schismsubv

it can be made much cheaper while keeping the good quality

I'll spare you the anecdata, but the choice of bread and vegetables are specifically poor support structures on which to build your argument for centralization. They can (in some cases) be made more cheaply, but the quality suffers substantially.

Electricity, while lacking the strongly subjective "quality" dimensions of food, still suffers from long-range distribution. Transmission and stepping losses (as well as transit costs) are a large portion of why we don't have just one enormous generation center for the world. There's obviously a balance, but for the cost of land and the added loss of converting solar's DC to AC, local generation gets a little more advantage.

Try 20 years. I started the story back when book 5 came out and re-read (or skimmed) the series each time a book came out. I literally grew up alongside the characters (although book time certainly slowed as the series progressed). I cried when I read that chapter, finishing in tears; it still smarts a little today.

Every emotive, immersive experience seems to produce some whiplash of the soul upon separation. As you noted, this is not unique to VR or even literary works. Even so, since one's first such is the most memorable, VR will likely slowly replace older works in this department.

Not English, but easy enough. - A sand ladder is a weight distribution mechanism that may be used to improve traction on loose materials. You can achieve the same effect by putting a board under a tire when stuck in sand or snow. - A blockable front brake would allow you to lock one wheel, allowing spinning the other freely. If that other one were jacked up out of earth contact, the adapter provided would allow you to easily connect the wheel to a standard PTO, with the advantage of a transmission. This would allow you to pump water, generate electricity at a larger scale, run stationary farm implements, etc.

Consider it an anecdote, but my direct experience is exactly what you have heard. Consider that the ratio of administrators to classroom teachers is rarely lower than half the union-specified maximal classroom ratio (e.g., <1:10 administrators to teachers versus >=1:30 students to teachers).

Administration is a big issue but is still probably not the origin of the problem. For that, look to No Child Left Behind and the abject pursuit of test scores.

What's more, those teachers would actually often still do the job for those poverty wages in spite of the diminishing benefits for the love of their students and the job. I just watched a local school's entire population of teachers ranked as "distinguished" leave this year (8, my spouse included) because the administration and overhead simply aren't worth it.

Understood; I apologize to you and what audience there may have been at large for exceeding civil bounds.

At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility you claim to be so incensed about. You are lost in a childish authoritarian fantasy, and I regret that for you.

I expect this is casting pearls before swine, but your proposal is not simply harsh on violent crime as you so boldly attempt to claim. What you allege is a compromise does not allow non-criminal uses of firearms without imposing harsh penalties on those uses. Your proposal is as radical as someone on the other end of the firearm use spectrum insisting that individuals found guilty of not having shot a criminal in the past 30 days are guilty of "being soft on crime", which carries a penalty of lifetime (or at least 50 years') imprisonment.

Your proposal remains a wild, masturbatory fantasy with cherry-picked examples from pop culture knowledge of other countries' gun control laws without even understanding them and their actual implementations. Further to that point, you also still have yet to even explain why your proposal is anything but an amusingly dismal attempt at parroting a tired, predictable talking point about how gun control in "other countries" works. Disappointingly, that was abandoned the moment I showed actual working knowledge in that space.

Go ahead, let's see what random single phrase you decide to object to out of this large set. We've already abandoned a large part of the conversation behind us, you're just amusing at this point.

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently feels rational to you.

Here's a thought exercise for you - return to your car analogy and apply all the same rules you insist on for firearms to freedom of movement. The Constitution doesn't even guarantee freedom of movement explicitly, so you can wipe away that mess without even repealing an amendment, just overturn some old cases. Stipulate the same taxation and registration (even for private land use), revocation of use upon even considering moving to another state, and so on. Our founding fathers could have never imagined the network of interstates we have today. Unless you're saying your car analogy doesn't work.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.

When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do), the magnanimity of your offer must appear blinding. Imagine, gun users would not only be allowed to use guns freely within Your Sovereign Will, they would even be able to use them without active supervision! Granted, "active supervision" doesn't mean there won't be range officers enforcing the law stipulating an automatic 3 years in solitary for shooting more than one round every 18.3 seconds, but we're compromising here. I mean, hell - prisoners get free air and are still alive right? What more could they want, we have to compromise!

