Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:if it's so advanced (Score 5, Insightful) 1374

That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Yep, and in spite of that police will refuse to accept this technology. Weighed against a gun grab, they'll vote for the weapon that is more likely to work for them when they need it. To combat gun grabs they'll continue to use retention holsters and train to defend their gun.

You may not know, but another technology in this vein (gun grab protection) is already in production and widely available. It's a more sensible and less risky approach... and by and large police officers don't like it. The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted. The idea is that if an officer ends up in a wrestling match they can reach down and hit the exposed magazine release, disabling their gun until the magazine is re-inserted. Seems sensible enough, but it still creates a small risk that the gun won't work when they want it to, so by and large police have refused to buy guns with the feature even though it was designed specifically for them.

Comment Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger (Score 3, Interesting) 1374

a gun that might not fire.

That would be all of them.

Yes, if you're a pedant. However, a well-maintained modern handgun firing factory ammunition is unlikely to fail, and nearly all failures that do occur are transient and easily fixed. With a bit of practice, even type 3 malfunctions (double-feed) can be cleared in under a second and the gun restored to working order.

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes. In a gunfight, a couple of minutes is likely to be a literal lifetime. Further, it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly. If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.

Police will absolutely refuse to use these, and civilians should also refuse to allow them to be imposed on us.

Comment Re:By Your Command (Score 1) 269

Why is not NOT OK to have a real choice, where people can choose a more open Android or a platform that ships with defaults that are vastly better for 98% of people that will own mobile devices?

That's a false dichotomy. Android is a platform that ships with defaults that are better for 98% of people that will own mobile devices. By default it only allows installation from the Google Play store.

That said, I have absolutely nothing against people having a choice between iOS and Android (and whatever else). I'd be very, very concerned if the walled garden were the only option, but it's not.

Comment Re:Is it going to break the API? (Score 1) 688

I've got 8GB on my machine, and every day or so I need to shut down Firefox to reclaim the memory it's been leaking.

Are you sure about that? Do you understand how modern OSes use RAM?

Try disabling swap, then running Firefox for a day or two, so it appears to be hogging all your RAM, then start up an app that actually does allocate, say, 6 GiB. Then check the FF usage. Do the same experiment with swap enabled. If FF is doing things right, the behavior should be the same, and in both cases you should see FF memory "consumption" drop dramatically when something else demands all the RAM.

If the other program can't actually get the memory it needs (with swap disabled), then FF actually leaks. I suspect it doesn't. (Note that I don't use FF).

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 2) 132

And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.

You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others. I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pistol) is useless. My rifles, however, are not.

As for the expected riposte about how semi-automatic rifles are also useless against machine guns, cannon, attack aircraft, helicopters, tanks, JDAMs and nuclear weapons other than to say that if you think rifles aren't effective against them you need to (a) study the history of guerrilla warfare and (b) think about the political aspects of armed resistance and how the members of the police and armed forces are likely to respond to being asked to fire upon their countrymen. If necessary, consult with a few policemen and soldiers to clarify any uncertainty you may have about (b).

The reason I carry a handgun is the same reason police officers carry a handgun, for self-defense. Handguns are defensive weapons. Rifles are offensive weapons, which is why they're carried by soldiers. Oh, and before you tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, I should probably also mention I'm a former police officer and a former soldier and a current (part-time) firearms instructor.

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 1) 132

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

In 2011, the NRA raised over $200M from individual contributors. Between 2005 and 2012, the NRA received $15M from gun manufacturers, which averages to a little over $2M per year.

This means that the industry funds approximately 1% of the NRA; the other 99% comes from its membership.

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Comment Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score 1) 132

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

Not only that, they actually helped write some of the gun control bills. But that's in the past and the NRA of the last decade or so has caught on to the ideas of eternal vigilance and incrementalism (pushing your view inch by inch, always taking as much as you can get, but not refusing just because it's not all you want).

Comment Re:Site for illegal activities, just load this... (Score 2) 251

Nah, you didn't have anything better to do. You're just a fucking idiot who has no idea what they are talking about.

The irony of your statement made me chuckle. You obviously don't know anything about who I am, what I do, or what comments I've made about OpenSSL over the years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

Working...