You seem to be under the same misapprehnsion as much of the farming community -- that high doses of antibiotics are dangerous, whereas the reverse is true.
'Seem' would be right, because your belief in my belief is false.
When using antibiotics allows animals to grow faster or eat less food and you'd end up using them anyways when animals get REALLY sick, on the first order the low doses make sense.
Resistance is more problematic.
Its cheaper to toss antibiotics in the food for all the cattle, pigs, etc than it is to deal with problems caused by infections. These are the fertile breading grounds for resistance.
It not only prevents infections, it also increases growth. However it's far from the only source of antibiotic resistant bacteria because there's plenty of bacterias out there that are resistant to antibiotics that have NEVER been fed to animals.
We're willing to give expensive antibiotics to humans, if I remember right, there's only 3 major antibiotics given to cattle. If you're infected with a disease resistant to something not on that list, it probably didn't get that resistance from cattle.
They used to issue sugar pills instead, which might actually be tastier than the Pez, and more effective the way antibiotics are going.
As for the farmers - it's because giving animals antibiotics during specific periods of their growth cycle increases their growth significantly. I remember reading an article that they don't even use more antibiotics - the courses prevent enough sickness that farmers that ONLY give antibiotics to sick animals, at much higher doses, actually use just as many antibiotics.
The massive die-off you're talking about is called a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction.
I try to avoid getting too technical, and I'll admit that I'm not a biology major.
Well a 'command set' implies a set of functions, 1 command per function. So if you increase the command set, you've increased the number of functions, which means they added something new to the TRIM command.
What that might be, I don't know. Going by his description, it sounds like they managed to implement some detection of non-allocated cells, which would allow them to re-allocate said cells without actually copying junk data to the new location.
IE the system decides that block 105 is under-used and 657 is over-used. Normally this would involve copying what's in 657 to 105 and vice versa, but rather than blindly copy 105 to 657, it detects that block 105 isn't actually allocated(the file that was there has been deleted or something), so it just assigns the mapping from 105 to 657, saving a write.
If people are getting VPN subscriptions, it's probably for porn, business, and/or free video streaming services like hulu.com or thedarewall.com
Don't forget that they have to get a non-australian credit card as well, in most cases. It's one of Netflix's checks. I agree, I wouldn't be getting a VPN 'merely' for netflix unless 'quickflix' just sucks that horribly(and to be fair, it probably does). It's one of those things where VPN use might be very common in Australia because their internet laws are pretty screwed up.
Oh, and there's another reason for getting a VPN and US credit card - Steam. Australia is one of the more strict nanny-states when it comes to game violence regulations, so there's quite a few popular games that it's citizens either can't get at all, or have to pay 50% more for a 'toned down' version that's missing content and has had the blood turned green or something.
So since once you have a VPN, the marginal expense for more bandwidth is typically quite low, it provides an incentive to use it even more. You get it for Steam where it can pay for itself with a 'one A list game a month' habit and because you already have it you might as well use it for porn, Netflix, etc...
Of course, I'm even tougher than most to detect - I have a VPN set up on my own VPS. Sure, it's a few bucks more but I can run a server doing whatever I want.
Which is part of the 'problem' Australians experience - their local companies have enough influence to pass standards at least somewhat unique to Australia, as well as have some of the tougher media controls, yet they're not big enough for most companies to put forth the effort to comply with them, which leaves them lagging.
They can normally license with the holder of the exclusive rights, but in many cases said holder sees netflix as competition and thus wants to charge huge rates for said licenses. That's where time to conduct negotiations comes in. It doesn't make sense for netflix to sign a licensing agreement where the cost is $12/month per netflix customer, after all. Even $1 a customer per year gets quite dear.
Just remember, your own experience is anecdotal. When I was in school 'Xeroxing' was used more often than 'copying' by the government worker types I was exposed to.
Darn near everything today is 'copied' using a form of laser printer technology, but back when I was a kid 'photocopies' were xerox machines, but you also had 'ditto' machines that the schools would use when they needed 60+ copies of something - it'd produce slightly funny looking blue ink copies that were normally not quite centered/straight on the paper. From what I remember, it used photographic technology to make a sort of screen, which would then be mounted on a drum that rotated the paper through. More expensive by far than a Xerox for a single copy, but it gave you a negative good for hundreds of prints, after which the only cost was the paper and ink that was probably a couple bucks per gallon. It was called a 'ditto machine', which wiki also calls a 'spirit duplicator'.
