Strictly speaking, they're both forks of the same code. While some people use the term "fork" to try to indicate a spin off of a code base, that sort of connotation becomes really murky really fast. Is LibreOffice or OpenOffice the fork? It all depends upon your perspective. In truth, like forks in the road, when code diverges both divergent code bases are forks.

Actually, it's a step forward and it's not the first technology to do this. The basic idea is, make the port a smart interconnect and let a smarter cable be more adaptive. That way a 4 meter cable can be tuned differently than a 2 meter cable and you can use the same port for a cheap copper cable or a long but expensive fiber cable. Regardless of how relatively expensive the cables are, replacing the computer is harder and adding new ports to mobile devices, even most laptops, simply doesn't happen. This makes a nice, future-proofed port for your laptop, phone, peripheral, etc. that will have real longevity.

Generally, making a strong steel or steel alloy requires that it be tempered after hardening, but that needs to be done before you cut precision features like rifling into them. So, 3D printing is unlikely to work in that situation although you could certainly make some assault shotguns. People can and do make their own firearms now using machining tools that anyone can buy, but they are expensive and take skill and thus don't offer the untraceable proliferation problem that is the main issue posed by 3D printing.

It is still the default in Konqueror although many users swap it out for Webkit. Kubuntu, probably the largest KDE distro, dropped Konqueror for a Webkit based alternative, so the KHTML fork of the code seems pretty close to dead from my perspective.

I disagree. Monopoly, slows innovation to a halt, because there is no motivation to improve to gain share. Apple, Google, Opera, etc. still want to gain share from one another and they still need to advance Webkit to support those advancements in applications and services. The nature of copyleft prevents the normal monopoly issues (although patents can still introduce that problem).

We're talking about statistics here, not individual experience or anecdotes, but here's a NY Times Post about the topic with numerous citations. Studies of happiness are fairly similar in this regard, although I did see at least one that ended up concluding men are slightly happier if they have children while women are much less happy. You'd think this would be taught in school as it is one of the most basic choices we all make.

I'm torn. I'd like to think everyone knows that not having children will save you a shitload of money and that people are not obligated to have children. Thus "informative" would be a ridiculous mod. On the other hand, many of the people in our society do seem to feel they are obligated to have children and it is just what society expects of them. The idea that it is a huge expense they may not be able to afford and that people who have children tend to be less happy, isn't something they've ever thought about. So maybe I can't argue with the informative mod too much.

The difference is the starting point. Do you believe the Harry Potter books are real? Some kids do. Would you consider it reasonable and scientific for them to believe everything in those books is real until such a time as they were forced to accept parts as untrue because of their own personal experiences conflicting with them?

The default in science is to believe whatever the most supported theory is and absent any tested theory the most uncomplicated hypothesis that explains the data to date. Then you make predictions (falsifiable) to test the hypothesis or theory and build from there. You don't start with beliefs based upon here say with no scientific backing until it can somehow be disproved. That is, well, just the opposite of science.

You seem to have failed to respond to my points.Do you now accept that violent crime is a much more useful measure of the efficacy of particular legislation?

Have you read that "study". It tries to control for so many factors it basically looks like they are obscuring the numbers and it certainly does not correlate with international numbers. I can't even find what the un-adjusted numbers they used were.

You assign motives that are not that stated motives and which don't even seem to make sense. Yes, the NRA was lobbying for action to stop the CDC and yes they got it. That does not by any means mean that the results of any study would have been contradictory to all the other major studies that don't seem to find any real benefit to gun control laws aside from lowering the rate of successful suicides, but it certainly did stop the collection of data about gun owners and for all we know may have prevented that information from being released to the detriment of many people's right to privacy. After all, that is what this article is about. The government cannot be trusted with this data, as demonstrated. More scientific study is needed, but certainly we need more precautions about the type of data and we need real evidence gun control laws will have a positive instead of negative effect before we pass some law out of empathy for children that would not have been helped by that law in the first place.

I disagree. It's not clear at all. For example, murder is murder, but according to your hypothesis murder rates would go up with rates of gun ownership, since "being shot is clearly worse" and you don't get much worse than death. But that correlation does not happen. By singling out "gun violence" you logically misstate the problem due to your own assumption that anything involving guns is worse somehow.

Allow me to demonstrate in a hypothetical example the flaw in this measure. An axe murderer breaks into an elementary school. Lax gun laws mean the teacher is packing. He shoots the axe murderer. By your measure that means no statistic is entered into our equation. Now imagine strict gun laws prevent him from having a gun and he kills the teacher and a dozen children. By your measure no statistic is entered into our equation. Despite this gun control laws make a difference of over a dozen murders. Do you see the flaw in your approach? You're intentionally ignoring the data because you've focused on only part of part of the problem, ignoring even direct consequences of the laws you promote.

