You're not helping your point any. Hashes (like MD5, which is 128 bits) are plenty unique.
Change (or reinterpret) the law to be something less permissive than "guns for everyone!"
It's the Constitution. You can't change it without overwhelming majority support. And gun rights have majority support in the US.
You can't "reinterpret it" either -- it means what it says, and you won't be able to enforce a "reinterpreted" meaning on an unwilling population.
Then reeducate the public to change peoples' opinions and provide a safe way to surrender weapons for disposal.
We have government "by the people". Government "by the people" doesn't "reeducate" the people.
I'd blame Trump's ilk for that too. If you vilify a group (gays in the Orlando case) long enough some unhinged asshat will decide he's taking action for the greater good.
Somehow I don't think it was Trump vilifying gays (which he has not done, BTW) that pushed a Muslim shouting "Allah Akbar!" to gun down gays in Orlando. Perhaps you're unaware of the standard treatment Muslims visit upon gays in places where Islam is the dominant religion? And I don't think it was Trump that pushed a pair of Muslims to gun down their co-workers at a holiday party in San Bernadino. And so on and so forth.
But hey, go ahead and blame Trump for stubbing your toe in the dark last night, or for the flat tire you got last year, or for the bird shitting on your windshield right after you washed your car. He's obviously the root of all evil and must be blamed for anything and everything you don't like. You look like a goddamned uninformed fool for doing so, but please, by all means, exercise your right to broadcast that fact to the world. It does wonders for your argument.
I am suggesting that you are in denial that a problem even exists, despite the figures, and before you can improve things there you need to change you way of thinking.
No one is in denial that homicide is a problem. Where we differ is the severity of the problem in relation to the severity of the proposed solutions. For example, the most recent statistics show there were over 30,000 automobile deaths last year, far more than deaths due to violent use of a gun. Do you propose banning automobiles? There are nearly 4,000 deaths annually due to drowning in pools, more than violent homicides by firearm, yet I don't hear you calling for a ban on pools.
There is no such thing as a perfectly free yet perfectly safe society and a great deal of harm can be done trying to achieve such a thing. For example, while shootings such as these make gun usage seem uniformly bad, there are no newscasts highlighting positive use of firearms for self defense. Nobody gets any air time when a five-foot, 100lb woman doesn't get raped by a six-foot, 220lb thug because she successfully defended herself with a firearm. There are innumerable permutations on the latter, none of which get any attention. Ban firearms by law-abiding citizens and you guarantee a target-rich environment for criminals, none of which will give a damn about any gun ban laws because criminals do not obey the law.
If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and magically delete every gun in existence then I might agree with your stance. That is impossible and any rational, reasonable person should know that. So long as criminals can get their hands on a weapon do to harm upon me and my family, I absolutely demand the right to legally obtain and wield one of my own for defense.
If everyone had a gun I probably wouldn't be posting this right now.
Far more people have guns than you are probably aware. That's because the vast, huge, overwhelming majority of them are kept for defense instead of assault. There are over 300 million guns in private hands in the United States. If the owners of these decided to be a problem, trust me, you'd be dead by now. That you're not is prima facie evidence of the stupidity of your argument.
Fine. Let's assume for the sake of argument that guns are a fundamentally bad thing and need to be banned. There are over 300 million guns in the United States alone. Please tell me how you plan to get rid of them in such a way that disarms criminals equally as well as it disarms law-abiding citizens.
You can't, and that's the crux of the problem. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Law-abiding people, by definition, do obey the law. Pass a law banning handguns and you guarantee 100% disarmament of law-abiding citizens whilst simultaneously stopping very few if any criminals from getting them. Congratulations! You just made violent gun crime easier for every thug, bank robber, rapist, murderer, and so on. We absolutely need more of that, right?
Every time there's a shooting, people like you come out of the woodwork screaming about how bad guns are and how they must be eliminated. As noted above, there are over 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. Today about 99.99997% of them were not used in a violent criminal way, yet you insist they are a dire threat to anything and everything. Your argument is both irrational and illogical.
You can't have a reasonable discussion with people because you neither reason with people nor discuss with them. Pronouncements aren't reason. Monologuing isn't discussion.
I'm just not obsessed with racial guilt because it's bullshit.
All groups take advantage of their hegemony. Feeling guilty about it is just being stupid. I 100% guarantee you the next hegemons won't give two shits about whatever guilt they should feel about oppressing you. Or me.
Go back to your fake news...MSNBC? CNN? whatever floats your boat.
You just accept them because you are affiliated with the same party.
THAT'S A GODDAMNED LIE.
See, that's exactly the short of fucked-up false-dichotomy thinking I was complaining about in the first place! I'm a LIBERTARIAN , not a Democrat.
The Clintons, both of them, are every bit as horrible as Trump.
That's the thing, THEY'RE REALLY NOT. The Clinton's are horrible in a "normal" corrupt-big-government sort of way, but they PALE IN COMPARSION to the damage to civil liberties and democracy itself that Trump is doing! The Clintons never (a) kicked the media out of white house briefings, (b) stuffed their administration full of LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS, attempted to normalize lying to the public in a strategy straight out of 1984 or Mein Kampf, or done any of a hundred other ACTUALLY, LITERALLY, AND WITHOUT EXAGGERATION FASCIST things!
It is the same in Olathe, they will employ any US citizen with suitable skills ahead of a foreign worker as it is less hassle but they can not get enough staff with right skills, in part because Garmin set the bar quite high when it comes to skill levels.
In my experience, this is what actually happens:
People will be interviewed for a position, and they'll decide who they want to hire. If that person needs an H-1b, they'll change the job description to match that person perfectly, so no locals will be qualified. Then they'll advertise the revised position for the legally required amount of time and hire the H-1b guy they had already decided to hire.
It can be a little extra effort to hire the H-1b guy, but the benefit is that H-1b employees can't leave employment without jeopardizing their residency. That's a huge benefit to an employer, and it more than outweighs the extra paperwork that the HR staff has to deal with.
I'm sure there are other situations. But this is what I've seen.
His point was that this AI didn't use the same inputs and controls a human does, so it's not a fair test. Adapt this AI to use only the screen buffer, and give it input lag to match a mechanical controller, and you'll have something.