Comment Re:Not useless.... (Score 1) 215
this!
my first thought when i watched the video.
No one can kill as many people as quickly with a knife as one can with a semi-automatic gun. This is a fact. If you lined up 30 humans and had someone slit their throats as quickly as possible, it still wouldn't be as fast as a gun.
You are absolutely right about that, unfortunately your missing the point that its still some crazy person trying to kill 30 people not the gun. While its easier to sit and fire 30 rounds into the crowd I could just as easily run around slashing people with a knife thankfully there are good people with the ability to contain the bad people because they have the same if not better force/weapon/abilities.
Bad guys will always always always find a way to get what they need (guns, drugs, whatever) regardless if its following the law or not (thats why they are called bad guys). I for one want to make sure the good guys continue to have the same if not better weapons/abilities.
Imagine what would happen if we banned guns? well just look what happened when we made certain drugs illegal. Did those drugs just disappear and nobody was able to get any of them? no. But it made it so the good guys could throw the book at them when people where caught with them. We already have laws that are in place for people that have real assault weapons etc. What more do you want?
What is it you think banning guns will do?
Prevent guns from being used in criminal acts.
How? Please explain. I don't see any reason why banning them would prevent bad guys from using them to bad things, bad guys don't follow the law already!
Did banning illegal drugs actually stop them from being used and people over dosing on them?
I didn't know drugs were illegal.
I'm not sure where you live but in the US I can't just go use cocaine legally whenever I would like, yet it is everywhere. The same concept applies to gun control, the only people your going to stop are law following citizens.
Because they're guns?
What is it you think banning guns will do?
Did banning illegal drugs actually stop them from being used and people over dosing on them?
Personally I don't think banning will do anything productive in relation to gun violence etc. I grew up in a farming community and we were taught how to use and treat guns from an early age and because of that we did just that. Right now I think its better for us to focus on educating people about guns and best practices then just blindly banning all guns.
I, personally (and yes i realize you might disagree), would want a hand gun to defend my family if an intruder were to come into my house AND I, personally, really enjoy taking out my AR-15 (not an assault rifle by definition), XD-m 40, 12 gauge, or any gun I can get my hands on and having some fun practicing AND I, personally, enjoy hunting with the various firearms for food for my family. Of course all of my gun use is done using correct safety precautions. I'm very very very careful with who i bring with me and I always make sure that they really do understand gun safety even if they say they already do. There has been more then one time when I've had to correct people because they just want to do what they've seen in movies instead of actually being safe and that is the real problem, idiots. To put it in a more gently people who are uneducated about guns and gun use.
Now gun control biased moderaters fire away with your -1's
I've been using Windows since 3.0
crap you got me beat! I've only been using since 3.11, but then again I always exited and went to DOS anyways.
I see this "metro controversy" as a non-issue at a time when so many people own smartphones/tablets and add apps with random UIs on them. so why should familiarity be more important than usability if all websites look different and all apps have their "skin"?
But my grandma (who is the person that will eventually have windows 8) only uses her select programs and every time something new happens her brain cant handle it and it requires many phone calls/written down tutorials of how to navigate until she gets used to it. Honestly I'm just selfishly not wanted to have to support/explain that with all my "non-techie" family members because they always call me for anything relating to the computer, regardless if its something I can "fix" or not.
"yes grandma, click the blue 'e'
Git's tagline is "everything local". But is that a good idea? Every developer has the company's entire codebase (including history) on his laptop. Which means it's just a tar and an scp away from delivering to his next place of employment.
But you can actually do sub repos , albeit I think they are a pain in the a$$ but yes you can do it.
In general I think a central server should be baked into the costs for any revision control proposal, just because it can run on your desktop does not mean it should.
"What happened to my merge!?", "Oh sorry man, I rebooted"
You make it sound like you have to buy an IBM mainframe just to host a git server
And still the *only* complaint anyone here (a place where Microsoft is derided at every turn for stability, performance, and security) ever manages to come up with is their own opinion on launcher preferences.
because people being able to intuitively use an OS isn't that important? windows 8 and gnome 3 FTW!
but seriously I had the hardest time getting used to windows 8
...Access? For a DB class?
Can't quite remember what we used for ours. Something that integrated with Eclipse, because our DB class was in Java...
Wait, a DB class requiring Access?
Isn't that specifically sanctioned against by the Geneva Convention? I certainly consider Access a crime against humanity.
Thats what I thought! but to be fare it was only for a few assignments then we switched to oracle etc.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
