Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Scary stuff (Score 1) 279

I don't know what to make of this. The GP is talking about heat pumps, which heat more efficiently than burning fuel and both heat and cool at about the same efficiency, and the fact that on average people need more heating than cooling due to temperature differences where people live usually being larger where it's cold.

125* in the American south in a heat wave noon day sun and, what, 25* in northern Canada on average

The American South has never gotten that hot, while it's 10* in Iowa (not Canada) right now. And that's the point - on a record-setting 115* day in Georgia they're pushing a 40* temperature difference, while a -5* day in Iowa (happens most years) it's twice that - and because of the way temperature gradients work, that means 4 times the energy required to keep up with heat flow.

A hot place, near lethal for many activities, is 100*f ... How do you achieve insulation cheaply from 125* ambient air and a 100* human body?

Healthy people can get along (uncomfortably) even at 134* (US record high in Death Valley) if they limit their activity and have plenty of water, while I don't think a blanket is going to do much for you at -45* (record cold at same location), let alone a place that gets really cold.

Comment Re:Scary stuff (Score 1) 279

It's a *lot* more efficient to heat something by one degree than to cool it by one degree same amount.

No. Weirdly enough, it's pretty much the same.

Heating is typically pushing 100% efficiency...

Sure. But for the same amount of energy you can pump several times as much heat in or out.

That might sound like it's breaking the laws of thermodynamics, but because the efficiency of a heat engine can't exceed the ratio of the temperatures it's working with, there's no 'free' energy.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

Sorry, I suggest simply to check some statistics, or wikipedia

What a good idea! Here's some people citing solid data ... looks like the US rate is below average and median - weird.

Well, maybe they're biased. I'll check the wiki's List of countries by intentional homicide rate, sort by rate, and ... 108 of 218, and still 21 away from Somalia, which isn't even counting civil war deaths.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

after meticulously answering your every statement with facts ... the insults came AFTER the intelligent arguments

Except you haven't answered the vast majority of my statements - on rate of fire, Australian mass shootings, the correlation between gun ownership and homicide - all of them were just never mentioned again after I made a rebuttal. On the other hand, every post you've made has brought up irrelevant things that are unrelated to anything I've mentioned - court cases, mass shootings, self-defense - that's all you making a straw-man, which you still couldn't defend properly.

So from my perspective you have (by omission) conceded nearly every argument you've put forward, while desperately trying to come up with something I can't rebut with a single sentence or link. So even though I'm not pro-gun, this discussion has just solidified my belief that pro-gun people have reasonable (if not entirely convincing) arguments, and gun control advocates (at least the ones here) are just responding to their gut reactions and don't have reasonable arguments.

Where's it going to come from indeed... the same people who can't imagine how a working law and order system could possibly keep illegal guns to a minimum need to ASK how a broken DOWN law and order system could possibly SUCCEED in keeping them out ?

At least that a reasonable misunderstanding of the point I was making.

So to clarify my first point, I do believe that in peacetime the number of guns can be reduced (by say, 95%), my point about drugs was about who still manages to get them - people who don't care about breaking the law, or who are desperate. So the remaining 5% of the guns will be in the hands of career criminals and other dangerous people, not hunters and old people on isolated farms. So it's plausible that even a fairly effective gun ban might not even lower gun crime that much.

So if we reduce civilian gun ownership by 95% (and I have to assume you advocate this in every country) where do the gun come from in wartime (say a second US civil war)? Military and law enforcement in the country need them, foreign ones are state-owned and controlled, so you can't count on them getting smuggled in. And even if every civilian-owned firearm on earth found its way to the US quickly that would barely get the rate up to the current world average, let alone the US's rate, let alone the even higher rate that would occur if they had all the guns they have now and were importing more. On top of that people who are gun owners now would instead have to pay inflated wartime prices while the economy has collapsed to get their hands on one. But you don't think any of this will affect availability? They'll just ... "FIND them"?

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

Aristotle proved the slippery-slope argument was a fallacy around teh same time he first wrote down the six laws of logic.

You might have heard of him, but you clearly didn't read Aristotle. This might be more your speed, and they have a whole section on "non-fallacious usage".

If you can't figure that out, you're too dumb to have opinions. Please remain in your mother's basement for ever, ESPECIALLY on election days. Thank you.

Oh, and cut your internet. Self-quarantining the stupid is the single greatest contribution you could ever hope to make to mankind.