Your proposal is a wild fantasy with as much grounding in reality as "Dear Hustler" stories. I'll even be so bold as to assert you likely haven't even read the relevant regulations from the countries you allege you're borrowing your "spirit" from; I have. I must admit you have certainly turned quite an epic troll here.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.

I see. So beyond the noisome insistence that you understand the Constitution and US history better than all the Supreme Courts in history, you simply wanted some strawmen to knock down. For someone that's studied philosophy as much as you state you have, I expected better. A machine gun, for example - I actually couldn't care about them in the least, I'm not their target market. They are, to your analogy, like race cars - expensive, often highly regulated devices that are not allowed for use in public spaces.

There are many vastly greater ills that plague our society; it is regrettable that intelligent people like you choose to waste so much hate and energy fighting something that has such a relatively miniscule effect on society. Prison reform, for example. Smoking cessation, for another. Drug law reform or repeal. There are myriad more solvable and more effective ills to correct that have actual strong causative effects.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further, whatever followup you may make.

[edit: dropping an errant comma]

Thanks, I take that to heart. I'm not certain what would alter public impression of guns and gun owners, but I'll attempt to think it out. I don't fit your stereotype of gun owners, but that's kind of irrelevant. My guess is my anecdata was a bit over the top.

As far as "design" goes, it was just an argumentative tangent. I've had it thrown out at me before, but it's not a major thing as far as I know.

You're right, I'm a silly backwards hick from Lawrence that warrants only mockery and spite. That said, whatever you insist I'm not an absolutist. I don't think that all weapons-limiting laws should be repealed (e.g. explosive devices), but you continue to insist on your own absolutist approach, that we have zero gun ownership rights and insist we work from your side of the equation. Do you see the duality here?

I don't know why you keep insisting I propose some nebulous "reasonable compromise" so you can batter down that strawman, I'm hardly the average "NRA type". If, however, that's what it takes for you to engage in civil discourse I'll again point out hga's list above.

Take, for example, nationwide reciprocity - this could actually further your apparent goal of universal registration and background checks, but appears to acknowledge some right to gun ownership which you also appear to vehemently oppose. "Shall issue" also falls into this category.

Allowing new machine guns is also inherently palatable to universal registration and background checks. Those weapons already require stringent registration and checks, and allowing manufacture of new ones would not change that, it would just stop artificially limiting the pool and accordingly the price. Long guns are already a minuscule part of crime rates and increasing the market without changing the registration requirements would not likely change the crime rate.

Repealing silly state-level ankle-biting laws regarding mostly cosmetic features that make it more dangerous for the law-abiding to keep and bear arms would have a positive effect on national standardization, which could also lead to an improved case for universal registration.

Reforming the BATFE would go a long way toward not continuing to alienate the gun-owning public with arcane, cryptic rules that place one at the risk of felony for simple acts, and would again be easy to align to a case for registration and checks. Streamline, simplify, control.

What do _you_ view as a "reasonable compromise"? This entire conversation has been one-sided, I've formed and expressed opinions, attempted to discuss what you wish to discuss, and you keep moving the goalposts. Seriously, let's get on with discussion of successful gun control in other countries. I've actually been seriously considering moving to a Scandinavian country and have, of course, been carefully reviewing the relevant statistics and requirements. I'd actually be able to take most of my guns.

Finally, ignore my assertions of what I think registration and checks are about. Tell me what they're about - how will they benefit us, what is the expected result, and so on? What's great about them? Why should we take another step toward the "you have zero rights" end of the spectrum?

No worries, I read it twice and realized it was an autocorrect mistake and what you'd intended. I recognize that you personally may not be calling for this, but in general individuals that do fixate on guns' capacity for harm do fall to this. I still should not have generalized.

I wish you'd be reasonable and discuss the matter rather than make sweeping, dismissive statements and veiled ad-hominem attacks. Consider me a poor, uneducated young soul and show me the error of my ways rather than presume I'm following some set of talking points. I'm being completely earnest here, and wish I had the same impression of you. Seriously - how would registration and universal background checks actually address criminal behavior, or is just adding more felonies to the law-abiding enough deterrence? I'm sorry if it's insipid to observe that criminals are, by definition, criminals, but give me something to work with here - compromise with me and tell me why that's irrelevant.

