Other parts of the gun are often serialized, but the serial on the receiver is the one that is considered the serial number of the gun for legal purposes. For collectors, matching numbers on all parts still fetch a premium, especially for antique or just old firearms, such as WW2 rifles.

Speaking of old guns, this is one other interesting side effect of treating the receiver as the gun, and all other components as appendages. Federal law defines a category of firearms called "antique", which is any firearm manufactured on or before 1899. Those are basically completely out of the scope of all existing gun control legislation on both federal and state level (I believe Hawaii is the only exception), unless they fall under NFA (full auto, short barrels etc). You can order them online and have UPS deliver them to their doorstep, no background checks, nothing. If you're a felon, you can still legally own one. And so on.

Now remember that when we say "gun", we really mean "receiver" here. This means that it's perfectly legal to take a receiver from an antique gun, replace the rest with newly manufactured components, and the result will still legally be considered antique. And receiver is the part that normally gets least wear on a firearm (because, on one hand, it's usually metal, and on the other hand, it's not the part that gets most mechanical stress, unlike the bolt assembly and the barrel).

Here is one example of such a thing: an Imperial Russian Mosin-Nagant receiver from 1896, which ended up in the stocks of the Finnish arsenals (quite possibly captured during Winter War or Continuation War, or else it could come from the arsenals they inherited from the Russian Empire when they declared independence), and was then remade into a new Mosin rifle sometime in the 60s, with new barrel, bolt, stock, and possibly the trigger group as well. The resulting rifle shoots just as well as any other modern bolt-action rifle, and ammo is cheap and plentiful.

It's not limited to just bolt-action rifles, either, though those are the most plentiful. But there is a number of antique Mauser C96 handguns around, as well - not quite on par with modern handguns, obviously, what with a fixed 10-round magazine loaded from stripper clips, but still a very capable firearm in its own right. There are plenty of antique revolvers, too.

It's a reasonable request, but only so long as it is framed within a discussion to actually amend the Constitution, and specifically the Second Amendment. The problem is that it's not even on the table - all we have so far are attempts to hack around the wording that is there, by creatively reinterpreting it or selectively ignoring it. It would be a much more straightforward talk if people who don't like guns (all or some of them) would just own up and say that their problem really is with 2A itself, and initiate a constitutional amendment process, just like they did back in the day for the Prohibition.

Getting back to your specific questions, the first thing that is needed is to agree on definitions. For one example, a fully automatic firearm is mostly an unambiguous term, but there are some corner cases such as "bump fire" stocks (which IMO should be considered full auto, but legally aren't, so the definition is not perfect); or a firearm malfunction known as "slam fire" (where the firing pin gets stuck in a forward position rendering the weapon fully automatic to more than a usual extent - it'll fire until there are no rounds in the magazine, even without the trigger being held), which can really happen with any semi-auto firearm and which is never intentional, but which ATF has on occasion treated as full auto.

For another, more interesting example, you mention "assault weapons". As is well known to anyone who looked into this in depth, there's no common definition for these, as it was originally just a hastily concocted and rather arbitrary legal definition for the original Assault Weapon Ban. Today, there's no federal AWB anymore, but there's more than one law project, and then there are various states having their own AWBs which differ in details, so there's no clear single definition. Furthermore, it's not clear how to establish one, because the definitions that do exist don't seem to have any rational basis - it's just an arbitrary picking of mostly cosmetic features.

Flamethrowers are another interesting example. Few people realize that, but not only they are legal to own, it's easier to do so than any firearm, because they are not considered weapons at all (in most states), so there's no background checks and no laws restricting who can own them. And this has some reasoning behind it - turns out that, while most of us are familiar with them in the context of warfare, in practice it's actually a useful tool for farmers to do controlled burns, for example, and occasionally useful for snow removal. Should it be regulated? Probably - it sounds reasonable to me, at least - but we have to consider those other uses when debating this.

The problem is that there's no way to do it without having a gaping security hole, because that's what "backdoor" really means. In other words, this cannot be implemented without severely compromising security.

And they have the tools necessary to serve such warrants. Once they have a warrant, they take it to the person who knows the password (which they would have to prove by other means, of course, like having witnesses who saw that person decrypt the data before), and ask them to comply. If they do not, they can be held in contempt of court until such time as they do.

If they have a warrant but you refuse to decrypt it for them, the judge can hold you in contempt until you comply. This has been the case for many years now and does not require any new laws or backdoors.

Water was not diverted directly from the sea. It was diverted from the rivers that feed the sea, and it's still being diverted (the rivers are not going away any time soon), so the benefits remain - what's "short term" about them?

I think the question is, given when it was done and the resources the country had at that time, could it be done right back then on the same or otherwise reasonable timeframe?

Obviously, it can be fixed now, but it sounds like it's way too late for that to have a meaningful effect.

Aral Sea is now split between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan; Russia is not involved anymore.

(Is it really a crash risk? That I don't know.)

Potentially as one of the faults is "Display stops working". Whether that means it goes blank, or stops updating (i.e., frozen) is unclear.

Now, it's one reason why there is redundancy - if one display crashes, the PFD (primary flight display, i.e., flight instruments) can be reverted to the other screen (normally showing navigational information). If THAT doesn't work the PFD can be shown on the central displays (usually showing engine and other information), again, two of each.

And the co-pilot has another pair of displays as well that get their information from a redundant system, so 6 displays in total, which can get their information from two different independent sources.

Oh yeah, there's also basic backup instruments too.

Is it a problem? Yes. Is it fatal? Well, you have to be pretty damn unlucky to get all displays to lock up and the backup instruments as well. So a small chance, especially if the crew is inexperienced.

