Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Fabricating an assualt rifle in California... (Score 1) 143

by StikyPad (#49835063) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office

1) "Assault rifles" are not a thing. Certain specific firearms were banned by a piece of legislation colloquially known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," but that doesn't make it a thing any more than the PATRIOT ACT makes it patriotic to eavesdrop. It was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004.

2) California has its own wacky gun laws. I don't know or care what they are.

3) The thing you're talking about is the also ironically-named "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986, and it sort of banned machine guns, but only those manufactured after passage. It's still perfectly legal to buy/own a machine gun built before 1986.

4) In fact, the FOPA did not ban machine guns; it simply requires people to pay a one-time Federal Excise Tax fee. Search for "how to buy a class 3 firearm," for details. The only real hurdle is sometimes getting approval from the local authorities, and it may require some persistence, unless you have a criminal record, and then you can forget about it.

State law may vary. IANAL, and this is not legal advice, etc...

Comment: Re:Great. (Score 1) 143

by StikyPad (#49834919) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office

They aren't going to do either of those things. The won't regulate CNC mills, and they won't drop restrictions on manufacturing -- they will just enforce existing laws using existing methods: get the guy you catch to roll over on his source for a reduced sentence. This isn't some new crisis for investigators.

Comment: Guns are already untraceable! (Score 1) 143

by StikyPad (#49834893) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office

Unlike cars, there is no public record of when they're resold, at least not in most states.

And it's not the receiver that would be matched anyway; it's the barrel.. and guess what? It's perfectly legal to replace the barrel on a gun, and then it won't match either. Regardless, that match can't be made unless the gun has been obtained, and you can't magically match a bullet to a registered gun and then track down the registered owner.

Guns are not traceable. They can possibly be matched, if recovered, but not excluded on anything other than calibur. It's more like blood type evidence than fingerprint.

Comment: Re:Great. (Score 2) 143

by trout007 (#49834773) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office

OK so they ban mills. I can make a mill from stepper motors and linear slides. Going to regulate those as well?

You ae missing the point. Libertarians (actually the agorist wing) is doing this because this is how your bring down the State. Just like the drugs are finally starting to be legalized only after it becomes obvious how tyrannical and unjust the drug war is.

Comment: Re:Do you want a diversity hire? (Score 1) 224

See my other post, AC. A female name is an asset, not a liability.

Plus women have their first child in their 30s these days, on average, and most tech jobs last less than two years. It's a non-issue that you're speculating that someone else is speculating exists. If you're not getting hired, it's because there are people who are significantly more qualified, or you're living in an area with too few jobs, in which case the solution is not to get a sex change, it's to move.

Comment: Re:Do you want a diversity hire? (Score 1) 224

Do you think the marketing guys at Coke say "until more people device to drink Coke, getting more people to buy our product would have to mean poisoning all the wells and reservoirs"? Or do they perhaps try to encourage people to drink Coke, because historically that has worked quite well?

When is the last time you saw a woman drink a non-diet soda? Do you think diet sodas exist because CocaCola decided to spend time and money to create and manufacture a new product line that tastes inferior to the original and then persuade people to drink it, or because they realized that women want to watch their weight and they could make a shitload of money by catering to that? Because, historically, creating products and trying to convince people that they need it when they don't is a good way to fail. Check out Shark Tank and see how many billionaires are *really* trying that approach. The answer is zero.

Comment: Re:Already been burnt by the price (Score 1) 68

by lgw (#49834545) Attached to: Apple Recalls Beats Pill XL Speakers As Fire Risk

With B&W you're generally paying for the artwork, not so much the speaker. If you love the way they look, that's fine - who's to say what art is worth? A lot of the "crazy" $10k audiophile speakers are really just solid $1000 speakers plus the price of the "look" of the speaker - and as long as people realize that's what they're paying for, what's to criticize?

Those who claim the dead never return to life haven't ever been around here at quitting time.