Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Reminds me of TARP (Score 1) 634

I remember back in 2008 when they were voting for TARP. The first vote failed and the stock market crashed. So they put a bunch of pork into it and voted again saying DON'T FUCK THIS UP GUYS LAST TIME YOU FUCKED IT UP AND YOU CAUSED THE STOCK MARKET TO CRASH. So they voted for it this time and the stock market crashed again. I was watching it on C-SPAN while monitoring the market.

They want to play on people's fear and point to the markets around the world reacting negatively to try to change the vote. But I think the market reaction was more about the uncertainty than anything else. Long term the financial impact won't be a very big deal. They will make trade agreements with the EU to effectively get back to the same place.

Comment Re:Cute (Score 2) 634

Why not? It is happening with gun control bills in the US that keep getting voted down...

The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.

It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/...

erm... you mean that big scary organization that is really mostly funded by average citizens? (https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from). I'm not a fan of lobbyists and I wish we could get rid of all of them but the NRA is one that is actually working as intended (giving a group of average citizens a collective voice).

So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support (through donations to the NRA) when it comes to the specific issue they have chosen to support them for?

Comment Re:Globalization (Score 1) 688

The easy solution to fix many problems. All government spending must be localised, no tax payer dollars, not one cent to be spent on imported products or services, directly or indirectly. This maintains and protects a production base to build on. This is a fair and reasonable demand by tax payers, you take the money from tax payers, than it is only fair that the money you take is spent on tax payers. To many international corporations are cheating all over the place.

Not exactly what you're talking about, but the same basic idea is sort of in place for the DoD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Interestingly, one area that has a significant market for "made in the US" is gun-related stuff, not just because of the government preference but because that crowd tends to be very conscious of this stuff. There are many domestic small businesses making various accessories from slings to sight adjustment tools. Maybe there's something to be learned from this industry on creating demand for domestic made. Or maybe everyone just needs to become gun nuts?

Comment Re:Two types of Error (Score 1) 555

Type 2 failures can be addressed with better training and safe practices, type 1 relies primarily on the technology. So we can optimize the technology for type 1 and address type 2 by other means.

I also want to point out that most handguns cannot go off when they are dropped. Modern guns tend to have firing pin blocks so they won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Those articles you linked are very vague about what actually happened.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 555

I've seen this mentioned, but there are even more basic problems.

Let's say someone wants to make "smart scissors". You have a very basic device with 2 pieces of metal that slide against each other when the handles move. But now we have to stick a chip in the middle of this somehow. Do you need to worry about it breaking when you cut something really hard or moving the handles too fast? Electronics tend to be more delicate than pieces of steel. What if the battery dies while it's sitting in a drawer because I haven't checked it in a while? Do the electronics damage if you drop it? Guns are jolted every time they are fired. Not to mention the heat, fouling, and cleaning/lubricating supplies. And obviously you need to validate somehow. How reliable is that mechanism? Keep in mind guns typically have textured grips that the owners like to replace so I don't see fingerprint scanners working. RFID like the Armatix smart gun? So I need to worry about jammers?

Nothing about smart guns sounds like a good idea.

Comment Re:NJ's law is horrible. (Score 1) 555

States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available

NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a .22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers .380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.

30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k .22.

I'm not sure if you're speaking hypothetically but as mentioned in the summary Armatix has already made a smart gun. And yes, it was a .22 that costed over $1800. Nobody wanted it. I have seen the question raised on other forums about how it affects the NJ law but no real information.

Comment Re:Arm the first responders... (Score 1) 935

I've always honestly wondered, you really want to be a guy shooting a gun when the cops show up to an active shooter situation. I think at this point, you are what 50 - 100 times more likely to be shot by the police then "crazy people" as it stands, and thats without even actually being armed.

Now assuming you don't die by hand of the shooter or the cops, what happens when you mistake an innocent as a shooter, or shoot them accidently, because its dark, or things are a little hectic when you are in the middle of the firefight. You go to jail for assault? Manslaughter? Maybe you get off for your attempts at heroism, but I can gaurentee you that the victim, or theirfamily, are going to sue the sh*t out of you, and you are probably going to lose.

I don't want to come off as an ass, but I have never heard this arugments fully explained. It just seems less then fully though out.

