That handgun can carry 16+1 rounds. But I carry it with 15+1 rounds. My backup gun, can carry 7+1 and I carry it that way. Yup, I carry a second gun so I can lend it to someone if needed.

How did you get the magical number of 12? Why not 11?

My five year old daughter has a 17 round 22 rifle. It is a training tool in my view, but, a "weapon of war" to you. My four year old daughter has a 22 rifle that only holds 1 round and is pink, so we can agree it is a training tool. She has been shooting since she was three and is a good shot with great fundamentals. My 21 month old and 2 day old don't have guns ... yet.

I introduce firearms, not at a set age, but when I feel they are ready. I have a process of reviewing safely rules and shooting concepts long before guns are introduced. Shoot with my brother who helps teach girls. One of us can tech shooter, other can ensure others at safe. My hope is they become better with guns than me by their early 20s.

Just last night my 5 year old and I were waiting for a fox that has been messing with our chickens, will do the same tonight until we get him. Ran him off few months back with intentional warning shot right under him. I was hoping to not have to kill him, but he's back and he is to comfortable around house and barn. By letting him live that one time, three chickens have died. Sadly he'll have to go so chickens can live. I cannot use traps because lots of baby deer and I don't want to catch them (until they are bigger and more delicious).

I think my safety mechanisms work better than any smart gun ever can.

On 9/12/2014 at 12:10AM a skunk in my garage was going to spray me as I rushed in and the door closed behind me ... I was holding my wife's cloths and supplies for the hospital as her water just broke.

Silly me, I thought that I used a tool when, I dropped bags, drew my handgun (which, is by design for defense) and shot the skunk as it was turning around to spray.

Silly me, I had no idea I was using a weapon of war. That really changes my entire presentative on the event.

Given hospital is 40 minutes away and baby arrived by 1:36AM, upon reflection, I sure wish I didn't have that "weapon of war". I wish the skunk Iived and I had simply to wash myself off and find replacement supplies for my wife.

You know when you think about it, computers are a weapon of war. In fact, the first computers, Enigma and Eniac were designed with war purposes as the motivation.

If I had a smart gun and it delayed for a half second before firing or failed to recognize me as a valid user, do think that HS kid would recognize and accept liability?

Is this kid going to accept liability when his guns failure results in somebody being murdered or raped?

How does the added cost help poor people in high crime areas?

What is effectiveness when it is covered in dirt or blood? How efective is it when a hand is broken, smashed, or cut? How effective does it work when person is under high stress? Having to put in all ten digitals, cuts down on the 999 claim.

Smart guns are one of the dumbest ideas ever.

If other companies can survive and suceed without millions and millions in tax breaks, do not require state and federal sponsorship (i.e. corporate welfare*), as well as not depending on government subsidized rebates to move their inventory? Then why can't Tesla survive without state sponsorship and compulsory citizen funding?

* See the insane price Nevadans are paying to get a Tesla battery factory.

... and I didn't have to read the article to know that. Real world experience is better than "untested outdated group think", I mean "progessive college theory" any day. I know may people make 6 figures programming who decide "I'll go to college now, to learn even more about programming" and after a semester or two they all say the same thing "I corrected my professor, he said you cannot do X or Y in JAVA, I tried to explain how we do it all the time by doing Q and R, but he just looked at me and said 'if you don't say it is impossible on the exam, you will not get credit.'" And they stop going. It's terrible when you think about the fact that more discovery and learning is going on during meetups and company events or small hack-a-thons among friends for free or little cost, than at schools charging $25,000 or more a year.

Good Will Programming

I haven't see this much FUD since Eric S Raymond published the Microsoft Halloween Documents in 1998.

Which, is interesting given that the temperature recordings since 1998 have been flat and every climate model projection for that period has been wrong, and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.

1). The majority of Europeans are lazy pussies who listen to terrible music and don't know how to drive (Poland and Baltic states are the exception, those people are awesome). So, I doubt the EU branch of MS would be willing to comply because of some higher moral reason, but I could see them dragging their feet or passing the buck (I mean Euro).

2). This is a terrible ruling and this judge is out of line, this will likely be struck down on appeal.

3). I keep reading all this postings with analogies of people taking something from the US to another country to avoid being charged or to hide evidence. Couple points. We don't even know if there was a crime, the warrant is to try and determine that. Secondly, who is to say whatever on that server was ever in the US? What if the spreadsheet or whatever, was created and saved entirely on the EU servers and never lived within the US?. I can see some people thinking, but but but the access was from the US, so the cache or the keystrokes or whatever was in the US, so therefore the US courts can issue a warrant. OK, then have them get a warrant to look at the computer(s) within the US and tell them to have fun.