If you wish to discuss success of gun control elsewhere in the world, so be it. Please point us to appropriate research literature that identifies a causative link between gun control and proportionately reduced crime rates. I particularly enjoyed slatestarcodex' writing on the matter, but even he with good numbers and well-considered statistics is not as confident as you. Sweden and Norway, for example - rather strict gun control, reasonably low crime, but if you've spent time in-country you know there's a significant cultural factor there. Rather than gun control causing their relatively low crime rate, I'd assert that their culture has actually dictated both the crime rate and the gun control, but that's anecdata. Let's have some real discussion with real numbers and not hand-wavy statements about free countries.

Thus far, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2A, and likely my own as well. I expect they come to a far more reasoned and logical analysis of it than either of us can, but for most of US history they have been on the individual-freedom side of its interpretation.

You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point.

The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have bent over backwards over the past century and you offer nothing but more limitations. How, exactly, is that compromise? Imagine this conversation:

  Lion: I want to eat you
  Gnu: No
  Lion: Fine, let me bite you
  Gnu: No
  Lion: Be reasonable, compromise with me here - let me nibble one of your legs, you have four.
  Gnu: You've already eaten my cousin and sister, and I like all four of my legs just the way they are, thank you.
  Lion: Being alive provides no guarantee whatsoever of a right to four legs.  Your four legs make me feel unsafe, you could kick me. I insist you let me have one.
  Gnu: No, I'm just fine the way I am.
  Lion: You just have an all-or-nothing attitude, all I'm trying to do is be sensible here.  I need to eat so I can hunt you next week.
  ...

As far as "sensible background checks" go, they already exist. You already cannot own a firearm if you fit a fairly broad list of disqualifiers, and attempting to buy a weapon at a licensed dealership and undergoing the already compulsory (if inaccurate and problematic) check will result in your wasting $20 and going home empty-handed. The "sensible" most people seem to be attempting to espouse today is reaching into private activities. If my father wishes to give me a gun that has been inherited over 3 generations, why must we go to the gun shop and pay them $20 to tell him he can? Why would I agree to risk a felony charge by loaning my brother a rifle for his two-week hunting trip without a $20 visit to the gun store?

"But the gun show loophole" you might say - if a licensed dealer sells an individual a firearm without undertaking the proper background check, they should lose their license. That's my opinion. If a private citizen sells another private citizen a firearm without undergoing a background check, nothing has changed or will change that. All you're doing is putting already extraordinarily lawful citizens in yet greater jeopardy of committing a felony.

Other than our fundamental disagreement about the Second Amendment, I perceive a core issue here: gun control advocates fail to take criminals into account. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shops that run background checks, they don't register them (ask California and Chicago), and they illegally modify guns (removing serials and shortening weapons). No proposed measures (even complete disarmament) would put even a dent in that, and criminally-owned guns are disproportionately represented in firearm crime.

So what, exactly, do you propose registration and further background checks would solve, and what assurance can you offer that civilian disarmament is not the end goal of all involved?

Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallacious appeal to emotion. No matter their design, guns have use beyond killing humans, and even beyond hunting.

Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary.

I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year.

As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.

Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses developed after the fact, but they cause harm and destruction in very real and undebatable physical ways, often in their day-to-day use.

Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.

We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.

I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns, and I doubt it would be in the thousands.

As the author's prior article in the series notes, such technology will almost invariably be easily bypassed. Criminals will, unfortunately, remain criminals, and will disable the technology or continue to buy guns underground. None of this even addresses the fact that many murders are perpetrated by legal owners of said guns, which this technology would do nothing about.

As is usual with such things, if smart-gun technology were legislated its only measurable effect would be on law-abiding citizens, adding yet more potential felonies to the maze we traverse daily.

Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment.

It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory.

I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.

Flare guns fall under the same air transport rules that full-blown firearms do. They must be transported in a case without ammunition that is locked and openable only by the owner.

You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable compromises". Said "reasonable" "compromises" have progressively eliminated a large swath of gun ownership rights and put the average owner in constant risk of felony.

Example: an individual may own an AR-15 lower receiver, or even machine one themselves. If, however, they drill one 5/32" hole too many in that receiver, they are guilty of a felony. If they own a pistol based on the AR-15 platform and disassemble it at the same time and in the same space that they're disassembling and cleaning an AR-15 rifle, they are committing a felony. These examples are thanks to complex rules based on "compromises".

Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. That's not a compromise. A compromise is your asking me to give you half of my cake in return for half of your pie.

If it's about politics, a lot of that extra stuff will be to make it non-bypassable. That said, just how many people are getting shot with their own gun as a component of overall firearm murders?

Don't forget the power supply, and don't undercalculate antenna design needs (it probably won't work incorporated into the handle of a pistol). The electrical draw will probably need to be pretty beefy in order to be as reliable as the rest of the gun's mechanisms, and what happens when the gun is being carried or stored in -20C temperatures? What about off-hand shooting when your normal shooting hand is unusable or it's dangerous to shoot from your normal side?

In order to be both universal and not introduce unreliability, the solenoid would likely have to be introduced as a secondary safety. How many firearm designs would even support a secondary safety?

While I agree with (and just stopped writing a long response about) the unreliable and complex feature argument - consider adding the necessary components to a semiautomatic handgun - I wouldn't call the article ignorant. There are many reasons the NRA and gun owners in general dislike "smart" guns, some of which include the soft, social reasoning the article outlines.

Hard technical arguments of feasibility and reliability tend to have little effect on those that espouse this form of gun control. They'd typically prefer the guns not be there in the first place, and don't particularly care how feasible or reliable the result is. Social arguments, however, tend to affect them more, or at least can put the argument in a place they find harder to dismiss. We need both parts to make the strongest argument.

Being trained in a device's use does not an expert on its design make.

I'm sorry I presented them as mutually exclusive, you're correct that they are not.

The difference is that one is already illegal - stopped, as it were. I postulate that this law will not significantly reduce distracted driving, but that it will primarily serve to perpetuate our government's apparent war on privacy. To be clear: I'm perfectly fine with a warrant-based search, particularly of carrier records. All this law does is grant individual law enforcement officers yet more authority to judge and immediately punish.

Smoking is more provable, controllable, and doesn't involve a highly invasive seizure and search, the results of which are questionable anyway.

We get all up in arms about relatively small numbers of needless deaths and ignore any of many elephants in the room, one of which is the fact that tobacco is a huge, profitable industry that has a vast lobby and kills nearly a half-million people per year.

All I'd like to see is a sense of scale to our outrage. Both distracted driving and smoking involve personal, silly choices, both of which can kill others. One is 141x more likely to kill; let's fight that first instead of yet further eroding privacy.

While I understand your concern, you are, statistically speaking (and according to the CDC), still 12x more likely to die from secondhand smoke than you are from another motorist's distracted driving.

The CDC states that smoking causes 480,000 deaths annually, 41,000 of which are from secondhand smoke. Dying from someone hitting you while they swill a triple mocha may sound scarier than dying from cancer, but dying is dying.

We have this odd fixation in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) that we believe we are powerful and smart enough to prevent all badness - Make It Never Happen Again. Never mind that smoking causes two orders of magnitude more deaths annually in the US, 3400 people die from distracted* driving! It could be your daughter next!

What's happened to critical thinking and moderate stances? Why can't people be reasonable any more? To echo a sentiment I first read here (the provenance of which I am unsure), "Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become".

*- Distractions also include: pets, sandwiches, passengers, and beautiful people.

They're treating it precisely like the breathalyzer. You can refuse either and they will get a warrant for the search. In the meantime, your license and freedom will be revoked, because US law says driving is a granted freedom, not a right.

Whether the exploit is single-use, about a phone, Apple, the 5c, or any other specific parameters is fundamentally irrelevant.

What this case is doing is setting precedent that the courts can compel a company to _create_, no matter how trivial one may think that creation may be today. _That_ is the precedent so many draw exception to, because stare decisis is also a doctrine of incrementalism, of gradual expansion of interpretations. Today Apple is compelled to create a very controlled firmware; who's to say in the figurative tomorrow that Samsung won't be compelled to create and send a firmware update to a specific Blu-Ray player that creates an air microphone out of the laser? Where does it stop?

To be complete (as was pointed out in another sibling thread) incrementalism may be curtailed if implications are carefully argued and acknowledged by the judge. I am skeptical of the value of that approach, but have no hard argument against it.