I just drove from Edmonton to Ucluelet (near Tofino on Vancouver Island) and back. Road conditions were great. Hell, I'd even say they were perfect. BC has 120 km/hr speed limits on many stretches of highway now. There are good rest areas, some with picnic tables, proper bathrooms, and a concession truck - even in the middle of what seems like nowhere. I don't know where you got the idea that our highway system sucked but maybe you should come drive out west.

Well, you're also talking about BC which has a natural beauty to it that the views of many BCers differs from the "Rest of Canada". So those rest stops not only are convenient, but the generally are maintained because a surprisingly large number of people DO stop just to admire the scenery.

It's one reason why BC is full of tree huggers and all that who seem hell bent on preventing any more oil pipelines from being built. (Because an oil spill unfortunately forms a nasty blight). Hell, we even think a clear-cut is a godawful sight (it isn't, it's actually a nice way to rebuild the environment and in a couple of years it turns from ugly tree stumps and dirt into a meadow, a decade later you see trees forming and then in a couple of decades it's a young rising forest.).

Also why LNG is OK, because an LNG spill disappears in short order.

Finally, it should be noted those roads are good because it's generally treacherous come late fall and winter. So a rest stop means one can park and wait for daylight rather than try to creep along at night because it is scary. A pothole filled rough road? Might as well just close the road because it'll be too dangerous to drive.

That's great, but seriously, who doesn't jailbreak their iphone? The security of the walled garden is fairly theoretical since there is so much incentive to disable it.

It is a bit like saying that some website can't steal your personal info unless you click through that warning that shows up the first time you use Firefox on a webpage with a non-SSL form.

Generally the number of jailbroken iOS devices has hovered around 10%.

Not too many people do jailbreak because iOS is pretty much good enough, and each revision just adds less and less reason to do so. Sure there's always going to be folks who jailbreak to get it so they can customize every single thing like an Android phone, but for the most part, most user's reasons for jailbreaking disappear each new iOS revision.

(Remember, there are a LOT of iOS devices out there, so when a new jailbreak claims "1 million devices were jailbroken", that pales in comparison to numbers like 50+M iPhone5S's were sold or 10M iPhone6/6+ were sold. ).

About the only reason people consistently jailbreak is... pirated apps, and even those have a non-jailbreak workaround involving cracked apps and enterprise signing certificates (which generally last only a short time because Apple invalidates them quickly). Even then the iOS piracy scene is tiny compared to Android. If you want apps for free, Android's really where it's at. It's far easier to find an app cracked for Android than it is for iOS. Usually because on Android what they do is they buy it, then refund it.

So, the question begging to be asked is whether jailbreaking phones in China by the owner is a common occurrence or if the phones are sold "pre-jailbroken" by a larger agency and able to download and install these hacks at will?

Probably a mix of both, because the #1 reason to jailbreak these days seems to be... pirating software. I mean, the iOS 7.12 jailbreak was done by a bunch of Chinese people to promote... their Chinese app store. Which happens to conveniently be filled with pirated apps. (It was one of the things that led to the original iOS7 exploit to be questioned).

So effectively the users jailbreak to get "free apps" from the Chinese app store that also happens to install malware along with it.

I'm guessing the Chinese store must have a lot of pirated apps, because piracy on iOS is just at a lower level - at least on Android there are entire "daily packs" that contain new and freshly updated paid apps on your favorite torrent site (which can be RSS fed to your torrent client). iOS apps ... not so much. Maybe a fraction and not as convenient to get.

know a lot of people want to blame guns for many problems but that is a rather cheap excuse and avoidance of the fact that the public needs improved living conditions so that there are less violent people who act out irrationally. Without much hope of a decent future we do have far too many people who act out. We also have prisons that make only token gestures at rehabilitation of inmates and a mental health system that is a national disgrace.

But that's just an excuse as well because other countries have the same problems with mental illness, homelessness, poverty, etc. But the availability of guns is far lower so the rates of homicide and other deaths due to guns is also far lower.

Canada has roughly 1/3rd the per-capita gun ownership rate (roughly 300M guns in the US (1 per person), 10M in Canada (1/3rd per person, or 1 in 3 own a gun)), but still the same (if not more) issues with homelessness and poverty (especially among Native Americans). It's considered a bad year when the death rate due to violence (including knives and the like) approaches double digits in a city of roughly a half-million people. (Deaths due to guns is lower).

So I wouldn't blame just the crazies for the whole problem. Presumably a violent culture where owning a gun is more for "protection" and less for utility (e.g., recreation, hunting, etc).

Though if you really want to be truthful, most homicides are committed by handguns more so than long guns like the AR. It's just that the AR probably "looks scarier" and may be a good weapon if you're going to do a mass killing, but those generally tend to be fairly rare events.

You can try, sure. If they run faster than you, though (and you never know until you try), you may come to regret it.

Because all other browsers are developed by corporations who don't have a vested interest in Tor (or perhaps have a vested interest to see it fail).

Given that all the Unix shells predate PowerShell by at least two decades, and more for most of them, of course they wouldn't alias PS commands.

And no-one said that PS is better because it has aliases. Aliases are there for convenience of people who come to it from other shells (which is why it has other aliases for people coming from cmd.exe - "dir" works same as "ls", for example, and "help" works like "man" etc). What makes it better is something else - the notion of passing structured data in streams, rather than just text (which is then just a subset). For some things where you have to write insane sed/awk scripts in Unix to massage the text output of a command into something that another command wants, the equivalent PS can be three times as short, and orders of magnitude clearer, because it doesn't need to parse text to extract the data - it just reads the property of an object.