Thanks for clearing this up. I suspected something like that, but misunderstood your point. I think our opinions on the matters are very similar.

Your argument isn't about how bows can be used for self defense but about how owning a handgun means you have a very convenient self defense weapon, now I can see that. Anybody claiming that they would only use their gun for sports marksmanship and/or hunting is ignoring how impossible it would be to resist temptation and leave the gun in the holster in a threatening situation.

Oh, and you and I have been on Slashdot long enough to know that it isn't moderators, but just one skimmer with mod points can ruin your day, especially when guns, politics or religion is invilved. Don't let it get to you, dude. :)

See also the "Katzbalger" sword carried by the Landsknecht mercenaries in the German provinces of the Holy Roman Empire (16th century). It also served the same purpose - a short blade for close combat when there no longer was room to swing pikes or the big two-handed jobbers. The hilt reminds me of some Frankish swords, though, so to me it looks like a modern version of an 11th century blade.

But yeah, it's an infantry blade, not a cavalry one. Also looks like it has just the right centre of gravity for actual fencing.

I grew up in Iowa, and never saw a firearm bigger than a BB gun until I joined the Army (cops don't count). So I don't think the GP is that far off. Gun possession in the USA depends on many factors, such as sense of security, the hunting culture and "keeping up with the Jones".

You carry a compound bow as a sidearm? Do you go about your daily business with a strung bow? Or keep one by the bed just in case?

I don't know if you were being light-hearted in your comment, since typing carries so little nuance, but if you read the GP's comment it's one I would agree with (if I owned either weapon): it's only for actual target sports, hunting or such. That doesn't make it less deadly, only a recognition and respect for the deadliness of each.

As a side note, bows have always had more power in the hands of a trained bowman in comparison to gonnes and muskets. Catapults were more devastating than cannon. But black powder weapons were easier to make in numbers, and also required less training to be useful on the battlefield.

Actually, I think that does help to show just how close gun ownership is to an addiction. Gun owners actually can experience withdrawal symptoms if they lose access to their weapons. And like most addicts, they can get agitated and violent if they feel cut off from their high - just ask any smoker who quit cold turkey.

And that, really, ist the problem with gun ownership in the USA: it is uncontrolled. When the Bill of Rights was framed, the writers still remembered warrantless searches and seizures by the British army before the war for independence, and since guns and ammo were naturally scarce they didn't consider the possibility of gluttonous gun consumption a serious concern. Coupled with how most of the western borders of the 13 original states really were the Wild West, with lots of dangerous wildlife, it was only natural then to declare gun ownership a right.

I think "App Inventor" is slightly misnamed, as it looks more like a rapid prototyping device. Like the old Hypercard or Macromedia Director days, a software proposal would be tested/wireframed with it, and then later actually programmed in a lower level language. Hypercard and Director were also powerful enough that commercial multimedia CD-ROMs like Myst were written with it.

The thing is, the App Inventor isn't designed for making polished apps, and I wouldn't be surprised to see App Inventor apps banned from the Google Marketplace, with the note that you should compile and upload them yourself. It's all about giving people the tools to experiment. Letting them use crayons instead of insisting upon airbrushes. Letting people get dirty with their software if they wish.

That's actually do-able: photoshopping Steve Jobs' face into the Emperor's cowl...

Rather, ChromeOS is going to compete with other Linux distros such as SuSE and Ubuntu.

I always thought the point of Chrome OS was Google saying "this is what we are going to use in our shops in the future. You guys are welcome to use it as well, and if you can improve the code, let us know and we'll roll your improvements in." Unlike Android, I get the impression Chrome OS isn't designed for vendors as much as it is for workstations within the Googleplex.

Thank you for realising my question was sincere. I was genuinely curious as to how you used it, and your answers have sparked my own imagination in how to use the device once I can get my hands on one.

Well, it does make sense in the way that the systems they use are all Unix-like in their setup, either Linux-based or BSD-derived (Apple's Mac OS X is certified Unix). That means that their network structure can be pared down to dealing with Unix structures only, and jettison Microsoft specific things like Active Directory. To Google, the only real difference with a Mac is the Quartz Extreme GUI instead of using KDE or gnome, or the minor differences between the Darwin and Linux kernals. Considering that Unix/Linux is what powers the big iron at Google, that means a security expert from the server farm can also help troubleshoot an iMac.

So the biggest losers here are Microsoft certified network admins.

You use an iPad in the music studio? I wasn't aware that there were apps that made it useful there.

I think you meant the Mac, which I have seen used extensively in studios due to the high quality of Logic Pro, and I've even seen iPods used as pocket drives, but the form factor of an iPad makes me suspect you got something wrong.

Using an iPad in a music studio feels like mixing paint with a phillips screwdriver: sure, you can do it, but it's not the intended use of the tool and there are other solutions that are much better.

Actually, you illustrate why studios hate bootleg copies: it lets peope see bad movies before they buy a ticket.

Big studios hate the "try before you buy" mentality. They never left the sideshow hawker mentality.

This is a vary valid point. Pirated content is popular because it does away with many annoyances of the commercial version: no forced ads, no forced legal warnings, no jumping through hoops or watching sermons about how copying is evil (and the fast forward disabled).

Oh dear. Once and for all, NOTHING WAS TAKEN. These people did the equivalent of listening to an entire album without deciding to buy it--the album is still in the store, and may still be purchased. No goods were taken from the store. It's like in my youth, when we copied albums from LP's to cassette tapes, or made VHS cassette copies of movies as they were broadcast on HBO.

Now stop making such terrible, terrible analogies between unauthorised copying and robbery, and you might, might get some respect... ...nah, it's too late for that.

Making a non-allowed copy is not "taking". It's making a copy. The non-allowed part means it is more akin to trespassing.

Copyrights exist because in the past, the equipment needed to make copies of books was expensive, so publishers wanted a guarantee that if they invested in the technology, other publishers wouldn't be able to just churn out their own copies. The length of a copyright was to ensure that the publisher had a monopoly long enough to recoup his investment. Now that the ability to make copies has become cheap and ubiquitous, a new business model is needed to ensure future works are financed, since the age of expensive copying is past.