Posts by Rampant Spaniel 1813 publicly visible posts • joined 26 May 2011
@codejunky
Very well said. The absolute worst that could happen is we have a lower crime rate. If we still find we need guns, even as a deterrant, we still at least are safer anyway.
You are totally right re perspective. You have one group of people saying arm everyone and another group saying no one should have guns. I do not predict a useful compromise occuring.
Legally held guns seem (as mentioned figures are hard to come by) to be more of an issue where they fall into someone elses hands (a relative for example) or where the owner is frankly a little unstable. Being a responsible gun owner means actually securing all your guns. If you need a handgun by your bed it lives in a biometric safe, it's part of being responsible. We carry insurance and keep our cars well maintained as it's part of being a responsible car owner. If you have a kid or relative who has what the news shows will term 'behavioral issues' don't let them near your weapons (or your car for that matter). We need to find a sensible middleground that allows sensible, responsible people to own weapons for sport, protection or work but keeps mentalists and criminals away from weapons. The criminals part will be the hardest, that requires more police action and needs to be part of a wider anti crime initiative. Offer better rehab to try and reduce reoffending, but when people are convicted (of a serious offense, not speeding) for the 4th or 5th time and help isn't working, we need an answer for that as well. Sadly all we will get is lame duck laws.
Yes, but they aren't actually the problem. They make the problem worse and I am not saying ignore that, but focussing on drawing a magical line in the sand on what is an excessive weapon and what isn't won't fix the problem. Keeping guns out of the hands of nutters will go a huge way and that is the absolute biggest factor that needs to be dealt with. Sure we can restrict weapons based on rate of fire and capacity, but a gun is still a gun. This isn't about an outright ban on guns, it's stopping the mentalists having access to a gun (any gun) when the wind blows the wrong way and upsets the voices.
So you ban glocks, whats to stop someone having 4 revolvers in their belt and two in thigh holsters, thats 36 shots fired from two guns at a time with virtually no reload time to drop an empty gun and pull another 2 out. It's still too much unless you are planning on going back to blow darts. Plus the single most important factor with restricting weapons, as we have seen in the past is that people (especially criminals) don't obey the law. Yes it makes it a little more difficult but not much.
Again, I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying if you want to reduce gun crime the focus needs to be on policing and restricting mentalists having access to any gun, no matter the capacity or firepower of the weapon. Curtailing 'extreme' firearms is just a small part of the solution and pretty inneffective by itself.
@ribosome
I do get what you are saying but I respectfully suggest a better way of considering the matter would be to look at the other end of the weapon. True theres very little civilian need (barring those folks on the border with a ranch full of smugglers, they can have tanks and apaches) for the more extreme weapons, but weapons is weapons. The root of the issue is mentalists. Not sports shooters, farmers, hunters or people just scared to get gas at night, but mentally unstable violent loons. They should not be allowed guns and responsible gun owners should ensure their guns are properly secured. I was shooting for around 5 years, starting with a pellet gun, before I was ever allowed near a gun vaguely unsupervised and frankly I am sure an eye was kept on me for a while longer. Anybody who displayed more than a passing interest in better firearms was directed towards the cow sheds with a shovel. Parents and the community were extremely involved in active gun control. The local police had a huge amoung of say in who had guns, anybody who perhaps wasn't entire stable, was prone to being drunk, maybe whupped on their wife but you couldn't prove it etc etc didn't get approved. The police actively and randomly checked on the security of storage. Basically it came down to ensuring guns stayed in the right hands, it was the people not the weapon. True if you lusted after 50cal rifles meant for taking out vehicles and small buildings you were considered a risk, but in south africa probably not, you'd need that to stop an elephant.
I guess the biggest problem is writing a law that covers both the countryside and the city, two completely different environments and sets of needs and people understanding there are different worlds out there to consider. When people talk about taking away guns expect a strong reaction, for some folks thats taking away their livelihood or their culture. Both 'sides' need to come up with some reasonable and effective solutions that accomodate everyons needs, both for safety but also protecting peoples ability to work and feed their kids.
@ipanel
Sadly the right to bear arms in some areas of the states is even more relevant albeit for self protection rather than protection from the government. I haave no need for a gun and no compulsion to own one because gun crime is so low here, it may be something to do with no concealed carry (it may not I guess?). Some people do need a gun for work, farming being a prime example. Theres also little harm in guns for hunting assuming people are properly trained.
