HN user
craigwblake (at) gmail.com
For what it's worth I just put an Ubuntu 14.04 nightly on my Nvidia Optimus laptop, and contrary to previous versions the dual-GPU setup Just Works (including choosing which GPU using the Nvidia utilities) after selecting the latest binary driver from the "Additional Drivers" page.
Quite a relief after fighting with the dual-GPU for so long.
That's two crimes committed with NFA weapons in the 80 years since the NFA has existed. One committed by an active duty police officer and the other by a former police officer.
And to the previous poster I'll add that production of AR15-pattern rifles and carbines alone for the commercial market averages about 380K units per year since 2008. Adding in non-AR pattern "military style" rifles brings that number to about 480K per year, or about 20% of all rifles produced and sold commercially in the U.S. The AR15 is undoubtedly the most popular rifle in the U.S. and that includes a hell of a lot of folks who can't reasonably be classified as "rednecks."
Let's not forget that in neither case is it 'free'. The public foots the bill in both cases.
Not to mention that LittleMachineShop sells complete proven CNC rigs for about the same price with no risk, and which are obviously much more rigid as well.
No, he clearly did not mean regulation. He said demand, as a customer may do, rather than coerce by force, as a government must do.
And yet mob justice is exactly what we have in US, though sometimes with a legislative session's worth of delay. A constitutional republic protects against mob justice through individual guarantees of property and liberty, and further through strict limitations on the state's power. Our government, of course, has long since managed to rid itself of most of these limitations.
And you keep on not voting, and then wonder why your government doesn't represent you.
Yet everyone else does vote and then wonders why their government doesn't represent them. What exactly makes that a better choice?
When the state has access to nukes and the populace doesn't, how can this statement not technically be true? It seems like the ability literally wipe cities off the face of the earth means that you have the permanent upper hand, in terms of power.
Because that's not a credible threat. Nuclear weapons are antithetical to the goals of a government in conflict with it's own people.
Is your assumption true?
No, it's not true. The state has vastly inferior power compared to the populace at large, at least in the U.S. However, the state is able to, in most cases, choose when and how it engages it's enemies so that it faces an inferior force on it's own terms.
Now I build tools to do real reputation analysis, and fight the very things I used to do. I'm like Darth Vader in the last few moments of his life...
Really this just reads like you figured out a way to get paid to play both sides against each other. Hey, I'm not judging, in fact I say more power to you for figuring out how to make a buck, but casting yourself as some sort of redeemed hero seems a bit over the top.
Seems to me more like you leaving your door open and then trying to have someone arrested for looking through your doorway.
If someone physically circumvents your door in order to see what's inside there's a difference in culpability.
Fortunately we have a legal system that, to some degree, does.
A large body of decisions in trial and appellate courts at both the state and federal level, up to and including the SCOTUS provide plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible.
What makes you think he genuinely thought that? My (admittedly limited) experience with state and national politicians is that most say in public exactly what benefits them the most at the moment.
While you probably already know this, others may not: there is an organization called the Oath Keepers which is comprised of current and former uniformed members of military and civil services who affirm what you've stated - that the oath they took was first and foremost to defend the Constitution.
From their site (http://oathkeepers.org):
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.
The local police basically failed, but a few years ago the county sheriffs took over. Whereas, as a youngster I had numerous bad encounters with local authorities, now the sheriffs wave to me when I drive through town and I see them with the local kids working more like local cops.
I wonder how much of this can be attributed to the fact that the position of Sheriff is usually directly elected, contrary to other chiefs of law enforcement that typically serve at the whim of other politicians and, consequently, their political parties?
I think this was meant in reply to the comment about NFA weapons and crime. If so, yeah, I find that particularly interesting too.
It also fits with the published data showing that police officers commit violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than non-LEO concealed weapons permit holders.
His is the only second case I'm aware of since 1934 of a legally owned NFA weapon being used in the commission of a crime. I'd strongly disagree with the claim that two criminal incidents in 79 years is sufficient reason to put additional roadblocks in front of the 2nd amendment.
In the cases I've seen state first hand, state law regarding NFA items usually just provides a blanket exemption for legal ownership so long as the item was procured in compliance with NFA procedures.
