark drunk /or/ sober; and most people drink in the evening, which is also the most dangerous time of day to drive (due to failing light), and... So you see, simply quoting a number or two is not really telling the whole story.
The thing is, Everyone Knows driving while drunk is Teh Evil, and there is big money and lobbists behind (not doing) it. Driving while celled has yet to attract any major attention, and so of course Toyota is going after the big target.
Let's work on a teenager-on-cell-phone detection device first, k?
(and by teenager, I mean "any idiot who thinks that they don't need to pay attention to other road users")
(and by cell phone, I don't just mean making calls. Thumb-typers, you know who you are)
Your computer wasn't bricked. It could boot, and work fine, just not from the source you were using. A bricked device is one that will not boot at all, or boots only to then fail in some spectacular way. Your use of the term in such a consistently erroneous fashion only marks you as a fool.
Because Microsoft has trained the world (or at least, the computer-using part of it) that software is inherently buggy, insecure, untrustworthy, problematic, painful to use, and unreliable.
And it doesn't have to be.
It's a hellalot quicker to fp everyone you meet than to haul them in to the station. Not suggesting just everyone /would/ be fingerprinted, of course, at least not in the beginning.
Wouldn't that just have been nitriding? - the nitrogen in the blood diffuses into the (hot!) metal. At least that's how my high-school metalwork teacher explained it.