Before we try and reduce responsible gun ownership (I am totally for reducing irresponsible gun ownership) we should look at why people carry. If a lot (and I don't mean a few folks who did too much lsd whilst watching predator) of people feel legitimately so unsafe they need a gun and gun crime is such an issue, should we not be paying just as much attention to making people feel safer? Give the police and the courts the resources they need and require the results. Then when \ if crime is reduced and people feel safer you will be in a better position re reducing gun ownership. I am no gun nut, I'm not in the NRA, hell if anything I'm closer to being a democrat, but if the government (local and federal) wants less guns they cannot abdicate their responsibility to ensure peopls safety. There is a hell of a lot we can do to ensure sensible gun ownership (checking they are properly stored, mandating training, closing loopholes for purchase without a background etc) but along side that we also have to properly fund the police and the justice system, then hold them accountable.
Thats great, you continue to torture your kids with trips to ikea, foreign cheese shops and ethnic handbags for men or whatever it is you do in cities between being knifed or shot ;-)
As a parent you teach your kids skills they need in life, initially skills they need for the current circumstances and then move onto skills for later life. I grew up in a rural farming community. Guns were a tool, one you learned and respected. I don't own a gun now, no need. When I hunt I use a bow or a knife because it's more appropriate for the task. Not everyone who has a gun is a mentalist. My kids live by the ocean so from birth they have been learning how to respect the ocean. Even at 6 they can cope with anything I can and dive far better, they can read the ocean, deal with large waves \ rips \ undertow etc. If your kids haven't I'm a bad parent for letting mine out.
We teach them what they need. I don't see them needing to use a gun but sometimes it's a tool for a job. Rabbits dig holes which harm other animals, birds eat crops. Therefore there is a decent market for pest control and as abhorrent as it may be to you the quickest and most humane way to do it is sitting on top of a landrover as dawn with 4-6 side by sides. When you have had to shoot an injured horse, up close, you respect the potential for damage. Fine you don't like guns but when you make out anyone who has ever fired a gun is a nutter you discredit yourself.
If it was a choice between using a gun as a tool and learning to respect it vs learning about guns on call of duty, I what I would prefer the neighbours kid or mine to do.
Even as a brit I'm going to side with Jake, sorry. I'm not sure I would let my kids out at 6 alone with a rifle but I used shotguns (supervised) from that age in the UK. I grew up in the countryside, we had pests to control. By 13-14 you were driving around clearing fields at dawn. We used the meat and it saved a lot of injuries to horses and cows from rabbit holes. The police didn't care, if you were to injure anyone (and I don't ever recall that happening) it would be yourself and the rozzers son did it as well anyway. You were taught to respect weapons, it wasn't done for fun or sport, it was a chore that paid. The driving was much more fun than the shooting, especially in snow.
I think of it as similar to drinking (I could be wrong). I shot from a young age so there was no mystique or glamour to shooting, just as how I would drink with my family from a relatively young age so there was no urge to binge drink or sneak away and drink.
I'm not trying to criticise anyone, just please understand not everyone grows up in the same dynamic and different parents can parent differently and still be good parents.
This is why I am happy to be on this side of the fence. We live in a society where people are allowed this freedom of expression and can actually articulate it i.e. aren't beaten and threatened into submission.
We may get a lot wrong but I think fundamentally we are closer to fair. We are generally intollerant of certain actions, but more tolerant of differences and beliefs. There is no legal or social compulsion to follow a belief, although naming your kid Messiah apparently is a little risky (perhaps they should have changed it to 'very naughty boy'?
Or you could just repurpose 2g spectrum for 4g (you'd need permission). Perhaps they just don't need as much spectrum as they have? Alternatively they could do what Sprint is doing and use a multimodal system where you can get any technology on any band (nearly anyway, their 2600mhz is tdd lte and wimax only I think). You should be able to get 4g lte on any sprint frequency once they have upgraded a market. Seems a remarkably sensible way of doing it, but they have regulators that allow it.
Especially not when you glue both feet to the back of your head.
Is it just me (it may be :-)) that finds it odd that a company would spend a fortune on advertising that could have been used to bring down the price of the product rather than a modest budget and let word of mouth do the work.
Rt was dead in the water, not because it's bad but because it slaughtered the only outright reason to use windows (compatible software) on a tablet. They should have done surface pro only and knocked the price down a lot. If they wanted a tablet os what was the harm in using windows phone os instead? Why three os's, you already bodged a tablet interface onto the desktop os and started from scratch on the phone os so both would work well with touch. I really just don't get the thinking. Just being an option isn't enough these days, ios and android are pretty strong contenders, to get market share you have to compete on price and bring some serious features. I'm not anti ms, I just think they missed it entirely.
