Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Living Wage is mandated for, and desired by idi (Score 1) 47 47

The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.

Makes perfect sense to me. There are lots of people whose lifestyles don't permit a regular job, but could use a flexible income supplement.

The next time someone says "that doesn't make a living wage" the correct response is to punch them in the mouth.

That's a rather violent, not to mention criminal, response. I think not.

Comment: Re:Passwords are not the only way to authenticate (Score 1) 76 76

First, my comment was not a "defense" of anything.

Second, you seem to have missed the sentence "It's not quite as good if the smartphone is also providing the fingerprint scanner and camera, because in the event of an attempted fraudulent transaction that means the attacker is in control of those components."

Also, you seem to have missed the last paragraph. In fairness, I suppose I wasn't quite clear enough. When I said that the security is in the same ballpark as a four-digit PIN, I was comparing to a system using phone-mounted sensors. With sensors provided by the retailer, in a staffed checkout lane, it's unambiguously stronger.

Comment: Re:Presumably you've never been shot at (Score 1) 282 282

You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation.

zerofoo said nothing of the sort. He said that killing or fully disabling the shooter isn't necessary, not that it's not possible, or even unlikely.

The history of mass shooting violence in the US bears out both zerofoo's point that killing or disabling the shooter often isn't necessary, since mass shooters tend to suicide as soon as they meet armed resistance, and even those who don't are clearly going to have to shift their focus from mass murder to self-defense or be an easy target. There are plenty of cases in which shooters have been killed, disabled or otherwise stopped by citizens, though they tend to get less press for the simple reason that fewer people die.

So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%?

Interestingly, the US has conducted this experiment over the last 40 years or so, as the number of concealed carry permit holders went from basically zero to up to 15% in some areas of the country. What happened? Not much. Violence declined, and there is some weak statistical evidence that it declined faster in areas where more people began carrying guns on a daily basis. There is no evidence that violence increased.

Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?

I suspect it won't change at all. What would reduce the number of shootings is removing all of the guns, but that is impossible.

P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.

This is something of an unrelated point, but I think it's worth noting that police did not respond quickly at Columbine High School, and that the experience dramatically changed police doctrine for responding to active shooters, across the nation. After-action analyses showed that as soon as the shooters faced aggressive armed response, they killed themselves, but that happened many minutes, and several deaths, later than it could have. At the time standard procedure was to cordon the area, isolate the shooters and wait for enough backup to arrive -- preferably SWAT -- that the police could enter in overwhelming force. But Columbine changed that, and most police departments now train their officers that if they have good reason to believe it's a lone shooter then the very first officers on the scene should enter immediately.

Immediate entry, without overwhelming force or special weapons, seems like it significantly increases the risk to the officers, but in practice it doesn't, much. And, of course, waiting tends to give shooters time and space to rack up massive body counts.

Comment: Re:Been standing for years... (Score 1) 223 223

It takes a couple weeks to get used to standing. Stick with it.

Or just change positions several times per day. I stand until I'm tired of it then sit for 30 minutes, repeat. I set a timer for the sitting periods, otherwise I find that when I'm focused on something I forget to stand up again. I've thought about hacking and arduino into the controls on my desk and automating that, so that after 30 minutes my desk automatically returns to the standing position, but haven't gotten around to it.

I have a motorized desk from VersaTables. Nice desk and the company was great to work with. Not cheap, though, not at all.

Comment: Re:Just great (Score 2) 153 153

Blue Cross in Michigan used "Oh, our mainline plan, good for 50 years, is now legally substandard because it doesn't offer (fuck if I know, abortions for Pekingese maybe) as an excuse to dump tons of people off the gold standard Blue Cross plan, and then offer new plans for thousands of dollars more a year.

There was nothing substandard at all about the previous plan, as it was the mainline Blue Cross plan, and even if so, that's irrelevant, because a Man Who Wasn't Lying said you could keep your plan. Well, we couldn't because that fraudulent liar made that plan illegal.

Comment: Re:A Soviet comic once said (Score 0) 223 223

"Regurgitate?" I'm the author of it, you fool. It is a parody of this wingnut idiocy — and, I dare say, a far classier than the original for it uses no namecalling to get its point across.

As so often happens, an Illiberal fails to recognize his own... Yep, somebody here is "mentally handicapped".

Comment: Re:Yay, 'murica! (Score 1) 282 282

It's not about any other country. The goal of the regulation is to prevent Americans from having access to 3D printed guns and to intimidate any American who would design one of these guns.

The best answer is for people outside the US to create these designs and post them online.

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"

Working...