Want to guess what the most common motivation for home robberies here is ? To steal guns.
10 million US ? You realize that's our entire military budhet ? And we have the biggest and best equipped military on the continent. Not everybody is as rich as America.
Yes our cops have partners but we basically don't even have beat cops anymore. Those cops we're mostly killed in their cars.
While knife killings happen its more common that they are shot though. A good shot can get turn one gun into three for the price of two bullets if he isn't afraid to kill cops.
That said things have gotten much better over the last few years. Crime rates are going down every year and that includes cop killing.
Last year the murder rate was about 15% of what it was 20 years ago. That's quite a drop even if its still too high.
And it's lower than in America (but not by much).
And how does it change your figures if I tell you that it's beeb more than 2 years since tge last time a cop killed a citizen in the UK? Gaps that long and longer are not uncommon at all. Cops without guns are not able to shoot people.
Oh and they disarmed the police decades before they instituted gun control. Turns out most criminals are reticent to shoot unarmed cops. Why risk life in prison for murder when you can try to avoid arrest risking only resisting charges ? But an armed cop invites gun fire just by being armed.
You are relying on your intuition. I stated facts. Science beats intuition. Reality is usually counterintuitive.
Giving cops guns increase the odds of them dying because of escalation.
He'll here in my country the number one reason criminals kill cops is not to avoid arrest: it's to steal the cop's guns. That's what happens when you disarm the people but arm the cops: they get their throats slit from behind to steal their guns for robbing banks with.
He'll we have actually had people robbing police stations to raid the armories !
Correlation does not imply causation.
As it happens there is a well documented pattern that police seems to have forgotten in the past few years and which almost certainly is at play here - and could turn your conclusion on it's head.
That pattern is called "escalation'. If the cops start carrying shotcuns, criminals start carrying machine guns.
If the cops start driving tanks, the criminals will get bazookas.
So it's quite possible that the causality was the other way around. Racist cops in black neighborhoods started carrying heavier arms - so the criminals there upped-their-game
One interesting piece of corroboration is the the correlation between police arms and crime rates is an INVERSE correlation. In countries where most street cops mostly carry non-lethal ordinance (like nightsticks) only, and the guns only come out when you ALREADY CONFIRMED the suspect you're about to go after is likely to be armed - police hardly ever get shot, crime rates are low and hardly anybody gets shot by the cops either.
The UK averages less cop shootings in a decade than the US does in a year, and the vast majority of UK cops are not armed. They also don't GET shot.
Iceland has had only one person shot by police in their ENTIRE HISTORY !
The police in Iceland are unarmed in general, they can be issued weapons if needed for specific operations - but they don't carry them around.
Police getting shot in Iceland are unheard off.
You REALLY want to get rid of crime and make serving police officers safer than they've ever been ? All the evidence suggests your first step should be to disarm the street cops.
Let SWAT be the only ones who get to carry guns and while you're at it, make them need a warrant before they can carry those guns out of the station.
Probably because they are confusing "fuel" for "energy". Nobody claims it doesn't need energy. It does. It just doesn't need liquid fuel. That means you can use energy sources that weigh a lot less. Solar panels for example. Converting electricity to thrust is not exactly new. Hell we have built solar cars on earth. This is just a way of doing the same thing without a road.
But out there it's a lot more valuable to do.
Well NADA is an unlikely source for scams and it doesn't fit the pattern. The science behind it is openly shared without any secret sauce claims. The physics are uncontroversial.
The only thing there could be scam in is whether our engineering can really cash in on it.
At it's best its also not claimed to provide much thrust. You can't leave earth with it. But once you do even a tiny bit of thrust goes a long way. It's not even the only known way to get thrust without fuel - solar sails do that too.
I never got why so many people are so sceptical of this one. Engineering scams are nothing new but this breaks every pattern and the science is genuinely sound.
Those are not mutually exclusive things. Especially when you're talking about two words four decades apart.