I figured it was daft enough not to be taken seriously. Yes I am aware this was inhouse and not an odm, although using odm's soes not absolve apple nor did i ever assume samsung / lg etc would be any better than apple, they just hasn't been caught. Until now.
I bet Apple are drawing up the paperwork already, Samsung copied their managerial methods. "we patented making them work over a sewer so they don't have to leave to use the bathroom".
15 hours, without a break, standing up, thats a bit much. There must be a cost in productivity and \ or quality.
Then why don't we?
There are plants (say a cracker) that will have hydrogen compressors and everything runs without an incident. Yet you get oil wells leaking due to corners being cut, you get refinery fires (texas city, directly related to cost cutting) etc seemingly in industries big enough to donate enough to get lax regulation. Nuclear has had its incidents, we got lucky with Fukushima but the reality is it shouldn't have happened in the first place. In some respects its a good example of how nuclear isn't quite as dangerous as it could be \ people make out, but it is also a stark reminder that beancounters should be drowned at graduation and not allowed to influence the height of seawalls protecting a nuclear power plant in a tsunami prone region.
The problem is power is big money and big money can afford big donations. Just like the banks, when it all goes west, we end up bailing them out and nobody responsible gets flogged. Seriously, you can actually destroy evidence about a disaster and get away with a fine that would barely buy you a Bentley. Thats pretty much the root of my concern over nuclear :-) The scientists I trust, the beancounters \ boardrooms \ politicians I do not.
I agree (mostly).
I think any sane future needs to involve diverse, safe, sustainable power generation at economically sane prices. A mix of solar (solar here in Hawaii makes a lot of sense, solar water heaters especially so) and nuclear (fission and hopefully fusion eventually) would be a sensible aim.
The problem is 'cost'. It's not just cost per kwh. It's factoring in all the subsidies each method seems to attract and hidden cleanup costs then consider sustainability and impact. What we will actually do is use coal and gas whilst throwing a disproportionate amount of money at pet projects like offshore windfarms which cost more than the Kardashians and make about as much sense.
Nuclear has people worried. I grant you there will always be people who freak about it. For me personally it isn't the concept of nuclear but the implementation. Companies are all about profit and will cut corners, governments in general can't manage anything effectively let alone nuclear power plants and regulators are at the whim of governments. One mad Bush term where god tells him (via a lobbyist cheque) to bandish regulators and all of a suddent more corners get cut and things get nasty. Nuclear I trust, the people running it? Not a chance. Genuine question, how would you setup a nuclear power industry so it is actually done safely?
The price has come down but not astronomically. What has changed is lifespan, or rather we are starting to find out that the earlier panels are lasting longer than estimated making those panels pay more in the long run. Now the big question is are these new cheap and cheerful chinese panels going to last 20-30 years or about 30 seconds after the warranty expires?
It would be awesome if a roof full of panels didn't cost the same as a car, and the payback depends on a hell of a lot of factors, not least stable feed in tariff. There are probably geographic areas where they don't make sense, but there are plenty where they do and barriers to installation should be minimal (i.e. no HOA rules against them, or washing lines for that matter).
Yeah, completely missing the point that the boss is saying he doesn't care about leaks. So during a speach that is supposed to motivate, reassure, educate etc the staff he basically tells them that anything he says isn't worth a damn.
He has been told not to film confidential meetings, a conference of the entire company is a grey area there (being fair). Whilst it should remain confidential if requested there is zero chance of that happening, as shown by the audio recording of the actual incident. I still think this was an ill thought out pr stunt that blew up in their faces.
you mean the leak of the persn being fired for recording the boss saying he didn't mind leaks ;-) I have never known anyone dumb enough to not believe that any meeting \ conference call etc involving more than 30 or so people was being recorded. You have a company wide meeting, you expect it to be recorded by someone for a variety of reasons. Firing an exec for using a camera whilst you state you don't care about leaks during a call that will obviously be recorded by many people makes you an absolute douche. No mention of what kind of camera? Video or stills, was the guy just capturing an important moment in the companies history?
not to mention the look on his face when holding the phone which was along the lines of
"shit my iphones so much better than this, where's the titties".
Interesting to see (like we will) their justification for using android (nix) over developing their own obviously superior phone o/s.
I'd buy, but not because I saw it paying for my kids college. This is a bit of a nutty idea but personally I think this is one we should try just to see what the reality is.