In those states, so long as the NFA branch issues the stamp and you are (federally) legally allowed to possess the item under the NFA, it doesn't matter whether you or a trust owns it.
Of course, the trust must be valid under the trust law of the state you reside in or else it cannot legally own the items, but competent trust attorneys are not too hard to find.
Note that the NFA branch has a rule change out for public comment that would include removing the CLEO signature requirements for individuals. It's expected to go into effect sometime next year if I remember correctly.
Of course, since nothing they do comes without a trade-off, they will be making the trust route somewhat more painful (requiring fingerprints and background checks).
I think that your interpretation of the report is incorrect. What that report shows is that fatal accidents are more likely on roads that have higher speed limits, which is quite a different thing from saying higher speeds caused the accidents.
And, in fact, there is evidence that people do in fact judge safe speeds appropriately. Look at report FHWA-RD-92-084 [1], which was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and concludes that raising speed limits did not have a significant effect on speeds of motorists. Lowering the speed also did not have a significant effect on speeds, with the result that people simply ignored the speed limit and drove what they thought was appropriate in both cases.
There was also evidence that lowering the speed limit did not, in fact, decrease accidents.
And it appears to use futures that are part of Scala core (which Akka now uses as well) so I'm not sure how much this can be said to be Akka-ness anyway.
When you said "you're ridiculous" you attacked the poster rather than the opinion, which made that part of your comment ad-hominem. That statement, juxtaposed with your complaint immediately following about being subject to the same sort of attack was indeed rather humorous.
I don't think it's incorrect, which is why I brought up the commerce clause in the first place (with Filburn in mind). I agree, to congress everything is commerce. It's just such a farce that it would strain credulity if it wasn't so clearly evidenced. We truly live in a mockery of a rational world.
Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to make laws regarding the practice of religion?
The Commerce Clause, of course! I imagine they would argue that money donated to churches would otherwise be used to purchase goods and services. Or that time spent worshipping would otherwise be used in production.
I'm only half joking.
I'd say the War on Terror has a lot in common with the War on Drugs. Neither have concrete achievable goals, neither has a well defined "enemy" and both tap into deep-seated fears of the voting public.
Those characteristics make them great vehicles for political manoeuvring and expansion of government spending and powers. And this is why I think neither will ever end; I could not see any politician willingly throwing away such a tool. I mean, look at the War on Drugs... we've been "fighting" for over 40 years and are no closer to an end.
Look at what we've lost already to the War on Terror, then try to imagine what we will have given up 30 years from now.
But not if the number of same-sex competitors increases by the same amount.
There is plenty of information about the law but I can find very little specific information about the actual incident besides a news report stating that "police believe it was fired straight up within a mile of Shannon's home."
This doesn't tell us much unfortunately. From Hatcher's testing done in the 1920's he found terminal velocity of a bullet fired straight up which does not destabilize is about 300fps, which with a fairly heavy .30-06 bullet results in about 30ft/lbs of energy. He noted that it was typically accepted that 60ft/lbs of energy was required to produce a disabling wound.
Of course, even at 30ft/lbs is it possible though statistically improbable that a falling bullet could strike in such a way as to cause serious injury or death.
It's very hard to get good numbers on injuries and deaths from this phenomenon, but the evidence points to it being an extraordinarily uncommon occurrence despite the fact that some cities, such as Dallas, report up to 1000 complaints for celebratory gunfire per year.
Note that I am not claiming it is a good idea.
Did you recover the bullet? Measurements of the bullet would hint at the cartridge used, which would let us calculate how and where the round was fired.
There are certainly cartridges in production that carry dramatically more kinetic energy than the example I used, but the more powerful cartridges tend to be more rare.
Note that as velocity bleeds off the trajectory degrades faster and faster, resembling an upside down exponential curve. The angle of impact is much greater than the angle at which the round was fired; more so as distance increases.
Oh yes, of course. I've never heard "shooting in the air" used to describe shooting directly at a building, though, so I was making an assumption there.
The ballistics calculations don't lie.
For this story you heard... what cartridge was used? What bullet weight? What muzzle velocity? Where was the gun pointed? Do you have any actual information to share?