In short, back then a 'copy machine' back then could refer to any of a number of devices depending on your needs - a photocopier/Xerox for a copy or two. A ditto machine for a moderate number of low quality copies(like giving kids a test), a mimeograph for larger numbers of copies, all the way up to full up printing presses for stuff like government forms.
In trying to make sense of it, I wonder if the author meant to say that when a virus infected cell dies it tends to release it's virus load, mashed together with the idea that with some bacterial diseases the bacteria don't release their toxins until death. As a result, you can have the problem that when you administer antibiotics you have a massive die-off of toxin harboring bacteria, which can even kill a weak enough patient from the sudden release. Or make people think that the antibiotics are making things worse(to be fair, it actually IS in the short run).
The magnet part actually makes a little sense - introduce the magnetic nano-particles with the appropriate protein to adhere to the target(viral, bacterial toxin, etc...), then collect with magnet before returning the blood to the body.
I took it as Robert would be teaching and having his kids cleaning the rifles before they ever shoot anything. Exposing them to it is fine, so they know it needs to be done.
I'm also fine with having them start on air rifles, though depending on your backyard(neighbors in range?) it may still not be practical, but you can shoot even inside. The important thing is that they don't get to handle the gun - powder or air driven, without adult supervision at all times.
I'm hesitant about your course of action. One needs to remember that you need fun in there as well for it to really stick, you're both taking too long and inadvertantly teaching the kid that the firearm isn't dangerous.
Cleaning the rifle can wait, depending on parents and selected cleaning chemicals you might not want to expose the sprog to that anyways.
I'd start immediately with full up fire with live ammo(blanks are somewhat hard to get anyways), but with the parent holding the gun. I'll note that the cases of injuries where a child is shooting at a range involved fully automatic weapons - if the gun's single shot, there's nothing else coming out of the firearm if the kid looses control of it, no matter what. Especially if the parent has control of the additional rounds(in a pocket or something).
Gradually ramp up the child's ammo budget as he or she progresses - another dozen rounds for cleaning the rifle, for example.
Hardly a significant problem.
No, it's not actually a significant problem even for the police, but it's an even less significant problem for private citizens, yet that's who the legislators are pushing to have the systems.
Realistically speaking, it's a backdoor way to ban 'Saturday Night Specials', IE cheap handguns which actually are the prevalent firearm used in crime.
Would YOU want to carry an expensive gun that you might have to ditch on a moments notice?
And if gun ban advocates truly want safety, they'd work to repeal that NJ law.
I'm sorry that it lacks citation, but one of the original sponsors of the law actually proposed that. Sort of. She promised to 'Vote to repeal the law if the NRA stops opposing smart guns'.
My thought is that the NRA wants the law GONE before it stops opposing the technology, preferably via a court case that ensures that other states can't do it as well.
Sorry, but i highly doubt that any policemen would enable such a lock on their gun as they would not ever be able to use their gun in the instance where they have gloves on their hands....
Fingerprint locks are not acceptable to me because of this. On the other hand, the already existing 'Magna-Trigger' and 'Maglock'(for 1911's) are semi-widely deployed. They're keyed to universal magnetic rings though, not anything serialized, making them the equivalent of bathroom dispenser locks - they won't stop or slow down anybody that came prepared to defeat them.
RFID is an option, but that would be more vulnerable to EMP*/interference. Also, the one RFID gun I remember has a 20" unlock range with the watch, which would mean that the gun would still fire in the majority of 'just disarmed the officer' cases I've read, many of which had the officer struggling with the perp for the gun when he was shot, which means that the wristwatch would be within 20" when the trigger is pulled.
Really, I think what the legislation is trying to do is make the guns more expensive in the hopes that only rich(safe) people would buy them, same idea with anti-Saturday night special laws back in the '70s. Back then they recognized that criminals overwhelmingly carried cheap small handguns, not expensive and bulky 'assault weapons', so they tried to ban 'cheap'. A 1911 was in no danger, but a
*Honestly, I don't think this is that good of an excuse. Good EMP is actually hard to do.
One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.
