I'd say with good success, rather than "limited" success.

Also, it occurs to me that if you'd like a more powerful plastic gun, you should perhaps consider the .45 ACP, which has max pressures slightly lower than the .380. Even better might be a .44 special, which has max pressures of around 14,000 PSI.

I think the duration of the high pressures is a second-order issue, behind the fact that most rifle rounds generate much higher pressures, period. A few examples:

Handgun rounds:

.380 ACP: 21,500 PSI
9mm: 34,800 PSI
.357 magnum: 35,000 PSI
.40: 35,000 PSI
.45 ACP: 21,000 PSI

Rifle rounds:

5.56mm: 62,366 PSI
.270: 65,000 PSI
.308: 62,000 PSI
.30-05: 60,200 PSI

I'm not aware of a single handgun round that is designed for more than 40,000 PSI, while most modern rifle rounds are in the 60,000+ PSI range. The lowest-pressure rifle round I'm aware of is the old .45-70 government, which still peaks at close to 30,000 PSI.

It's worth pointing out the Defense Distributed's Liberator fires the .380, a low-pressure round. The .45 would also be a good choice. Perhaps even better would be the .38 special and .44 special, which have max pressures around 14,000 PSI. Best of all would be some hybrid round which is loaded for low-pressure but is fired out of a casing designed for a high-pressure round. That would allow the casing to take more of the load and demand less of the plastic chamber.

Unfortunately, mine includes the same (teenagers plus one suicidal person). It just means that I keep my guns locked up.

Note that I'm not criticizing your decision, and wasn't to begin with. I just wanted to make sure you weren't basing it on incorrect information.

Meh.

The first two questions are based on public data, in fact it's the same stuff that many financial institutions use to verify your identity in certain cases. I've been asked those sorts of questions many times. The third item is something that the government obviously knows about you, since they scan your passport every time you enter the country, and if you fly out the airline is required to provide them with your passport information when you depart.

That's not to say they don't have a detailed file on you that includes your habits, politics, sexual fetishes and how often you wash your hands when you use the bathroom, but the sort of questions you mentioned don't imply any real surveillance, just pooling of public data (which is already collected and collated by others) and combining it with government data.

You are aware that the old studies that purported to show that gun owners are more likely to get shot than non gun-owners have been completely and thoroughly debunked, aren't you? Your statistical likelihood of being a victim of gun violence has everything to do with your lifestyle.

No.

If I ever gain access to your car, for the 20 seconds it takes me to plug a controller into the canbus, I can control things on the canbus.

Also, remember the central maxim of computer security: Attacks always get better. And these targets are very hard to patch -- it's expensive, time-consuming and hit-or-miss, because the automakers haven't planned for software upgrades, so defenses will not get better, or will at best improve only rarely.

I think Stalin was able to shift the blame to ideology and the "good of the people". A king might find that more difficult.

If you want to look at it in kWh, a 640 kW reactor running 24/7 will produce 640 * 24 * 365 = 5,606,400 kWh per year.

640 kW from my Personal Reactor? That's enough for me.

Interesting point. I suppose the difference arises because with a monarch someone is responsible in a fairly undeniable way. The king may be an ass, but only a true sociopath is willing to be solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. In more democratic structures there are ways to spread the blame, and especially to pin it on ideology and the "good of the people" (not including those killed, presumably).

I don't see that such a perception exists. Investors fully understand that growth stocks aren't growth stocks forever. At some point growth declines and they become something else. Those that continue being reliable generators of income, often by diversifying, become blue chip stocks. Some decline. Some become cyclical.

Of course, once it becomes clear that a company is no longer in its growth phase, investors looking for growth stocks will leave, and those looking for income or wealth preservation will come in, depending on the characteristics of the company. This isn't because those growth investors believe that perpetual growth is possible, but it is because they're looking for ways to grow their money. At 40 years old, that's certainly what I want my retirement investment portfolio to be doing, growing! Isn't that what you want?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My investment goal isn't to build better companies. My investment goal is to get a good return so that I can live comfortably when I can no longer work. Other investors have other goals, but none of them are focused on benefiting the companies.

Nonsense. Well, certainly there are some who are focused on flipping. HFT, day trading, etc. But long-term buy-and-hold investors who are looking for growth are also going to buy companies who are growing and get out of them when the growth slows. Not because the investors are stupid, but because they're smart and want their money in stocks that match their goals.

Apple is up 5% today.

Go to work for a place that pays peanuts and treats you like crap. They're always hiring, and have pretty low standards because people don't stay long. You don't have to stay long, either.

This is how I got started. It's not so bad. You only have to work for the really crappy place for a few months, maybe a year. Then you can step up to the semi-crappy place. After a couple more moves up the scale you should be able to get a good job if you're decent.

Bah, I have no problem being critical of Google products that I dislike, and there would be no repercussions whatsoever. Google isn't that kind of company, there's no blowback for criticizing -- in fact good criticism is more likely to garner kudos. And identifying me is trivial.

I'm glad you're entertained.