Oh, and one more thing. While the murder rate in Australia has declined in the last couple of decades, it has actually declined MORE in the USA. But, since people against gun ownership have to cherry-pick their data, you will probably ignore this fact too.
Generally, the point of the law is to indicate what is OK and what is not OK, and to provide punishments for those that break the law.
In murder and rape, there is a victim. For ponzi schemes, there is a victim.
If a guy gets a gun and blows a bunch of holes in a piece of paper, who is the victim? If a woman gets a gun to protect her from her crazy ex-husband, who is the victim?
The point here is that OWNERSHIP of a gun is NOT bad. It is what you DO with the gun that actually matters. Cracking down in ownership really only affects the honest people. Criminals who intend to break the law certainly do not mind breaking one more law to get a gun. It really is not that hard to figure out.
why are so many americans such fucking morons when it comes to the simple undeniable truth: more easy guns = more senseless death, not protection
Simple. IT ISN'T TRUE.
How about using (gasp) some FACTS! Hard to believe, but if it were true, you should be able to prove it.
Australia has greatly tightened its gun laws since 1996. Let's look at the great change.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
According to this, in 1995, guns accounted for 18.38% of all murders. In 2012, guns accounted for 17.5% of all homicides. Yes, less than one percent drop! WOW! WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
OK. Gun homicides DID go down quite a bit, but so did knife homicides and blunt object homicides. Did Australia ban all knives and clubs? Yes, the police hassle people who carry such things in public, but you can have a bunch of cricket bats and very large knives in your home in Australia.
The homicide rate went down overall, but the proportion of weapon used did not seem to change much as at.. This points to some other cause for the drop in homicide. Some people point to less lead in the environment -- removing lead from gasoline and paint, for example.
So, tell me. Where is your proof?
Oh, and in the US, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Copy this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter plot of "Gun Ownership" and "Murders." Add a trend line. Look: more guns = less homicide (a weak trend, but it is there). Hey, the District of Columbia has the most murders and the least number of guns (wow, go figure). Delete that row. Look, the trend is still there -- weaker, but still there.
Now, I ask you: where is your proof?
Yes, swapping is better on a SSD. But, it is MUCH MUCH better to not swap at all. That is my point. If you have to have swap, you are better off just buying more RAM.
Okay, those numbers that you quoted are very arbitrary, I'd like to see anything to back that up.
SATA revision 3.0 = 6 Gbit/s
DDR3 - 1600 = 12800 MB/s
"MB" = Mega-BYTES, so multiply by 8 for bits/seconds
DDR3 - 1600 = 102400 Mbits/s
DDR3 - 1600 = 102.400 Gbits/s
So, the peak bandwidth is about 17 times faster!
Now, let's look at latency.
Typical DDR RAM latency is around 10 ns (give or take, but that is an average number)
Typical SSD latency is around 0.1 us, which is around 100 ns. About ten times more.
One more thing here about these numbers.... An SSD is **NOT** RAM. If you page, you have to get the data FROM the SSD and put it INTO your RAM. From there, the RAM must be read again. So, even IF your SSD were exactly the same speed as your RAM, it will still be slower because it must be copied into RAM first before it can be used.
As to whether it is unreasonable, that depends. It will not cost much to try, but still a rather bad idea if you do a LOT of swapping.
Ummmmm. Solid state drives don't actually HAVE heads. RTFA (actually read the first article in the series). The Intel drive counts the bytes written. When it reaches it's limit, boom. It goes read-only, but only until the next reboot. Then, it goes dead.
This happens NO MATTER WHAT the state of the spare sectors are.
What pisses me off is that the Intel drive suicided. OK, I can understand that they track writes and shut it down once confidence goes down. I get that. However, the drive should be read-only after that!
If I had a drive that still held my perfect, pristine data, but I could not actually get to it, I would be pissed. What is wrong with going into a read-only mode?
So does this mean I can use my SSD as a swap drive now? Seriously, that would be awesome. Lots of times I go over the 16 gigs of RAM I have while editing 3D models and the second it starts to swap to disk it's painful.
Being an AC, I would chalk this up to a joke or trolling. But.... on the off chance that you are serious, I will bite.
Yes, you COULD use an SSD as swap, but it will not help THAT much. An SSD is much faster than a mechanical disk, but still a couple of orders of magnitude slower than real RAM. That upgrade would be like the difference between jogging with 50 pounds on your back, and then lowering it to 35 pounds. Yes, it will make a difference and make things better, but how much better to have no weight at all?
Just get more RAM. If your system cannot hold more RAM, then get a new mobo. If you regularly go over 16 GB of actual RAM in use, even going to a slower processor will be an improvement if you stop swapping. Hitting the swap file is a great way to make a fast processor do nothing for a while.
So, what is so great about it? I see that it lights up, but what else? The rugged part seems nice too, but not quite worth the money.
I used to have a Korg Nanokey, but I once slid a magazine on top of it and the cover of the magazine actually ripped keys off, so the Korg, while having a nice software bundle, gets an "F" for durability.
I also have the Akai LPK25 which is VERY nice since it has REAL (if tiny) keys. The only real drawback of that is that it is thicker, but worth it for the something that begins to feel like a real keyboard.