It shouldn't affect smaller towns as it's effectively an express service so it's customers wouldn't have stopped over anyway. The days of getting off the train and strolling around town while they refill the water and coal are long gone.
We use little metal cans with 8 seats that rocket all over the place right now. Cessna 208's or island hoppers. I prefer them to big jets but big jets are probably safer.
and a new edition every year or two to cut down on reselling. I absolutely detested that aspec of my degrees. It was usually the 'soft subjects' like HCI where this kind of bollocks occured. The actual coding (x86 \ ansi c \ java etc) either didn't have set texts or used more generic sanely priced ones. I much prefered the OU's approach.
Ditto. I hope this works out. I'm not a fan of the show, I did watch about half the first series. Some people will always pirate, but there has to be a decent market out there for people for whom linear TV isn't worth the money, even with a dvr, but where streaming with decent content at a sane price could be a win for everyone. Lets hope this is just the start. I cancelled out TW cable tv package a couple of years back. Replaced an $80 a month charge with netflix at $8, we already had amazon prime for the delivery service and every now and again I will get hulu for a month. Unless the big companies get their act together they are losing money.
It's frustrating to be in a position where you want to pay a fair price for a service, something many others seem to want as well, but you can't legally get it because it might just upset someones little world. If they want their $80 a month back they need to offer something that warrants it.
Actually the USA tends to ignore the UN on principal. There was a case recently when they (the senate I believe) refused to ratify a UN convention on disabled rights. The stunning thing was the US had already met all the conditions 20 years ago. So basically it was nothing more than acknowleding what was already law. The real issue was elements of the senate see it as ceding authority to the UN. It views the UN as a tool, not an equal or higher power, and to cede power would be to acknowledge it was a higher power. Depending on what area of government, the US will not acknowledge any higher power than the federal or state government, at least in recent times.
Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is :-)
I often wonder if they want to say something different but have to toe the line (the Mighty Mowlem was often in trouble for speaking too frankly, that and having a soul). You are correct the canned statements are pathetic. The thing is you know, no matter what, nobody beyond a junior clerk will ever feel any heat over these screwups.
would you rather a vaccine instead? would you rather a vaccine developed by a charity or by a bigpharma company. If Bill can facilitate wiping out malaria, good. If google can bring the internet to people opening up chances for education, communication, work hen good. Why he either or shit, why he my charity work is better than yours crap. You aren't doing it to score treats from Betsy in the library, you are supposed to be doing it to help people.
Why the hell does it have to be one or the other. Malaria needs a vaccine \ cure. That alone will not 'remedy' everything. Ridding Africa of aids, malaria, polio etc is a part of whats needed, an important part but not the whole solution to the whole problem.
Africa needs food, clean water, an end to needless suffering, an end to ridiculous wars over money \ guns \ gods. To be fair, that kind of thing is an immediate priority. That isn't to say they don't need education, communication etc, a peaceful Africa needs a population that has something to lose beyond its life, when the general population has capital in the game, life is generally more peaceful. I don't like google, but nobody is forcing them to do this. Sure they are after money, but if its part of a bigger answer, it isn't that bad a thing. A few adverts in return for access to global news, education etc? Worse trades have happened.
Yes Bill is doing great things, yes google is after a new market and money for itself, but there is real benefit for Africans in it.
So she is in the business of idiot tax? Many, many people are. Entire industries are built on legally depriving the weak of mind of their income. Pound \ Dollar shops, lotteries, a sizeable chunk of the financial sector, aflac and its ilk, TV shopping networks, TV gambling \ quiz channels and plenty more.
I'm not sure I'd want my kids to do it but if shes happy then theres plenty of people ahead of her on the list for reeducation. Although I do credit you for finding a way to turn around the usual argument that women in that realm of work are being taken advantage of. Not only is it rarely done, it's closer to the truth in this case.
I don't agree it should attract a campaign of mindless hate perpetrated by chumps who wouldn't dare do anything remotely as bold if removed from the relative anonymity of teh interwebs. What she is dealing with is beyond heckling, which I agree she should be able to cope with.
That sounds rather like a universe designed by and for Stephen Fry. In life there is banter and this is officially a Good Thing tm. There is also heated discussion and general shit flinging which unless you have skin thinner than Mr Fry is not terrible. Not everyone in the world will treat you like a newborn. There is no right, nor should there be, not to be offended. Can you imagine how insanely boring the world would be?
