Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Yes I do have an idea (Score 1) 242

You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be.

Because it's an added layer on top of a system that already sometimes fail (guns jam or sometimes safeties will not release), and furthermore it's an electric system requiring power to function - I can guarantee it will increase the failure rate in successful access to gun for self defense.

To put that in real world terms, lets go for a very low figure and say the increase in failures means there are twenty more women raped in a year. Why would you be for that? Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.

In reality of course the increase in allowed raped would be much higher because it would be mostly females purchasing a "smart" gun, misled by people like yourself into thinking they are better in some way... it's kind of like you are just one step removed from raping them.

Comment Re:You use an AR-15 to protect your home (Score 1) 242

You and your AR-15 don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army

As is proved so very well by ISIS and the complete destruction they have undergone...

Oh wait, they have a whole state of their own built on AK-47's (same difference) and theft.

If freedom's your bag start trying to figure out the wealth inequality problem. Money is freedom.

Right, because the value of "money" is not arbitrarily determined by the state and can not be pulled or disabled remotely at any time... Oh wait again.

In a conflict free world you would be right that money is power. But money the way you are thinking about it is a dangerously thin illusion of power.

Comment Useless for any occasion (Score 1) 242

Seems like it would be useful in an environment like a gun range where you aren't relying on it for safety.

A) as another poster noted, the whole reason you go to a gun range is to get more better at shooting the guns you have, so that if you need to (or want to) use them for real later - either quickly like self defense, or more methodically like hunting - you know how well you can aim with them, what realistic distances are, how much kick to absorb or correct for...

B) Which leads us to a fingerprint scanner being a disaster in a crisis situation like a home invasion, you don't have the time for that nor want to rely that a gun you might have not touched for a while still has power enough to enable the fingerprint scanner. Similarily if you go hunting, it would REALLY REALLY SUCK to travel for hours to find out your fingerprint friend has no power or just decides that environmental conditions mean your fingers are now invalid.

So said fingerprint scanner gun would never be a gun you would use in real life, making it pointless to shoot at the range,

Comment Re:For all the night shift Tesla owners (Score 2) 76

Localization of the power source doesn't matter. Everything is interconnected by the grid anyway

I'll stop you right there, the moment you say that it means some people might want solar panels and some want a Tesla, but there's no synergy whatsoever. That there's no particular benefit to owing both a solar panel and a Tesla that doesn't exist independently. If that is the case, they don't really have anything to do with each other any more than Tesla and SpaceX. Either or none or both might be a success, but they don't depend on each other at all. It doesn't matter who owns them, they'll succeed or fail on their own merits anyway.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 2, Insightful) 126

They demonstrate subterfuge, lying

The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions surrounding her provisioning and use of her home server to do official business, and her destruction of records after being subpoenaed for them by congress.

I don't really care about the rest of it. That the (now) head of the DNC was just caught red-handed providing Clinton with a verbatim debate question in advance of the event (and, of course, now lying about that) or a hundred other little behind-the-scenes bits of tawdriness and sleaze is indeed just typical politics. But lying before congress, destroying federal records, and playing fast and loose with classified material (in a way that would prevent anyone else from ever holding a federal job again, and possibly landing them in prison) actually matters.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 0, Flamebait) 126

So your take on all of those thousands of emails, including the ones that further demonstrate the lying and corruption of the Clinton machine, are ... what, fake? Are you aware of explicit, credible denials about, say, the accuracy of those Podesta emails (in, say, the form of Podesta or his correspondents releasing alternate versions of them) ... that nobody else knows about? No? Didn't think so.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 306

Barring that, I think pushing Johnson or Stein into double digits would be fantastic.

Why? Getting them in to double digits is guaranteeing that Clinton will be in power and will shape the Supreme Court for next 20-30 years. Her loathsomeness extends to her ideology, not just her corrupt ways of working people and making herself wealthy at the public trough. She's anti-liberty. Trump can be a tool, socially, but we know which direction is SCOTUS nominees will lean: towards contstructionism, not tyrannical liberal activism a la Clinton. Having a hissy fit and voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is guaranteeing the Hillary Clinton will be our chief law enforcement officer for at least the next four years, and will seat justices that are as hostile as she is to the liberties protected by the constitution.

Comment Re:Equal amounts? (Score 1) 306

How about not sensationalising everything they publish?

They publish non-sensational stuff all the time. But written evidence reinforcing our long understanding of Hillary Clinton's parade of corruption is rather sensational here in the weeks right before millions of people who know she's a corrupt liar none the less make her the chief law enforcement officer of the country. You don't think things related to that deserve some attention?

The "stuff they're leaking" is ABOUT politics. It's the DNC (a political entity) and her campaign (a political entity) making back room deals with the media, among others, to spin for her in her quest for power. How can leaks that are entirely about a politician's conduct and the behavior of her supporting minions in their pursuit of the White House be anything BUT political in nature?

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

We agree on the rights that we agree to protect. Then when someone decides they don't care about that agreement, we agree on what to do about that person if they act in violation of our agreement. If someone outside of our agreement decides they don't care how we operate as a society, and looks to destroy it (or parts of it) for the lulz or for territorial acquisition etc., then we agree on when and to what degree we do something about it.

You're "that's cute" bit of phony condescension shows you to be just another whiner who likes to pretend we can't decide on and enforce the protection of such things because your notion of what you're entitled to is at odds with everyone else's. Just to help your cause, you're complaining about other people's greed, to fake insulating yourself from anyone else's criticism that you're too lazy to get involved in the defense of the rights we recognize. So, just another anonymously craven, lazy whiner troll who thinks that calling other people cute gets them off the hook for their own intellectual cowardice. Carry on! Just remember you're not kidding anyone.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 218

Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls

Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.

No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.