So you're down to mindless insults. I think I'll call this a victory. :)

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 2) 1149

I wouldn't be betting on an overrule here. ... Politics are part of reality, and political victories create and change reality - they are not nothing.

But in an argument over facts, they are. If every country on Earth banned everything more dangerous than a thumbtack, would that mean that guns cause facism or increase the homicide rate? If they all ordered citizens to be armed when in public would that change the facts we're discussing?

The image in your head of you shooting the big bad criminal before he can hurt your family is a fantasy - we can't base real world policies on daydreams.

Again, I've never even held a gun, I own no guns, I wouldn't even know how to turn off the safety. I'm only arguing facts, which for you seem to be the least important part of an argument you're having with a cartoon gun-nut straw-man.

---

Rate of fire.

They're the same - they're semi-automatics. (Unless you're saying 'hunting rifle' means bolt-action. Or you're talking about ones modified to emulate fully-automatic behavior, but as you've mentioned even the NRA seems to be OK banning/regulating those.)

Homocides in Australia is way down since hte gun ban

And they've halved in the US over the last 20 years, while civilian gun ownership has gone up 50%. All that tells me is that even if they're related other factors are far more important.

there has not been a single mass shooting since it was instituted

Which is irrelevant - ten people dying is terrible, but does it matter if they got shot or someone drove a truck into a parade?

But lets check the List of massacres in Australia to be sure - Monash, Hectorville, Hunt family, Logan ... wha?

A gun is a horrible, horrible tool for self defense ... Bruce Schneier

Again, that's not something I've made a claim about. But at least you've sort-of mentioned a source, even if it isn't an actual citation.

And these facts ... They won't go away because they are inconvenient or don't fit your personal narrative of how things work.

Same to you.

---

That's a ridiculous notion - because ALL slippery slope arguments are ALWAYS ridiculous notions

Care to back that up with something?

Nobody increased pilot's licenses until ONLY airline employees and fighter-pilots could qualify

Was there a large movement and a major party with the stated goal of banning all personal flying? Has it already been done in other countries? No? So why would this be at all similar?

In no other country with a license-to-own-a-gun scheme has this happened ... Why do people fear something that has absolutely never happened to anything, ever - on the basis of fallacious reasoning?

But earlier - "And so does the outcome in every country that has instituted strict gun control or bans.". So countries have banned guns, but never one step at a time?

if a civil war creates a need they will FIND them

No legal guns means no illegal ones, because it worked so well for drugs? But if there's a war, they'll suddenly appear? From where?

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

In the country that probably has the highest crime rate after third world countries like Somalia?

So not only are you wrong, but since you made it up you knew it was likely wrong before you said it, and don't care. Sad.

The US's homicide rate is below both the average and median for all countries. It's probably the worst of the first-world, but nowhere near third-word rates.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

You cannot use states within the USA to compare - that er... insane. They are all in the same gun culture, and the same permissive over-all gun law system.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The whole reason we have constant arguments about this in the US is that we have vast differences in culture - many people have grown up with guns all around them, others haven't seen a gun fire except on TV or in the movies. Some cities essentially banned all guns until recently, other places have tried to make gun ownership mandatory.

If you want to do a comparison you have to do so with other COUNTRIES.

As my third link did...

And before you say "But Switzerland"

France, Greece, Belgium, ...

an AR-15 serves NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSES WHATSOEVER. ... But in Canada 'gun' means 'hunting rifle'.

Without looking anything up, name a functional difference between the two relevant to that distinction.

But it is one that is actually fairly EASY to reduce and WILL have a positive impact.

Because you say so.

the US 2nd circuit appeals

You do realize that they get overruled all the time, right? Don't throw a party until the Supreme Court has its say. And even that's just a political victory, it wouldn't mean you're right.

Just make ownership contingent on a proficiency test to prove you know how to use a gun safely, and can actually aim.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but remember I was in this to defend people who are pro-gun against a load of nonsense several posts ago. I can understand how people who value their hunting/self-reliant culture aren't willing to compromise with legislation supported by people who clearly know less about guns than even I do, groups that make use scary made-up terms like 'weapon of war' and 'assault weapon' to sway people, and politicians that run around screaming 'ban guns' every campaign and then claim they just want 'common sense gun control' that look like the first step in the process of banning them.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 2) 1149

I was addressing the specific claim: that gun violence cannot justify gun control laws which may affect current gun owners because it's largely committed with illegal guns

I've never claimed that - I was just trying to keep my claim about sources more conservative.

