Sempron, Celeron?

And if you have only 512 MB of RAM, you don't have an older machine-- you have an OLD machine!

It's simple: anyone saying so is deliberately lying because they place an inordinately high value on the availability of guns, or on a weak government. They don't care that their line of arguing weakens their entire point through dishonesty.

If these things were so amazing, you'd think the police would use them. After all, they aren't in a situation like the military, where you might need to use somebody else's weapon, and it IS an occasional problem where the police have their own weapons taken and used against them. Plus it sets a good example.

So they should be all over them, right?

Ya well, not so much for the reasons the original poster detailed. Reliability is a big one. You'd have to prove the reliability of the system, in a bunch of trials and demos before people would be convinced. It would need to be real reliable too, around the same reliability as the mechanical systems (guns do jam sometimes). If a given weapon has a reliability of 1 problem in 5000 rounds and your smart system causes problems at a rate of about 1 in 50, there's going to be little interest.

Remote issues would be another one. The system would need to be demonstrated to be hardened against remote interference. The last thing the police would want is some electrical system that could disable guns remotely, and even worse, silently. You can harden against that, but it would need to be done and demonstrated effective.

Price is another real concern. How much is something like this going to add to the cost of a gun? I could easily see it being a few hundred dollars. For example have a look at something like an EOTech weapon sight. That's an electronic sight, runs on batteries, that is designed to survive the rigors of battle (the US military uses them). They are $400-700 roughly, depending on options. So, not hard to believe an electronic safety gadget might cost the same. That can double, or more, the cost of many firearms. That is going to be a rather hard sell to people.

If someone can demonstrate a cheap, reliable, solution, well then I can see there being interest in it, at least in some cases. However I've yet to hear of one. As such, no surprise nobody is buying.

Actually that is a bold faced lie.

99.9762% of all Americans want them here and on public trial. Dont know what kind of cult you live in, but normal americans believe in justice.

Default to BSD license or Public domain. Simply run a query that if one is not set, set it to Public domain.

That will fix everything.

It could lead to LESS safety with guns. So with a smart gun people could say "I don't have to worry, it is a smart gun!" and not handle it as safely.

Guns are NOT dangerous devices, what they are is powerful and unforgiving. Dangerous would imply something like a lion, that might just attack for no perceivable reason. A gun only goes off when the right set of circumstances are met.

For example, want to have no chance of a gun firing? Simply remove the ammunition. If there's not a round in the chamber then there is no way it can fire, period, without that being changed.

[citation needed]

Let's get some citations on your stats of smart gun reliability and on gun deaths. It gets rather tiring to see people make up and spout off numbers to support their preconceived notions. Provide support, and think about the quality of your source.

Sounds like a plan, please post your bank account numbers so you can fund the Extra $3500 per gun for the smart platform.

The fact they are ungodly expensive.

The article is stupid, it might as well say, "BMW 725i is a failure because far more Ford Festivas are sold each year."

The problem is there are two sides of stupid who feel if they meet on a middle ground they are loosing something.

The gun control debate and the abortion debate are in essence part of a core debate.
Is life and safety more important than liberity.

Both issues have seemed to become so polarized that logical debate has broken down.

There are thing like the parent post who say "I disagree with your views, so you must have a mental problem" but the problem it is on both sides. We are no longer considering the humanity of both sides.

Gun right advocates don't want this because if it becomes popular it could be law and reduce their rights to own gun as well fear tracking gun owners, which could slide down the scale even further. Liberity is more important thansafety.

Similar debate on abortion, small laws such as the doctor should have admitting privileges at an hosipital, means there could be less dr. Who can perform anortions make it harder for a woman to choose. Liberity over safety.

The core debate is too abstract for most people. So they link up with their political parties and regurgitate what they say, thinking they are so smart and informed.

Yeah. Let's all just give up right now. Especially if nobody is going to know about it. Nice attitude there.

You clearly haven't RTFA. It's nothing to do with being a woman. I don't think it was even anything to do with her. She is overreacting a bit though, the guys were just joking around, while actually giving some probably-useful advice in the meantime.

That's a load of dingo's kidneys. It has been shown repeatedly that Green Revolution farming does not increase yields. As compared to USDA Organic, which is total fucking bullshit, maybe. The biggest fundamental problem is that we are throwing away poop which should be returned to the fields after composting.

Don't whine if people do and development slows.

You might want some people from Intel in on the kernel development. They have some of the best in the business at optimization. If you want to tell them all off that's your prerogative, but don't then cry if they say "Ok, we will leave."

It was screwy half-hearted deregulation where in many ways the worst parts were deregulated but the parts that really would spur on competition were kept heavily in regulations. It still is near impossible for a neighborhood to build a bunch of solar cell panels and small wind turbines as a neighborhood power co-op and sell the excess power on the grid (possible, but very difficult and full of regulations). That is the kind of thing that needs to happen.

It really is so weird that to go through the California regulations on power needs a full time team of lawyers (not just a single lawyer) even for a small neighborhood group, much less a private individual. The big power companies have those teams, which is why those kind of regulations stay in place. The de-regulation was simply that once the lawyers figured out how to weasel their way through the regulations and required forms, that the state couldn't stop them from any subsequent actions.