It absolutely does and every free country on earth recognises this. That is exactly why all the disparate laws with so many differences you deceptively lump together as "intellectual property " do have one thing in common : they all have limitations that make them temporary. The mechanism of expiration vary widely but they all expire. No physical property rights expire. You can inherited land for unlimited generations. But copyright and patents have time limits, trademarks have to be renewed and are lost if they become generic. These expiration are exactly because they are, all, censorship and the trade off is only worth while if that censorship is temporary.
You're confusing celebrities with media companies.
That's akin to greenpeace blaming you, personally, for the Texaco spill.
It is one thing to use such techniques to test something in a quiet area like a testing chamber, and something completely different to use this technique not only in a rocket that is accelerating at 32 m/s^2 but also has a whole bunch of other noise going on from nine operating turbo pumps, the rocket engines themselves, and other things rattling around tied to that whole system. In addition, to be able to locate a cause while the whole rocket is undergoing massive unplanned disassembly (aka an explosion releasing as much energy as a small nuclear bomb). Also doing that remotely off of recordings made on less than ideal microphones sharing bandwidth with many other more critical data functions over 30 miles away from where you are at.
As something SpaceX can and perhaps should be doing as a part of their Q/A analysis, no doubt using some sort of sound probing to detect faults is going to be done. I just don't know if this has been done on something like a black box of an airliner to perform fault analysis post-mortem on a vehicle failure.
For that to work you need actual hard rules that everyone can agree on.
Sure, electricians and plumbers disagree around the edges (ask a plumber about sharkbite if you want to lose a few hours of your life) but there's a huge chunk that's accepted practice for good, demonstrable and easily definable reasons.
Software is still the wild west, and we're still figuring out how to do it properly.
Yup, Cisco and Microsoft are all about this.
Give your local college a shit tonne of free network gear, heavily subsidize CCNA material/testing, totally worth it when a college basically turns their networking course into a Cisco networking course and everyone who graduates leans towards Cisco products going forward (at least initially in their career).
Apparently a Helium tank was held in place inside of the Liquid Oxygen tank on the 2nd stage that failed while it was under going the nearly 32 m/s^2 acceleration (about 3.2 time Earth's gravity acceleration). This part was manufactured by an undisclosed 3rd party contractor for SpaceX and was rated to being able to hold up to 10,000 PSI, but failed at 2000. In the past week, SpaceX has been "testing an enormous number" of this exact strut that is currently in their inventory intended for future flights, and confirmed that at least one of them failed in a similar fashion where metallurgical analysis has been performed trying to identify potential defects.
It was also confirmed in this press conference that the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft was tracked after the explosion and remained intact until it could no longer be followed by the tracking station due to it falling below the horizon. The Dragon could have survived the explosion and been recovered, except that the on-board guidance computer was not programmed to deploy the parachute during ascent. In the future, SpaceX plans on having this parachute deployment as a standard procedure even on cargo missions in the event of a rocket failure.
Link to Original Source
Indeed, comes down to what you want out of your system. Also update frequency isn't as important as the software you choose to run. I happen to mostly use stable stuff that doesn't change much: openbox+xfce for wm, mplayer, and palemoon specifically because I got tired of firefox adding shit I didn't want and taking away stuff I did. I use gentoo and generally do an update every few weeks, but it's been awhile since I did an update and anything radically changed.
With my servers it's much the same story. Most of the stuff I'm using (apache, postgres, nfs, etc..) has been stable for some time, so though I do an update every few weeks, very little changes.
On the other hand, if I was using the latest ubuntu and kde/gnome and vlc and firefox and all that, every update would probably entirely change my system. One day I'd launch firefox and find out that the URL bar was now on the bottom or something to make way for a big facebook widget and my program menu would disappear because gnome decided that Microsoft was on to something when they eliminated the start menu and providing too many options in a list like that was confusing to users.