Yes, that's true. More successful suicides in general as well. But in many instances you also have somewhat lower overall violent crime and fewer murders.

Yes, and you hear just as misguided limited interpretations of the data from "the other side" yourself included. You were just arguing that we should be limiting the data to only crimes with guns, instead of considering the whole problem and real solutions. Just the other day I heard reporters mention that the National Science Foundation study in the US found no correlation between any gun control laws and the level of murders or violent crimes imposed. The reporter interpreted this to mean that we should pass gun control laws in addition to other laws and thus they will be effective. What was that opinion based on? It was just a justification for ignoring the scientific evidence he just presented.

There has been significant study and I'm certainly in favor of more, but don't mistake data you don't like or which does not support your preconceived opinions with lack of data. We have data, but you have not used it to form your opinions, but have dismissed it because it does not re-inforce those opinions.

I've heard this myth repeated a great deal lately and you'd think people would be more informed when discussing this particular article. Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners, you know kind of like the one this article is about and which the government released to the public before public outrage made them change the policy. Other government agencies and government grants have been part of gun control studies for decades (like the NSF study I just mentioned).

And then technology advanced and become more commoditized and cheaper.

Not really, people make less in inflation adjusted dollars than they used to, well most people. A small subset off people make orders of magnitude more.

You are going to need to support that hypothesis. What we were talking about wanting was lower violent crime, and places with less wealth disparity have it. They also seem to have just as many televisions and telephones in the average home as we do... plus more effective health care, better upward mobility, etc. The american dream exists, it's just been moved overseas where there is now better chance of moving up the ladder than in the U.S., for shame.

Sure people manage that, but statistically, it is not really relevant. Some short people are excellent basketball players, that doesn't mean you're not an idiot if you build your team based upon that as a premise. In general, taxation levels that don't balance wealth condensation simply result in long term instability and wealth consolidating into fewer hands until the system collapses.

Because your family starting out with more than some other family is unfair, just as the king's family starting with more legal power than any other family is unfair. By your argument why shouldn't president Obama be able to name his children as president after his term, after all he worked hard to become president. Who are you to say he can't pass it on to his family?

That's fine. Don't build something for your family. Build it for society and make the whole of society better for your family and everyone else's. Or don't. That's your prerogative.

Well get to it then chum.

As far as studies have been able to determine, neither rate of gun ownership, nor any gun control laws have had any significant impact on violent crime levels, so... no not really. Maybe you'd like that to be true, maybe you believe it to be true, but the science just doesn't back it up.

Not any more so than now, as far as I've read, unless you have some citation otherwise.

As I said, it engenders waste, but it is fair, and it's not like the company needs be shut down, it just means ownership of the shares is transferred to the state for sale on the market. Mind you, I'm not proposing that as an ideal solution, merely the "fairest" one.

???

I'm not sure what you're talking about. How does being born poor as hell into a family that can't provide you with any opportunities and having to take out loans for school, college, and basic necessities such as transportation (loans paid to those born wealthy) mean any sort of freedom? Freedom to do what exactly, have no opportunity that does not benefit those born wealthy more than it does you?

The government is democratic and represents the people. It is by the people for the people. But more importantly, we're talking about the government redistributing wealth in ways that help level the playing field. Ever played the second round of monopoly? It was made as an educational game for economics students. Try it some time.

We're not talking about an untested hypothesis here either. Lots of other nations have much better social safety nets and they recovered from the economic collapse faster, have more stable economies, and less violent crime. Correlation does not imply a specific causation, but it does provide some great beginnings to testable hypothesis and those hypothesis have been borne out. Go ahead and look at violent crime stats around the world and just try to find one that does not line up well with wealth disparity. Maybe you don't like the answer because it does not fit with your preconceived notions, but too bad. Science works. Deal with it.

Not really. 100% inheritance tax is one way, although it inserts large amounts of waste into the system. Traditionally, we just tax wealth at increasingly high rates as you go up the scale so that while those with money can still use it to make money, they have to make proportionally more money to offset the higher taxes. Heck, the income taxes in the late 50's through the early 80's did just that and the relative proportions of wealth in society remained quite stable. Then we slashed taxes on the high end and now more and more wealth is in fewer and fewer hands. This isn't rocket science. It is fairly basic economics.

I don't really understand your perspective. Income taxes are already by force and returning to historically normal rates instead of the extreme rates we have now is not some radical concept. It's been done. It worked. It is, in fact, historically more common than the unsustainable system we have now.