Not quite true. Bandwidth IS a finite resource. The cable to each DSLAM can only carry so much data per second. This is why you (probably) don't have gigabit speed to your house right now. As people consume more bandwidth, the providers need to upgrade the equipment. However, hopefully this will persuade them to actually upgrade, instead of looking at slow speeds as a bonus (Gee Netflix. Sorry things are so low, but for a low fee of a million dollars, we might be able to upgrade).
In all fairness, when you get an Arduino from Radio Shack, you are getting a REAL Arduino, and some money goes to support the project. When you buy from China, you are getting a clone and, while it works, the Arduino project (that makes the software) gets not a penny. I am not against clones, but I like to buy an original every now and then to help support the project.
Or, you could buy a clone and donate $5 to the project to help support development.
Random urban sniper sprees just got a whole lot worse.
Really? I have not seen any evidence in the news reports lately. Is CNN burying a story on a sniper spree?
In the grand scheme of things, this rates a large yawn. Guns (especially rifles) still make a hell of a boom. Yes, you can not shoot from a LOT further away, but the people around you can still hear it, call the cops, etc. Even IF you managed to put a suppressor on this thing, any round that can reach any appreciable distance is, by necessity, going to be far above supersonic, so there will still be a lot of noise.
The current cost of this type of system also keeps this out of all but the most dedicated hands. Really, I see this being useful to hunters with too much money. Your average street thug will not be able to afford this. Besides, how often are rifles of ANY type used in homicides? They account for about 3% or so of all murders - a drop in the bucket.
I remember California freaking out about the
I would suggest that the states with higher murder rates implemented tougher gun laws as a response to high murder rates.
And yet they still have higher murder rates. Those laws must not be very effective.
Let me put it this way. The areas that tend to have more crime also have higher population densities and lower incomes (more poverty). That is MUCH more indicative of the crime rate than simple gun ownership. Some place, like Wyoming, have a VERY HIGH gun ownership rate, but rather low crime. They also do not have any real big cities to speak of. If it were actually true that more guns = more homicide, then Wyoming would have a murder rate through the roof. As it is, Wyoming is infinitely safer than Chicago, which has done all that it can to ban guns.
I am not saying that gun ownership can't affect the murder rate. I am just saying that there are MANY other factors (mostly economic) that are FAR more important. As you have already seen, getting lead out of the environment has stopped way more murders than even banning all guns would have.
I'm quite happy for you to live your life as you wish, providing you don't go about gratuitously harming others.
Just checked my "to do" list. Oil change. Pick up groceries. Take my daughter to get her hair done. Wait.... Nope. Sorry, but "kill some random people" seems to be missing from my list. I am far too busy to fit anything else into my schedule, so everybody else is safe from me for now.
And as mentioned before, you're 3 times as likely to commit suicide and twice as likely to be murdered if you have a gun in the house. More & more people are wising up to that fact, and that's why the proportion of households with guns is dropping.
Sorry, but I am going to call BS on that study. Ever heard of "cherry-picking" data? Yup, that is what the vast majority of anti-gun reports do.
The tendency is for states with higher gun ownership to have fewer murders. Indeed, among the most dangerous places in the entire country are the places with the most strict gun control. Explain that one!
As to suicides, where did that number come from? While guns are particularly good as suicide tools, they are far from the only tool. In Japan, there is no such thing as private gun ownership, and yet that country has a lot more suicides than the US. Ever heard of rope? Knives? Pills?
And, even if there WERE a grain of truth in what you say, increased alcohol intake costs lives. So does trans-fat, tobacco, and lots of salt. Who are you to tell me how to live. Whether I but a gun, a cigar, a bottle of whiskey, or the jumbo-sized box of Oreos, it is honestly none of your business.
Tell you what: I will graciously allow you to live your life in the best way that you see fit, and you extend to me the same courtesy. Deal?
Do you know what America did to reduce crime and the homicide rate? We banned lead in paint and gasoline. Yes, seriously!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...
So, why doesn't Australia do this?
If the homicide rate dropped by 30%, and 30% of that is the result of banning guns, then that means that 0% is attributable to dropping lead levels. This leads to four possibilities:
1) Australia never actually had any lead. Even back in the 1960's, Australia did not use lead paint or leaded gasoline. Possible, I suppose. Maybe gasoline was not used, as adults rode kangaroos to work, and the kids rode wallabies to school? Maybe nobody painted their houses with lead paint, as there is no need to paint corrugated tin?
2) Australia still has not banned lead. If so, they need to do so immediately!
3) They DID ban lead just like the US, but decreasing lead levels did not impact Australian physiology the same way it does in the US. Maybe the mass quantities of alcohol consumed over there somehow rids the body of lead. Maybe being upside-down all the time, and the fact that lead is heavy, meant that all the lead leaked out of the tops of your heads.
4) They DID ban lead just like the US, and most/all of the drop in homicide is due to declining lead levels, and the gun ban has actually had little to no impact on the homicide rate. Coincidentally, this would ALSO neatly explain why the knife and club murder rates also dropped.
So, which theory do you support?
A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. -- Seneca