4). This is why you should encrypt your data regardless of where you keep it and regardless of whether you are committing a crime or not. This area more than any other is protected by the rule of law in the US (for now). If the federal government gets your encrypted data, fuck 'em. You don't have the give the the secret according to the Constitution, if they can crack it on their own well, congrats, but nothing says we have to submit like subjects.

I understand why you and others who have relied on 32bit versions; either because of driver or application requirements.

That said, I believe that by going to only 64bit versions, it will actually make everything easier in the long run.

Here is how I would anticipate things playing out. You're going to have to sit on a current 32bit version for now, but this will lead to Digium (or a 3rd party) building out supported 64bit drivers to remain relevant. This will allow you to run the same kernel versions across all servers/devices and that is a positive thing.

From reading the HTTP/2.0 thread, it seems like some of us "normal" users should respond to the working group last comment call and point out that encryption alone is not enough. That privacy and anonymity are at least equal to encryption, if not more important.

Was tempted to post as an Anonymous Coward for effect.

Are your for requiring every car to check the drivers blood alcohol content before it will allow the engine to start or to allow it to shift and be put into motion? Are you for requiring all cars to automatically brake if something is detected in its path? These items would add more to the cost of a car and negatively impact all drivers even ones that never drink, but more Americans are killed with cars than are killed by guns every year. Would you do it for the children?

How does requiring encryption for email ensure SPAM goes away?

I do not think you understand this thing called "science". In it you only change one variable at a time. Your comment admitting fuel supply has increased and then also stating but GW is also making the fires worse. It makes everyone who reads this GW propaganda a little bit dumber. That is not science. Every GW computer model has been wrong when compared to real world observations, they aren't science. The only fact we can say about every GW programmatic model that can be absolutely proven is the fact that these models will never be able to take all of the variables into account and therefore aren't good examples of scientific methods"

So here is the problem with libtards, they create a problem and then use selective results that are actually the result of their own BS as proof, more of what they want, needs to be done.

This is true with the wild fires and the selection of data to help show how bad Global Warming is getting. The government back in the 90s decided their brilliant fire policies could be even more brilliant. Instead of letting small fires burn (some seeds and bugs only grow/hatch after a fire), but no no no, people in universities and in Washington, these intellectuals, were smarter than nature or those western ranching folks with no college degree. See these collectivists were so smart they said "New policy let's put every fire out ASAP". "Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel' that would normally have been periodically consumed and used up and removed". Instead the new "intellectuals" said "protect nature" ... by acting in an unnatural way. So all these little fires were put out and things looked so good ( ... in the short-term), that I am sure they patted themselves on the back and were like "Boy are we awesome, we are so much smarter than that farmer who said this was a dangerous idea".

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Are you sure the more frequent larger fires aren't actually the result of past fire prevention? I know some fire fighters and park rangers who told me that policy changes in the 90s prevented them from letting small fires go naturally (these fires weren't even important enough to make the national news). Instead the policy was modified to "Put all observed fires out ASAP." In addition they were banned from removing brush that would normally have been consumed by these smaller fires. I remember them saying that if not changed the policies would lead to bigger fires in the future. A sorta pay for it later mess. So my question is, if it is fair to say many "Scientist" claim fire increases are because of "climate change", is it not fair to say there are "Philosophers" who reason fire increases are because of "bureaucratic BS"?

Actually, they don't even say "fuck you". They suggest you use your resources to implement that feature within your OS. Which, makes sense. I have a friend who runs tons of stuff on some Alpha servers he got in exchange for helping the university port off those systems. Basically what libreSSL is suggesting to him is a decision tree. If underlying library or function that we assume the OS should handle is not available on your system. Here are some suggestions: 1). Fund adding/implementing those needed parts to expand support (seems reasonable that exceptions help cover these costs) 2). Consider moving to support core line of OS and/or hardware 3). Help expand support and code solution (again seems reasonable) Now, obviously not every option is available to everyone. If you don't have money, you might not be able to fund it yourself (though you could solicite other parties and pool resources). If you're not comfortable coding, 3 is probably not possible (unless you have the time and interest in learning). Just saying not so much "FU" as it is focused approach based on plethora of reasons where exceptions can help add and expand support. Instead of people saying "How rude they aren't offering improvements for Mac OS9, I don't like them". Perhaps look at what they are providing cleaned up SSL solution with compatible APIs for variety of modern OSes ... (More to follow). I come from networking world, so to me their approach makes the most sense for long term. OSI model of layered approach, seems appropriate to use OS random number generator and accepted libraries rather than record for exceptions. Over time if openssl continues with its different approach, time will tell who is better. Could be both survive (as SSL is used everywhere) or one proves better. It will not just be picked on coding value. It will be host of other things as well.