Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 1) 153

The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion.

This being the second reply apparently presuming that I was referring to some sort of government-approved licensure process, I feel compelled to point out that I by no means meant to imply that either situation should require such approval.

I was merely pointing out the absolute fact that properly trained people are far less likely to misuse a tool than people who are not properly trained.

The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.

Proof in the pudding: the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 1) 153

I am GP, and I could not have said it better myself.

We, the American community, can train each other in the proper operation of the tool known as a "firearm" without the nanny-state looking over our shoulders, as we do with so many other specialized tools. To whit, if one wants to learn how to use the tools needed to build guitars, they apprentice with a luthier, not some government agent.

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 1) 153

outliers notwithstanding

Drunk people are not "outliers" ...

No, but sociopaths are.

and no amount of training is going to fix that particular class of problems

A properly trained person is far less likely to try and use Dangerous Tool X when inebriated than an untrained person. Even so, we have to learn to accept that sometimes bad people do bad shit, but that's not a valid excuse for limiting the rights of the billions of not-bad people who don't do bad shit.

Comment: Re:Designer babies (Score 1) 153

And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have?

I'm sorry, what? That sentence makes no sense.

We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.

FWIW, 15 years ago we were saying that very thing about a lot of the technology that exists today - like drones, hypersonic aircraft, incredibly powerful computers that fit in a pocket, stem cells, government agencies with the ability to monitor every communication on the planet, rail guns, etc.

Comment: Re:do they have a progressive view? (Score 1) 326

by CanHasDIY (#46791389) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Never actually been to the "bible-belt," have you? It shows in your bigotry against those of us who actually live here, the irony of which is not lost on me.

Having moved from the Ozarks to Dallas, I can comfortably say 'bible belt my ass'. DFW is heathen by comparison to the actual bible belt.

I've lived on the Ozark Plateau my entire life, and while I know why it's considered part of the Bible Belt (lotta churches around here), I've found that it's not the cesspool of hatred and bigotry that people who have never been here claim it is. Yea, there's some bigotry, but most people tend to keep it to themselves, and in 30 years I've never, ever seen a minority person mistreated because of their race.

The Mennonites who spend every Saturday night downtown, holding a sign that says "Your cell phone is your call to HELL" in one hand and am iPhone in the other are about the worst I've ever seen, and those guys are mostly harmless.

Comment: Re:Designer babies (Score 2) 153

What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?

Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.

Looking at the world today, and how those in power treat those who are not, do you honestly think humanity would be responsible with that kind of power? Or would powerful people try and manipulate the general public into supporting the elimination of "genetic abnormalities" that aren't directly detrimental to society at large, but rather represent a threat to their monopoly on power?

I.e., the oligarchs would absolutely love being able to stomp out dissent genetically.

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 1) 153

Just like 10 years after hiroshima, atom bombs were a fundamental right, right?

Reductio ad absurdum aside...

To be fair, it would be pretty damn difficult to kill millions of people in seconds with a drone. At least, one that's not carrying a significant nuclear payload.

FWIW, I both support the 2nd Amendment and firmly believe that nobody is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons, governments included.

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 3, Insightful) 153

Everybody who is not properly trained in their use having a drone is a horrible idea, kind of like giving everyone who is not properly trained in their use a gun is a bad idea.

FTFY. Proper training has a tendency to fix a lot of the issues with people misusing tools, outliers notwithstanding.

Comment: Define "Tech" (Score 1) 661

by CanHasDIY (#46790265) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Tech Products Were Built To Last?

All depends on what you mean when you say "tech," since tech-nically all tools count as tech-nology; to that end, I have a hand-hewn stone axe head that's probably a few hundred years old at least, and it still works fantastically.

Presuming you meant electronic tech... For me, it would be a toss-up between the DAK Mark III CB radio my grandpa gave me and my Marshall Valvestate 8080 amplifier. The DAK doesn't get a whole lot of facetime (don't have a decent place to put an antenna), but the Marshall gets a workout almost daily.

Comment: Re:FLYOVER (Score 1) 326

by CanHasDIY (#46788569) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

That's a fact.

Nobody dealin' with that winter, for rent.

Funny, because Detroit isn't that far removed from St. Louis weather-wise, and STL is the tech hub of the midwest.

Slashdot's corporate masters will like this tidbit: Dice ranked Missouri as the fastest growing state in regards to tech jobs last year.

Of course, there's plenty of good reasons why tech companies wouldn't want to base out of Detroit, but the weather sure ain't one of them.

Comment: Re:do they have a progressive view? (Score 5, Insightful) 326

by CanHasDIY (#46788397) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

I would die first before moving to texas. most of my friend also feel the same.

... and since the worldview of you and your friends equals 100% of tech employees... /sarc

the outright racism and bible-belt feel just is not compatible with many techies' view of what a good living area should offer.

Never actually been to the "bible-belt," have you? It shows in your bigotry against those of us who actually live here, the irony of which is not lost on me.

Ma Bell is a mean mother!

Working...