The line should be drawn and continued harassment or credible threats of harm. I say credible because if I were to suggest I would greatly enjoy watching you drown in a vat of snot most sane adults would understand it is deliberately lacking in credibility and not an actual threat. What these little mongs are doing is a campaign of harrassment to try and compensate for their deep seated feelings of inadequacy that result from being nothing more than winnets on the arse of society. Entirely different from being offended because somebody isn't polite enough for you. One of my first jobs involved working with and managing a wonderful bunch of 50 somethings. Wonderful people, devious little bastards who never stopped attempting to get you fired or killed but actually nice guys. Taught me a lot about looking past how something is delivered and at the actual message. That and to always test door handles with the back of my hand or a multimeter. Oh and always get even :-)
I recall it being more along the lines of whether you were in the 1st XV or not and therefore a target for some Chinese style reeducation. Whilst the exact nature of the tribalism varies you are correct, especially about the uniforms although kids do try even with the uniforms. I remember one kid attempted to wear a blazer, it didn't go well for him.
My sprogs haven't reached phone age yet, at least not owning although they do borrow phones \ tablets \ laptops for a variety of reasons (abcmouse \ netflix \ language studies etc) but they are supervised.
I like the idea of the child friendly mvno, I wonder how child proof it actually is? The buggers are pretty inventive. My almost 5 year old figured out how to unlock my tablet by holding it up to the sun at an angle so she could see the marks my fingers made when I unlocked it.
Having read Rik's recent article on global warming and now this from Andrew, I think they would make a great pairing for a deathmatch ;-)
I do like the fact that el reg allows a diversity in it's writers opinions unlike certain mainstream media which usually requires you to tow the 'party' line. It's a credit to both writers and editors.
Not all electricity is used for heat, although those of us that use AMD chips are trying our hardest. You are right it's insane to use gas to make electricity to use it for heat, but I'm not certain many people who take this route do so out of choice. Is there much by way of economy 7 heating left in the UK? The majority of it was in social housing, much of which was or is due to be replaced.
Ideally the gas should be sold openly for whatever market needs it, this alone should make switching to a gas boiler & central heating more attractive.
I had much the same train of thought, initally wondering wjat use it would be to someone to erroneously know I spent most of yesterday 14 miles off shore at 23000 feet. If they want to put a feature like this in, make it opt in \ out at first power on ad in the settings. Give people a choice then it's a moe defensible policy. Tracking be default is freaky.
If there was a genuine market for this companies would already be buying it. If you have the money you can insure almost anything ot against almost anything. Guitarists insure their hands, f1 drivers insure themselves against injury etc. If you are a multinational company and want to insure yourself against losses from hacking then I'm sure there are a bunch of companies willing to take your money. Very few insurance policies (motoring in the UK was one for a while) lose money for the company, the companies wouldn't last long otherwise, so why turn down money. It may take some figuring out how much to charge, but I'm sure they can cope with that.
As far as answers to a problem go, this is one of the worst in a long time. I agree with the comment above about making ceo's responsible. There needs to be a move away from regarding IT departments as money pits that don't generate revenue.
I have a photo somewhere of a pod of dolphins giving a shark a good whupping. For that alone I like them. There are a lot of them around here (spinners close to shore, at least during the day and spotted & bottlenose further out), they love to play with boats. If you know where to swim (and are brave enough due to Tiger sharks) you can swim with them.
I know it's a very human trait to project intelligence onto animals, but damnit, dolphins and whales just seem so intelligent, just in a different manner. Even sea turtles seem to recognise different people and take a interest in some people. Perhaps it's wishful thinking but I think there is a pretty reasonable level of intelligence in them.
Given the specs theres a chance you can, although don't expect more than netbook performance from that atom cpu.
The marine version seems promising, might make a decent machine for tethered shooting in humid \ misty \ rainy conditions. It would be great to see another version in a year or so with one of the newer atoms, support for more ram \ usb 3.0 etc. A 1080p screen would also be great but its probably too far from the target market.
I believe a fruity computer manufacturer did have a fling with power chips, including in laptops. PASemi also developed a low power version (at least relatively low powered for the time). Over a decade ago ibm was mumbling about it's LP chips running pda's, embedded systems etc, no idea if they ever did though.
Many people said x86 couldn't be a realistic low power contender, buggering with compiliers aside they at least are showing some promise in that.
I can vaguely see a chance for this in phones \ tablets if they can compete on power per watt and only if it can be put in phones etc in a manner which means the user doesn't notice it isn't an arm chip. There could be a market in enterprise as well. It's not likely to worry intel in the desktop or laptop markets at least in the near future.
It stands a chance but will require luck and investment. This is probably better than letting it die, not a sure fire win but a chance.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
