A nice point yourself. I'd noticed this flavor of decline before, no more high elven king thanks mainly to not enough high elves left in Middle Earth to form a kingdom, the lost realm of Arnor, Gondor and allies severely outnumbered by their enemies and in peril, the earlier Atlantis like loss of Numenor. Even the Ents are in permanent decline. Only the dwarves have advanced somewhat, and that too is in danger. All that fits early Middle Age societies, living as they did within the ruins of Roman civlization, still using some Roman aqueducts, roads, and buildings centuries after losing the knowledge necessary to build more or even maintain existing ones, and unable to rediscover much thanks to the constant threats of war, disease, and food shortages. But I overlooked that this time.
The detail given seems to try to obscure instead of clarify, in my opinion
Having skimmed the patent, I agree. I do not regularly read patents, but it is my understanding that software and process patents like this regularly suffer from this problem - they attempt to obfuscate as much of the details as possible in order to make the claims as broad as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to do anything useful with the information in the patent.
Nevermind the question of whether software patents are valid or not, this obfuscation is in direct contradiction with the intent of the patent system - to trade a monopoly in the technology for the publication of the information necessary to reproduce the technology.
There is now a
They are trying to find ways to contain the heat a bit longer, long enough to get it out of the breech on a bolt gun.
The purpose of that is to keep the rifle barrel at a lower and more stable temp longer with sustained fire, making snipers more effective because a warmer barrel puts the bullet in a different place.
It will not be long before the case and possibly the primer will be plastic. Leaving only the projectile as the last step.
No. It is not illegal to sell a gun that you made yourself.
It is illegal to make a gun with the intention of selling it, and then sell it.
If you make it, decide you want a different grip shape, sell the gun, and use the money to buy more raw materials. Totally legal.
If you are going to participate in gun control discussion, get the basic facts correct.
You may be wrong yourself. If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian. The USA has a much higher gun death rate than other developed countries, and when you look within the USA itself, you find that Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide., or put simply more guns, more crime. All of the above citations go to original or academic sources. So what could be going on? Well, firstly, the NRA attempts to stop scientists from studying gun violence. (In a similar vein, the junk-food industry tries to limit the study of the health effects of sugar.) Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this. I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
You are a liar. Here, let me quote:
If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian.
Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.
Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is both myopic and factually incorrect. Heck, often a simple display indicating this victim will not go down as easy as they thought is enough to prevent the crime.
Why would you need to LIE to support your position unless your position was wrong? You sir, are a LIAR.
How many Black "youth" live in Iceland? Exactly.
Again, crappy culture. The benefit of a socialism like Iceland is that people from problematic groups are brought into a situation where it is easy and beneficial for them to grow up and become productive members of society. There is the concept of being able to move from a lower economic class into a higher one by hard work. Some call it the American dream. The ironic thing is that the U.S. have one of the most rigid class structures in the west. The movement from one class to another is rarer than in most other nations. If you want to actually live that dream you are better off living in Iceland or Norway or some other nation that doesn't treat you like a criminal just because you are poor.
It might be noteworthy that Iceland didn't import slaves by the boatload and create an antagonistic racial divide, where today the descendants of the slaves see accepting "white man's culture" -- getting educated, holding a job, raising kids in a two-parent home -- as becoming an Uncle Tom and betraying your kin.
They also don't have a president creating an antagonistic racial divide by sticking his nose in an ordinary self-defense case.
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)
And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.
In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.
In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.
Their intention is to outsource fine-grain cookie control to extensions. I think it is a good idea, but only half-baked. I would like to see them come up with a list of recommended privacy extensions (including cookie handlers), a sort of "Mozilla Recommended" list to make it easier for newbies who care about privacy but don't know enough to necessarily ask the right questions.
The question to ask the people pushing for this policy change is - do they have any examples of the same thing happening to some other company? If not, why do they think they would be the first to suffer this indignity? If they do have examples, how did it work out? Did it really make a difference in actual sales?
There are multiple versions of the ten commandments, and the version on display on the monument at the Oklahoma capitol is a Christian version.
And even if it wasn't, so what?
I think the point here is that it's rapidly becoming a proven technology that has a less than 50% chance of injuring the wielder. AFAIK there have been 0 operator fatalities of the devices so far. The reason why nobody thought this was a worthwhile technology to pursue previously was because everybody thought it would detonate immediately. Turns out that the number is closer to 10 and greater than 0. Even 1000 or 10,000 is a pretty big number, up from 0 in less than a year.
This would be a better argument if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the ten commandments are not actually illegal, so it's entirely fallacious to say our legal system is based on them.
I'm not argument against any particular position, I'm saying you are factually wrong. Henderson is referring specifically to the monument of the ten commandments that is at the Oklahoma capitol, which is an overtly Christian monument placed there by Christian politicians. He may have a bias against Christians, but just because he used the right word to describe the situation does not necessarily mean so.
I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela
Because "not renewing the license of a radio station that backed a freaking coup is so "authoritarian".
1) Turned the Supreme Court into its puppet.
2) Directly controls a large part of the media, and harasses much of the rest into submission.
3) Threatens, promotes hatred against, harasses and sometimes arrests, political dissidents.
Venezuela still has elections, yes. So did the Soviet Union. Elections are not enough to guarantee freedom; the elections need to be free and fair, and there needs to be freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and generally the majority must respect the rights and liberties of the minorities and individuals. Also, the current government must never entrench itself. These guarantees were violated by the Soviet Union and are violated by Venezuela.
By the way, Chavez attempted a coup d'état himself, and constantly licked the boots of Fidel Castro and other dictators who were his heroes. A chavist complaining of "golpismo" is like the Ku Klux Klan complaining of racism. It is beyond incoherent.
When has the U.S. sold large amounts of weapons to Cuba, Vietnam, or China?
I don't get your point.