But let's address YOUR claims then:

Followed by two paragraphs that in no way address any of the arguments I'm trying to defend (which aren't mine, by the way - I was just pointing out the nonsense in quantaman's post).

So in fact homocide rates as a whole DO go down - a LOT. ... Well good thing there is absolutely ZERO evidence that this happens, and no sane reason to think it MIGHT.

30 seconds of Googling (none completely unbiased, but they have actual numbers and citations, unlike some people):
Washington Post: Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws
Washington Examiner: No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders
Crime Research: COMPARING MURDER RATES AND GUN OWNERSHIP ACROSS COUNTRIES

It's because a gun is the worst thing in the world to for self defense. A tool that can only be reliably used...

Scaring people off is self defense, even if you never draw your weapon.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 2) 1149

Americans go from "all gun ownership is legal"

Who's for that?

Illegal guns all START OUT as legally owned guns.

For the most part, yes.

But guns don't start out illegal -they get made, legally, in a factory and sold, legally to somebody. Somewhere along the line this status changes - usually as a result of them being stolen from legal owners, but contra your beliefs -that's not an argument for increasing the supply of guns to steal.

What does this have to do with the homicide rate? Sure if you got rid of all guns in the country (even cops, military, and the illegal ones), and prevented any new ones from being smuggled in (how is that border wall working?) that might prevent homicides committed with guns, but that's not even an argument about overall homicide rates.

I don't see the benefit if 'gun violence' just gets moved to the same amount of 'non-gun violence'. All that does is take away some people's choices in order to make other people feel good.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

The point being made, was that the gun-rights activists would choose to cut 1 million from welfare, but gladly endorse 100 million in prisons.

It wasn't clear that this was a hypothetical, but I still don't think the libertarian-leaning, 'small-government', pro-gun type of conservatives want to spend more money on much of anything.

But anyway, looking at the numbers, the federal government has about 10% of the nation's prisoners, so you're ignoring the other 90%.

Yes, but now you have to include state and local budgets into the mix as well. This was just a quick, order-of-magnitude estimate.

These are the people who vote for 3-strikes laws, who vote for 10-20-life. Who scream for marijuana criminalization. ... Too bad for the ones who made the choice of their tent-mates then.

Every political group has to ally with other groups it doesn't completely agree with, that's how politics works. Do you think that communists like working with pro-globalization neo-liberals in the Democratic party?

I think this particular sub-group would be fine with married gay marijuana farmers living next door as long as they didn't have to fight gun-control legislation every election cycle.

Nope, it makes them HYPOCRITES. Was that hard for you to grasp?

The fact that you think all conservatives are a homogeneous mass of group-thinkers make them hypocrites?

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

Wanting to cut $1M off welfare and spend $100M more on prisons doesn't make one in favor of a small government.

The US federal budget for prisons is less than $10 billion while the budget for entitlements is 2.33 trillion, basically prisons are rounding error in the kind of thing that they'd like to cut.

But hey, you pulled some numbers out of your backside - totally convincing! /s

Nope, those conservatives want a huge government in involved in every aspect of people's lives. Telling people who they can sleep with, what services they can get from a doctor, and all that.

You do realize that those are Evangelical/social conservatives, not pro-business/small government conservatives, right? They don't even overlap that much.

Massive, invasive authoritarian fascist government. Gun rights activists are as much fascists as the fascists who grabbed guns in the '30s.

Hyperbolic fear-mongering at its most absurd. "Less government intrusion" is literally a cornerstone of their political philosophy, but in your mind that makes them fascists.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1149

The USA have the highest per capita gun related crime rate of the world

This appears to be both false and irrelevant. I couldn't find a source for all 'gun-related crime' across countries but even with more guns than people, the US's firearm-related homicide rate doesn't even make the top 10. And even if it was, it's possible that guns reduce crime while at the same time the crimes that do occur are more likely to involve guns.

(and the highest kill rate by toddlers (ab)using a gun).

So a country that has more than three times as many X per capita as nearly every other country has more accidents related to X? Who would have thought! Is it possible that countries with more boats have more toddler deaths in boating accidents? Let's find out!

But since none of this has anything to do with your claims about authoritarianism and tyranny (or your ... 'creative' definition of a 'fact'), I guess you concede those points?

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...