Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Brains are a funny thing (Score 1) 207

by RevDisk (#43780737) Attached to: Narrowing Down When Humans Began Hurling Spears
Eh, it's not that hard. A good bit of practice helps. I wouldn't personally be comfy with trying to put in a killing shot into the neck of something larger than myself... But hitting a person sized object at 20m isn't that bad. Ideally, you'd want to volley launch said spears. Much like archery.

Comment: Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere (Score 5, Interesting) 164

by RevDisk (#43754857) Attached to: Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi
It's optimized for freight, not passenger service. US has the most advanced freight railroad system in the world. Passenger service makes sense in some area, in others it will always be break even at best. 15,000 tons of coal is not something you need or want to move at 80+ MPH.

It doesn't receive a lot of attention (folks often want high speed rail for mass transit), but our rail network is pretty good for what makes economic sense.

Comment: Re: 2nd Amendment Question (Score 1) 551

No, bombs and grenades are "Destructive Devices", see 26 U.S.C. 5845(f). They need a $200 tax stamp under NFA. Possibly explosive licenses or storage requirements as well. They're not illegal under US federal laws. Might be under state or local laws, there are tens of thousands of those.

Self aiming guns would reduce potential secondary casualties. Not eliminate. It's entirely possible to kill someone by shooting them after it passed through another human being. Knowing what is behind your target is important, and part of firearms training. Even a perfect self aiming firearm does not eliminate the necessity of good training. Making such tech illegal would be stupid. Sure, you might be able to program one to perfectly headshot everyone in a room, someday. The benefits however far outweight the risk.

Comment: Re:2nd Amendment Question (Score 1) 551

by RevDisk (#43744185) Attached to: A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale
Sure, no problem. Glad to help, I have done American to British translation in the past for the UK military. I promise not to mess with you by going "Oh, you're one of THOSE. G'day mate!" The cringes are awesome.

Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm? I do not. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives interprets US law and court decisions (case law) to express their opinion. In this case, the law is the following: Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include (A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon"

Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun? This is covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Rocket launchers are subject to a $200 tax, and are considered "Destructive Devices". See 26 U.S.C. 5845(f) for the specific definition. Short story long: Yep, rocket launchers are legal but any "fun" munition is also a separate DD and requires paperwork at $200 per. Chalk, flare, smoke or solid shot are not DD.

Laser or energy state weapons are not firearms unless powdered by explosives or propellant. So, laser guns are legal except you're not allowed to use them against aircraft.

What are you going to do when the technology of simple side arms develops to the point where you an take out a room full of people by pressing a trigger and letting you gun do all the aiming etc..? It's called a "pipe bomb" or "grenade" (claymores, shotguns, punt guns, etc), and we've been dealing with them for a while. You may think I am being sarcastic or disingenuous, which is not the case. We already have the capacity of doing so. This is more high tech and more expensive. Tossing a frag grenade into a room kills a room just as dead as aimbotting a 5.56 round individually into every person's skull. It's just evolving tech, but not revolutionary.

Anything else?

Comment: Re:Use cases (Score 1) 156

by RevDisk (#43735467) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Do You Trust When a Vendor Tells You To Buy New Parts?
*raises hand*

Half of my former employers asked me about contracting. Some said no way when I told them my rates, others I told "no" due to various reasons. I still do consulting at one place, years later. Down to a couple hours, the new guy they hired is pretty decent. They toss me some hours when he's out of town or on vacation.

Comment: Re:Gun control however... (Score 1) 856

by RevDisk (#43713013) Attached to: California Lawmaker Wants 3-D Printers To Be Regulated
Ahh... Wow. I'm surprisingly at a lack of words for describing the wrongness in your comments. When I was in the Balkans, I had to deal with folks that committed rapes against civilians of opposite ethnic groups for psychological warfare purposes. Mind you, these people (on multiple sides) were pro genocide, and they knew what they were doing was wrong and psychologically traumatizing.

You are entitled to your opinion. But please do realize that the existence of your opinion completely explains why self-defense is a human right. If it needed justification, which it doesn't, that'd provide it. And that in practical terms, folks should have the opinion of owning and carrying firearms. Ideally with training and whatnot.

Also, rape does not happen solely to women.

Comment: Re:Goodbye (Score 1) 668

by RevDisk (#43709827) Attached to: How Colleges Are Pushing Out the Poor To Court the Rich
In theory, you are wrong. The USA is technically a constitutional republic. The notion is that a majority cannot vote away the rights of the majority, with a constitutional amendment. First there is a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States) must approve it. Short of this, Constitutional rights (such a free speech, firearms, habeas corpus, etc) cannot be overruled. Theoretically, tiniest minority that could overrule the majority would be the thirteen least populous states, which make up 4.98% of the total population. So, you're close. Worst (or best) case, you'd need at least a maximum of 95.02% of the population to remove a constitutional right if folks wanted to really make a hash of things.

Reality is, they can and do infringe on pretty much all rights to various degrees. For instance, felons are deprived of many fundamental rights.

Comment: Re:living in america :( (Score 3, Insightful) 668

by RevDisk (#43709505) Attached to: How Colleges Are Pushing Out the Poor To Court the Rich
US military fatalities are pretty low. The reality of military life is a lot different than left or right wing fantasies, and generally pretty boring to the average person 99% of the time. 1% of the time, it does get pretty exciting. This will sound dorky, but it has a lot of truth in it. If you're smart, motivated, etc you can learn a lot on or off the books. You get out of it what you want to, if you're willing to put in the work. Pretty much like college.

There's not much cannon fodder left in the US military. Even infantry is pretty geared up these days, and not interested in unnecessary fatalities. Too much so at times. Too many commanders are too risk adverse, and it is hindering getting things accomplished.

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 656

by RevDisk (#43677699) Attached to: Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom
Think a car enthusiast would cry if a beautifully restored muscle car was slagged to buy a Ford Focus during that whole "Cash for Clunkers" thing? That a craftsman would cry if he heard of a spouse selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools for a pittance?

Some enterprising folks DO set up shop outside those gun buyback programs and rescue the good weapons. Gun buy-backs are just good ways of disposing of junk or evidence.

Comment: Re:First? (Score 1) 121

by RevDisk (#43623403) Attached to: The Smart Grid Has Arrived
How could storing energy in batteries be anything like a "smart grid"? Storing energy in batteries is expensive and inefficient, and likely will always be barring some changes in current knowledge of materials science. We do it, because we want something to be off-grid and are willing to pay the price for it. Cell phones are a fairly good example.

A true "smart grid" is merely a power grid where folks controlling it have a good picture of where power is being generated, where it is ending up and how it gets there. Information and control, not the medium. I'd be happier with the regional reliability entities were autonomous, and split into Western and Eastern Interconnection. Tres Amigas will help this along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NERC-map-en.svg

I feel like I'm in a Toilet Bowl with a thumbtack in my forehead!!

Working...