assault grips?

A quick Google search brings up bicycle handle bars and World of Warcraft. What are you talking about?

bombs?

A bomb is not the same as a rifle. Nor a carbine. Nor a pistol. Bombs are covered under different laws.

any military weapon?

That's Claymores to cruise missiles. Looks like you're just flailing around now.

or a military sniper rifle?

Still flailing. Adding words like "military" or "sniper" does not change the functionality.

what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun?

You mean "magazine", not "clip". And "handgun" is redundant.

The purpose is to have more rounds available without reloading.

to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.

So the basis for your position is Hollywood fantasy. And you can't tell the difference between the real world and a Hollywood fantasy.

So you're going to argue based upon the Hollywood fantasies that you've watched.

I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.

"Reasonable" being defined there as "agree with this statement".

No. You are wrong.

Once you get away from fully automatic/burst (already regulated) there is NOTHING (see below) that differentiates a weapon used for hunting/sport from a weapon (as you claim) "designed for" ... "kill humans".

There are excepts such as an "elephant gun" and such for hunting larger animals. But by that logic a weapon designed to "kill humans" (as you claim) would be less effective.

what's the purpose of a flash surpressor? Why would somebody buy one and install one on their weapon?

Well, according to YOU it is because:

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

So, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

Again, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

And don't bother replying with another question.

all I'm saying is would somebody reasonable stand up so we can have a reasonable conversation.

And which of the "gun nuts" that you identified would meet your criteria for "somebody reasonable"?

Almost EVERYONE thinks that their beliefs are "reasonable" (and correct).

the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.

Work on your trolling.

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

I don't think you understand the subject. How, exactly, does a flash suppressor "speak to the purpose of the weapon" in this case?

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

In WWII, the M1 Garand was issued to the US soldiers. It had no flash suppressor. How is it less effective because of that?

i don't make people gun nuts. they make themselves gun nuts.

And that is why the people who disagree with you will not accept your views on "compromise and ... consensus".

that may or may not be true but the quote was from the 90s and the debate over the original brady bill, when the focus really was on AK47s, etc.

Except that fully automatic AK-47s were already highly restricted. And they still are.

to be honest, I'm really surprised by the absolutist nature of gun nuts.

You might want to look at your usage of "gun nuts" in that statement.

Once you start labelling people who disagree with you as "nuts" it does not inspire confidence that you will be less "absolutist" in your goals.

the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).

This is one of the problems with this discussion.

"Assault RIFLES" are already heavily restricted. These are the fully-automatic weapons.

"Assault WEAPONS" is a classification that was created for political reasons. It is based upon COSMETIC features of a weapon.

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

No. Because the difference is cosmetic. Not functionality.

Weapon A can be classified as an "assault weapon" and banned if it has a flash suppressor (along with other cosmetic features).

But if weapon A does not have a flash suppressor then it is not an "assault weapon" and is okay to sell.

The flash suppressor does NOTHING to change the functionality of the weapon.

How much is "expensive"? What's your budget?

Then, choose the already existing novels that you want to turn into a series. This gives a beginning and ending to your series so you'll be better able to control costs.

Gritty crime drama fantasy? Vlad Taltos by Steven Brust

Historical vampire romp? Count Saint-Germain by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro

Need more cute? Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper

Dystopian future? Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams (not the movie)

Space fantasy fun? The Stainless Steel Rat by Harry Harrison

Ultra stylized fantasy world? The Witch World by Andre Norton

Gritty war fantasy? The Black Company by Glen Cook

I'm sure that lots of other people can come up with lots of other examples. There's something available out there for every production budget and schedule.

The problem is that most of the TV writers out there know a lot more about how to get a job writing for TV than they know about science.

So you end up with concepts that might have worked as a 5 minute skit on a comedy show being dragged on and on and on.

Personally, I'd like to see something like Freefall as a series.

1. Since they can read a cyclist's hand signals that probably isn't much of a problem.

2. Possibly not on the first attempt. But, ideally, those cars will be sending data back to Google which will then relay the improved instructions to the next cars to attempt it. But hang onto that thought.

3. Probably better than a human would.

Anyway, back to #2. I'd be concerned about the number of idiots around construction zones who are NOT using the autonomous cars. The ones that will change lanes without signalling. The ones that will drive AROUND you if they think you aren't moving fast enough. Given the right set of circumstances an autonomous car could be "stuck" at a construction zone for an hour or more. All the while waiting for the lane in front of them to clear while people in the other lanes move into that opening before it is "safe".

If the person really was "tech-savvy" then there would not be any implicating information on his/her phone.

Unless you're talking about petty criminals who don't have the resources to use a secondary phone that is not tied to them.

But that just means that the DOJ wants to kill the 4th Amendment to chase petty criminals. Fuck that!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From TFA:

The absence could be because intelligent life is extremely rare, or because intelligent life has a tendency to go extinct.

EVERYTHING that does not get off the planet it is currently occupying goes extinct. Planets die. Suns die.

Getting off the planet (and out of the solar system) is difficult because space is so HUGE.

The "paradox" depends upon a the assumption that a race COULD successfully colonize another solar system before they died / their planet died / their sun died.

Maybe that is possible. But so far our ONE example (ourselves) hasn't been able to reach the closest solar system.

Or the iTunes Digital Copy.

I will download the video exactly once. It then lives on my computer, and I can copy it onto my iPod or iPad.

That is convenient but I think it is still the wrong question.

Eventually, the first download-only (no DVD) will be released by a studio. Then a second. The studios want download-only because then they control everything. You will never own anything from them again.

Then the studios demand further restrictions from the hardware manufacturers. Abandon old format A and include new format B.

Sure, you can repurchase all your A content and they'll even give you a discount on the B versions. But they will set the A price at whatever they want. What choice will you have? Stay with your old electronics and disable the updates?

No matter how convenient they make it it is still about removing your ownership of what you've paid for.

You really think that people want to cart around a portable DVD player too?

That wasn't the question. He's complaining about not being able to pre-download large files.

Once you get past the "why can't I pre-download this" there isn't an issue with using your phone or tablet or whatever to watch movies.

But if Bennett Haselton is going to focus on pre-downloading then yes, I do expect him to use a portable DVD player.

DRM is not about pre-downloading.

DRM is about never owning what you paid for.