Another issue with perfect drums is that it may get annoying. Just like listening to the same sound over and over again.
I wonder, however, if Buddy Rich could
That is not to say that so far an electronic may not be able to just go and play an unscripted solo that sounds good, of course. We are not there, yet.
Even with fast internet access that seems like a sensible thing to do. Sure, if I have nothing to do I might be okay with waiting for that download, but otherwise just let it run in the background. Preferably without disturbing everything else (such as video streaming, voip calls, gaming, timely communication with remote server, etc).
It seems something that could be dealt with through healthcare. I recall there being this thing called anger management that is supposed to help you not go ballistic. Probably related with the whole "learn how to deal with your emotions" and "learn how to work under stress" which you will probably need later in your life but nobody bothers to teach until you already showed a few cracks here and there (went ballistic at school/somewhere else public, or have bad health due to stress caused by work).
I do know that guns are pretty much "grab and use" vs a bomb. But I don't worry about the impulsive ones. There are tools at our disposal to we can use today to reduce those situations. Since parents can't be bothered to raise their children anymore*, we could have a time at school exactly geared towards teaching kids this kind of thing as part of the obligatory curriculum. Right now you only get attention if you show signs that you need attention and, again, those are the easy ones. Because we can see them and help them.
I worry about those that think about it, those that don't show it. Because those are the ones that wouldn't get attention even if all the other cases were, in fact, helped.
By now you can probably tell my issue isn't with a few restrictions on guns (requiring a license is good, along with a psychological evaluation so we don't just give them to serial killers happily. I also agree with a seven day period between buying/ordering a firearm and getting it). My issue is that people thinking about banning guns seem to forget that we could be doing something else entirely that would not only be useful to reduce these events, but improve the lives of many children out there who could probably use a hand but would never fire a gun towards others.
Most of the issue I have with this is that instead of looking at the symptoms (youth deciding to kill people, with firearms), we should be looking at the cause (why the fuck do they even want to do that?) which I believe fails. I believe there are plenty of ways to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people, which is what I was trying to show.
Now, a good question would be why Switzerland, who used to (and I think it still does, but I remember there being a call to change it) train most of their population in the art of being a soldier (and thus know how to use firearms effectively) and has the policy to keep the military equipment at home (for those in service) has not hit the headlines with this kind of events.
And here is the thing: maybe, just maybe, those countries with strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres because their population doesn't want to shoot people at a school. Maybe, just maybe, gun control only defines how severe the outburst are, instead of how often (always remembering that you can buy guns illegally).
Another good question to ask is: how many outburst are there in which there was violence (a kid gets fed up and punches somebody else)? Would they have ended in a massacre if there had been a gun involved? What about other tools, such a chemicals, a knife? Why are these outburst happening (if at all)? Why does a youth feel the desire to just kill who is supposed to be their community, their pillars? It's kind of like: why would a child have the desire/need to shoot their parents?
I feel that we get lost in the talk about "gun control" and never make the step towards asking "why". Then again, I don't even think most people care anyway.
Yes. This is the thing nobody seems to care about. The thing nobody focuses on.
That doesn't mean you should stop trying,
I don't think the united states even tries. Or maybe they haven't been willing to increase the funding for mental health care. Or maybe it never reaches the news. Either way, I don't think you can say that USA has been trying hard at it, specially after these kind of events. It always seems to be the guns fault. And I always seem to think: there are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people without needing to fire a bullet (some include projectiles, some don't; some require time, some are more immediate).
Did you know that with some kind of explosive (preferably one that you can remotely detonate) and some coins (easily available) you probably can kill or severely injure a lot more people than you can with a firearm? The ensuring explosion is like a frag grenade, except you can make it a lot bigger and lethal. Bonus points for triggering it in a cafeteria o some other kind of eating place with lots of people.
OTOH I wonder what would the effects be if somebody grabbed some Uranium (apparently you can order some from Amazon for testing and calibrating devices) and slipped it into the food. Or some other kind of chemical.
But hey, you are right. Imposing more restrictions on firearms will surely reduce casualties. Unless you happen to stumble on somebody with a lot of determination and nothing to lose.
IIRC the library function is a plug-in. At least, that's what I remember from setting it up. Besides that, it has worked pretty well for me (I'm a new user, though).
Other than that, it is a fine audio player.
I disagree with the Super Bowl idea since you could very easily claim the area around it to be a no-fly zone for drones or everyone unless approved before hand. Then whoever is in charge of checking that the drones flying are authorized has it a lot easier since anything that isn't is a potential threat and should be disabled.
For the trained eye? Sure. For the masses? No. The difference we'll see will be mostly in the little details (hair/fur, clothing [maybe we'll finally get clothing that actually behaves like clothing instead of a mesh on all characters], reflections and just generally better lighting, non-shitty water [it's coming, it's coming!], and just maybe we'll stop using sprites for beams and related) , and the amount of things in the scene (and their detail).
Sure. Now, I'm not saying that Teslas can't be improved (everything can always be improved). In all this, I'm wondering if a battery fire isn't along the least dangerous results in such an accident under realistic security measures (cost vs effectiveness using current technology), considering that in none of the cases observed have the drivers lost control of the car. For example, I think I'd be fine with a fire that doesn't burn me vs no fire but I lose control of the car, if we were talking about certain odds, which is way too far from the unpredictable reality. Then again, humans can't judge the probability of something rare happening that well anyway.
OTOH, comparing the safety of a car is really hard since different design choices will lead to different damage caused by the same situation. After all, just as you said, different cars do react differently.
Thanks for answering!
Question: what would have been the possible consequence of a car running over the same debris, and not having the battery (would you have a sheet of metal the same thickness in the same place if there wasn't a battery there?) in that spot? Please be clear in your answer, I want to understand your position better.
Okay. Questions to you: a) where would you put the battery? I know you are not the one who is supposed to fix it, but it usually helps to think about these things at least a bit to understand better the point of view of others AND to let others understand just how much thought you have given this and just how solid are your arguments. b) assuming there as no battery there, what would have been the consequences of the same crash? I think that, if the battery was not there (and for the sake of argument, we'll say that it's somewhere that wouldn't get hit), there wouldn't be that much of a reason to have such a thick place in the same place (below the driver and passengers). What would have happened then?; c) and assuming there was indeed such metal sheet protecting the underside of the car, what would be the costs of placing the battery somewhere else and protecting it sufficiently (both in monetary cost and in performance cost, the risks a battery on a different place, etc.)?
I ask because you claim very very strongly that Teslas are not safe and that Tesla doesn't try to fix the issue, yet you only provide statistics (that I don't even know if they are significant enough to allow anybody to draw conclusions from them) and the claim that the battery is "in a stupid fucking spot", which I can't really tell if it's a stupid spot or not since I don't posses the knowledge to know why it's such a bad idea to place it there while protecting it, nor where else could it go while being safer, nor why the decisions were made (costs vs safety? Maybe putting it somewhere else would have made the car too inefficient or too costly vs too little added safety). If you plan on swaying people to believe what you believe, I think you need to expose your arguments more than so far.
Ah, but then... here is the very important part: it's open for abuse. The system you mention is a very good system as long as the one doing the checking is wise enough to not push it too far. But it can be very easy to think people should be doing more (the stereotypical boss who wants more productivity and doesn't care about how it works in practice, or looks at the wrong productivity signals [tickets solved vs difficulty/importance of tickets solved]), and/or sanction things that you normally wouldn't even if you knew them.
That aside, it seems silly to enact the law because anybody who would get a weapon inside a high security area without authorization to do so probably doesn't care about any kind of law...