I've known CC holders do the same while they carry, even when the other person starts a physical altercation. Having a firearm doesn't mean I have to use it to solve an altercation, it means having the option if things get to that point. Maybe you've got a skill, maybe you're in a good place in your life to not be as vulnerable, maybe you've just missed that situation where what you are and what you say is deterent enough. That isn't a one size fits all shoe you are wearing. Your experience doesn't change the idea that the primary purpose of a personal defense weapon is deterent.

I skimmed the article ( a little better than normal for /.), but it looked like he was arguing about the importance of humanities courses rather than humanities degrees. I'd agree with him that our current focus on STEM doesn't need to harm humanities courses. As I've grown in my field, I've found as great a wealth in my humanities classes as I have in my more advanced math courses.

"To want a gun is in a way proof that you're unfit to have one." So if a woman wants one after being raped and subsequently stalked, she is unfit? So if a prosecuter wants one because of how successful his career has been, he/she is unfit? If my grandfather wants one because the old man a block over was beaten to death by three teenagers, he is unfit? Don't imagine that the people who most vocally call for gun freedom are the people who benefit the most from it.

"Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead" This seems rather simplistic. I don't own a gun but I've been researching and looking at various manufacturers for a while. Some firearms are clearly for personal defense (or homicide if you have little faith in humanity), some firearms are for killing specific types of animals other than humans, others are pretty poor choices for killing anything and are designed specifically for shooting inanimate targets, others are clearly designed to do little more than make the owner feel like a man. Finally, if I use a personal defense weapon for its intended purpose then I've never even drawn it because I've detered an attack by verbally confronting the person and letting them know I have the means and the will to protect myself.

"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.

This is R&D from a company that sells cars. A general assumption going in is: if the end consumer hasn't bought a new one at that point something has gone horribly wrong.

What is with these young people and their new fangled preversions? I guarantee you there were no perversions going on in my house growing up even when we had a corded phone.

Head mounted displays are used pretty regularly in military aviation. Issues typically involve either occlusion of field of view (which this project seems to utterly fail at) and additional weight putting strain on the vertebrae in the neck. The other thing about this is the use of personal viewing display which probably doesn't have a focal point of near infinity, which means you have to refocus your eyes between the real world and the displayed information. This looks like a really cool DIY project but it isn't a serious HMD.

We have a feature creep here. She creeps into your office and suggests features in your project and talks non-stop until she's pitched her whole idea and creeps back out.

Mathematics used to be a discipline that was used to teach critical thinking. Fortunately/unfortunately, the actual application of mathematics for every day life has become such an indispensible skill that we don't have classroom time to use it to teach critical thinking like we once did.

My company just gave me a second monitor instead.

Eventually it would fall on congress to not pay congress, and they've already pointed out during the shutdowns: Sorry. It is against the constitution for congress not to pay itself...

Look at the Tennesee Valley Authority. It isn't a model that would work with every government service and the poverty of the region isn't a model of all poverty. However, it is a successful government project that took taxpayer seed money, is operating off of payment for services to taxpayers while still being part of the big bad federal bureaucracy, and lifted a huge group out of rampant poverty.

Moderation +4 100% Funny Hey look. I just found four people who have never driven in Atlanta.

To top it off, if you ask a southerner where the worst drivers are then they will say almost without hesitation: Atlanta.