I'm sure anyone with a CCW is well aware of these types of risks. If you have a gun you will most likely put it away before the police arrive. The CCW is just for the time before the police arrive. I don't think this image of a bunch of CCW holders running in rambo style is realistic. More likely it would be a crowded room where as soon as the shooting starts everyone looks for cover. If you have a gun and see an opportunity you take it. You have the advantage because the shooter doesn't know you have a gun.

So in short the explanation is "you follow common sense and common gun safety practices". There are still risks but they are a bit overblown by gun control advocates.

Comment Re:license (Score 1) 935

I don't know that it's necessarily because of some specific incident happening so much as to affect the upcoming elections. But yes, it is definitely political. You notice how long it was drawn out? Days of headlines announcing that something is going to be announced. And when the announcement comes they still don't have all of the details.

Comment Re:Arm the first responders... (Score 1) 935

I've never used my fire extinguisher.

I've never used my airbag.

I've never used my life insurance.

Boy, I'm still glad I have them :)

If simply having a tool in your home is enough to drive you crazy, I hate to break it to you, you were crazy well before that tool showed up.

Unfortunately your counter-argument is utilizing false dichotomy in each case. All the safety items listed are statistically far more effective at what they protect against. Life insurance doesn't get found by a child and cause tragedy. Your airbag might fail, but it doesn't kill someone a block away, ever. Guns are simply not effective at deterring violent crime, considering the large percentage of accidental injuries and deaths, and domestic homicides/suicides. A gun can't even defend you from a knife attacker from within 20 feet. The chances of successfully defending yourself against violent crime using a gun are slim. The chances of accidental injury or death from your gun are precisely the same every minute you own it. The only thing a gun does for you is make you feel secure... it doesn't actually make you any more secure. In fact, it is more a danger to you and those you love than any mind-easing benefit you gain. Unless you're a soldier or a cop, its a liability, like carrying a time-bomb.

Unfortunately your post is ridiculous.

Firearms aren't very high on the list of common causes of death for children. Don't believe me? Check the CDC website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/.... The most common causes of death are drowning in the swimming pool and traffic. So the idea that you shouldn't have firearms around because "think of the children" is absurd. You need to be more safety conscious with children in general and there are plenty of things they could accidentally die from. The idea that a gun is a time bomb is also ridiculous for similar reasons. It all depends on how safety conscious you are. A lot of non gun owners seem to have this irrational fear that a gun is going to jump off the table and shoot them in the face at any minute.

Do you also discourage people from owning table saws so they don't cut their fingers off? I have terrible news: the world is full of dangerous things. You best not go outside. Or inside. In fact, don't get out of bed or use sharp eating utensils.

Comment Re:You didn't notice the problem? (Score 1) 676

I looked at your links. The first one seems to not link to anything. The second seems to show the opposite of what you claim, that mass shootings have been increasing. Still, it is an interesting link.

I recently read an article on this, which unfortunately I can't find right now. But here was the summary:

There are 3 "mass shooting" counts. The 353 number from Reddit counts all incidents in which at least 4 people were shot. Whether they died from the gunshot wounds is not considered. An analysis showed that in 46% of these cases nobody died. Another group used different criteria. 4 people other than the shooter must be killed by gunshot wounds. They also excluded anything gang related and anything that happened in a private residence. So basically the type of scenario that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". They came up with 4 mass shootings per year. The FBI decided not to ignore the "private residence" criteria and came up with 21 or 22. This just shows how important context is and the dangers of throwing around these numbers without understanding them.

I believe the article said that these high profile mass shootings are becoming more common but overall gun violence is still declining.

Comment Re:So, ponder this... (Score 1) 676

Dec 2nd, 2 baddies kill 14 people in CA = CNN says "assault weapons" for 12 straight hours.

Oct 3rd, An AC-130 gunship and crew of 13 rain 211 shells on a hospital in for nearly an hour killing 63 patients and international volunteer doctors = CNN barely mentioned it, and somehow failed to categorize the gunship loaded with 211 shells an "assault weapon"

Why didn't the pres address the nation over this one?

It's not an assault weapon unless it has a pistol grip, vertical front grip, or collapsible stock. At least according to California. Maybe when those launchers become more ergonomic and get painted "AR15 Black" they will reach the status of "assault weapon".

Slashdot Top Deals

Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC

Working...